BLACKOUT: THE MULTICULTURAL LEFT, THE BEANBAG RIGHT, AND THE END OF WHITE
Part 8 of 8

We are done with Europe. We have sucked its lessons, gathered its momentum, and are now headed back to North America, first to Canada and then to the U.S.

Canada is in many ways similar to Australia, funny as it sounds: a huge, barren country with California's worth of population in a few big cities, racial problems with aboriginal Indians and Asians (the latter as a result of stupid immigration laws), and the same ludicrous leftist lies about the need to embrace diversity as the key to success in the globalized world of the 21st century. Today, the whole burrocratic apparatus of affirmative action and pro-black/pro-Indian/pro-Asian discrimination is up and running and taxing the average white Canadian quite heavily. Large areas of Vancouver have become quite Asian in character, to the disappointment of natives. Taking money from a man and using it to further causes he doesn't support is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said that before I did. How would he have felt about affirmative action, where whites not only pay their political opponents to racially discriminate against them, but to broadcast lies about the policy and to fill their world with stupid stickers and slogans and bus signs claiming dire poverty and global ostracism save the Big Lie be swallowed across the board? But it is like this in every white-majority country in the world. And until whites recognize that they, as white people, have common interests, the basis of political cooperation, nothing will change. The minute whites work together to protect white interests, all this affirmative action, diversity and multiculturalism goes by the wayside. And if the blacks, Mexicans and Asians and Jews oppose it -- so what? In which country is the split not in our favor? Far in our favor? Even if you throw in the white lib burrocrats?

First out of the gate, let's consider an example of white people themselves not getting along. It seems clear that the French-descended Quebec-ers are moving down the road to separation, as their insistent demand that, in their province-to-become-nation, French be the dominant language, and English an afterthought:

A gift shop opened Friday by a combative English-rights activist is the latest battleground in the lively, sometimes farcical language war bedeviling Quebec. The owner, Howard Galganov, is just asking for a fight. His bilingual signs -- ``Shirts'' and ``Chemises'' -- are of equal size, which is illegal. But Galganov is breaking the law on purpose. He wants the so-called language police to fine him so he can challenge the laws in court.

``This is a direct confrontation of a law that suggests some of the people of this province are second-class,''' Galganov said... From now on, Quebec bureaucrats must get permission from their bosses before they can give speeches in English. Their departments no longer can use telephone answering systems that automatically give messages in English as well as French.

``Quebec isn't bilingual,'' said Louise Beaudoin, the Cabinet minister responsible for language laws. ``It is unilingual French.'' [AP-NY-11-22-96 CRARY Associated Press Writer MONTREAL (AP)]

Quebec is 83% French-speaking, and clearly it is determined to stay that way or become more so, and it does this simply by shouldering English aside. Tens of thousands of English-speakers have left Quebec over the last few years, and the last vote on separation from Canada came within one percentage point of winning. It is likely the next vote will put it over the top. There are lessons here: First, that even amongst white people, there are many, many reasons -- real, "found" or dreamed up -- not to get along. Second, not to discount the irritating discrimination faced by English-speakers, there is little prospect of these difference turning violent. Although this is a cultural dispute, it is a dispute between two civilized cultures, not a barbarian and a civilized. Third, we can see, for the first time on our tour, the way a segment of the white population, determined in its views, is able to get its way; to pressure the federal government and its opponents after the manner of organized minorities. You may have seen the woman (Louise Beaudoin) on Sixty Minutes (2/8/98) -- have you ever seen anyone less intimidated? She and her backers, as wrong as you may think their direction, are quite sure of their destination, and they appear to be nearly there. At what point, in France, Australia, Britain, the U.S., etc. do our Beaudoins start coming out of the woodwork? We need a Beaudoin in the U.S., for example, who will stand up before the American people and say: From this day forward, not one illegal alien will cross our borders. Nor will any test in any department be given in any language other than English. Nor will any discrimination against whites or males be countenanced by any agency of the federal government, nor any government contractor. We move immediately to dismantle the anti-white "civil rights" bureacracy and forward its appropriations toward a new department within the INS that will track down expired visas, and expel their holders....

Three quick examples that give a glimpse of the cultural and political character of Canada:

Reform MP Deborah Grey doesn't understand why Liberals are so outraged over her remarks that the prime minister's appointing of women candidates could lead to pre-menstrual syndrome troubles in the Commons.

``I said it as a joke,'' Grey said Friday. Grey drew the wrath of Liberals for her comments at a fund-raising dinner Thursday in Edmonton where she criticized Prime Minister Jean Chretien for appointing four women candidates.

``What would happen if we were all PMSed the same week?'' asked Grey. ``Can you imagine what the Parliament of Canada would be like?''

But Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps said it was ``sad and pathetic to believe in this day and age a woman has a different performance because of the day of the month.''[ (3/21/97), AP]

The price of a Canadian visa for rich investors has gone up by $100,000. But immigrants wealthy enough to ante up are more likely to recoup their investment under changes to the immigrant investor program announced Friday by Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard. ... [W]ould-be Canadians will be free to borrow their stake from Canadian banks, meaning minimal cash outlay up front. The long-awaited revisions to the 10-year-old program come into effect in July. Private investment opportunities have been off-limits since November 1994, when the federal government slapped a freeze on the program after numerous reports of fraud and abuse. [OTTAWA (AP)]

An aboriginal police officer fighting prejudice on the street and battling to keep it off his force collected a national medal...for his war against racism. ``I broke barriers,'' said Sgt. Larry Maracle, clutching the award at a national conference on race relations by Toronto's Human Rights and Race Relations Centre. ``I'm the first generation off-reserve native. The stereotype of the drunken native was broken. [ 3/21/97, AP]

So we see that in Canda, as everywhere else, the same things are funny, and the same things aren't funny; the same things are worth reporting, and the same other things aren't worth reporting. The Quebec story above is the one place where a subnational group (albeit a white group) asserts its power against the white majority where the media, however faintly, comes down on the side of the white majority. Here, the AP played up the humor or irony of the situation, thereby getting across the point to the reader just how intrusive the French Quebec-ers' demands really are. You never seen any minority assertion of sub-national loyalty played like this when it comes to Mexicans in California or blacks anywhere, because coloreds are always assumed to be morally in the right. White minority groups within white countries (French Quebecers in Canada, Basque Separtist in Spain/France), conversely, tend to have the news slanted against them.

Lesser known than the fracas surrounding Quebec are some of the incredible policies of official Canada towards its aboriginal Indians. The following comes from Up Front, a Canadian publication (via the Internet):

Aboriginals already have an informal, partial immunity from the Criminal Code thanks to the condescension of powerful liberals. Native disdain for the Charter is more ironic, since it's a cornerstone of multiculturalism. Section 15 (1) of the Charter, which guarantees equality before the law, does not apply to "advantaged groups," i.e. whites.

A further irony comes from Quebec's possible separation. Instead of spurring on aboriginal separatists, it actually holds them in check. The ambivalence results from dependency. Natives in Quebec have little confidence that a separate French-speaking state will support them in the style they want. Given the choice of dealing with the assertive leaders of a self-confident ethnic group or with the Canadian government, the choice is obvious. [(UP FRONT, Norman McGregor)]

There's a lesson: In the same way the Indians back off from French Candians who assert their rights as such, they jump all over passive and morally spineless whites in the rest of Canada and the world. More from Macgregor:

The purpose is to restructure Canada to the detriment of its majority. The issue of land claims is far greater than the federal and provincial governments will admit. Aboriginals demand title to over half of Canada's land mass. Although negotiations are kept under wraps, natives are said to have valued their claims at a mind-boggling $150 billion. That doesn't even include the Nunavut settlement. Effective April 1999, Canada will hand over its entire eastern Arctic, one-fifth of the country, to the Eskimos as a racially distinct "Canadian" territory. Of that, they'll receive clear title to nearly 18% (350,000 square kilometres) of Nunavut and $1.15 billion, a princely sum for 17,500 natives. The deal also includes a share of all resource royalties and special racial preferences in government, law and employment. ... As Squamish Indian chief Joe Mathias says, everything's up for grabs: "All land, all resources, all resources in the sea, all resources underneath the ground, all resources above the ground."

Natives in Canda get preferences over whites every step of the way:

... Native tax privileges aren't limited to income tax exemption. Race-based exemptions also apply to reserve property, provincial sales taxes and, in some cases, the federal Goods and Services Tax. (Interestingly, one of the senators appointed in 1990 to pass the GST legislation was Walter Twinn, a wealthy Indian chief and oil sheik who's largely exempt from the white man's tax.) Yet natives profit greatly from tax-funded benefits. Indeed, natives are often totally reliant on them.

Canada's 570,000 "status" Indians receive subsidized housing, free health care, free dental care, free education right through university, special training programs and, for those who want them, affirmative action jobs -- and can still qualify for all benefits open to other Canadians. No matter how rich the tribe, band administration is paid for by taxpayers. So is the entire cost of pursuing land claims.

A correlate of native dependency, however, is social pathology. Natives rank far above the national average for unemployment, illiteracy, crime, mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, substance abuse (including such dangerously cheap highs as solvent, gasoline and Lysol), spousal assault, child abuse, incest, suicide, accidental death (often related to substance abuse), murder and disease (including not only HIV and AIDS, but a Third World rate of tuberculosis).

In a nutshell, Canadian Indians act like rich, stupid teenagers. They have been seized on and used as a tool by the Canadian left, which like its counterparts around the globe is hell-bent on making Canada a multicultural misery. To all appearances it is succeeding.

The following examples go to prove two things, the spirited, angry character of the coming Right, the Right the next time that is Now!, plus some of what is driving it; in this case the incredible amount of money spent advancing the conversion of Canada into Third-World North through legal and illegal immigration, along with the money then spent, in the wash of these new "Canadians," combating 'racism' and any other reasonable reactions on the part of the whites who refuse to be stampeded into applauding their own dispossession. I quote at length, and, again, I want you to note that there is little the public till is tipped to here it isn't tipped to everywhere else, especially in Australia, America and Britain:

There are in fact all sorts of public and not-so-public ways in which your tax dollars are spent to tell you that racism is EVIL and that you should reach out with open arms to embrace the nearest Oriental or African. ... First let's start with those bus campaigns we mentioned. "Racism: if you don't stop it, who will?" Makes you nauseous to read that, doesn't it? I for one am not going to stop racism! Let's estimate the cost of that bus campaign alone to be $20 million. Then there was the Adjustment Assistance Programme, a federal fund to pay for new immigrants' rent, food, and furniture ($51.5 million). Also, the fed dished out $60-million for new immigrants who couldn't afford to buy their own airline tickets.

In 1993-94, Employment and Immigration Canada wrote off $500,000 worth of immigration transportation loans. These loans were used by immigrants who wanted to sponsor their spouse or children to come to Canada. Ottawa gave out the loans to help pay the transport costs to jet family members to Canada. "The RCMP said the number of refugees who skip out on the loans is ... 60 per cent." [Toronto Sun, Oct. 22, 1993]

In December 1993, a confidential federal immigration department report on welfare fraud by Somali "refugee" claimants said that the welfare fraud was over tens of millions annually... Last August, Ontario's Legal Aid Plan faced a $65-million dollar deficit. The plan provided financial assistance to more than 250,000 Ontario residents through legal aid certificates in 1993. Apparently, much of the deficit was traced to the explosion of immigration cases -- mostly to assist illegals ($37.4-million in 1993). Also in Ontario, breakdowns of immigrant sponsorship agreements cost taxpayers in excess of $100-million a year in welfare payments. The estimate was that 1,400 immigrants in Peel, 8,000 in Metro and 16,000 Ontario-wide received welfare due to sponsorship breakdowns. Then, at the city level, there are more programs to stop the spread of racism. Ottawa, for example, has two full-time thought crimes police officers ($40,000 each) while Winnipeg spent $175,000 to fund a `Year for Racial Harmony' even though the city had already funded its own race-relations committee.

The previous trivia are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the waste of tax money on fighting racism. Imagine race-relations committees, hate crimes officers, immigrant welfare programs and a `Year for Racial Harmony' in every major Canadian city. It all adds up. But there are still more Loonies [Canadian dollar coins] spent that could qualify for our hypothetical slice of the Loonie pie-chart. Here are more such programs which are more-or-less `hidden' from public view and are distributed in other sectors of the Loonie-chart:

Legal harassment of Heritage Front members --
Canadian Human Rights Commissions (Provincial ones too) --
CSIS activities to spy on racialists --
Employment and Immigration Canada expenses to check the criminal files of new non-white immigrants. --
Government funds to pay for racial awareness problems for city police ("sensitivity training") --
Money given to ostensibly `anti-racist' groups who end up using it for some other socialist/gay-lesbian/radical feminist `movement'... --
Anti-racist propaganda from the left-wing infested Canada Film Board & CBC (The stuff is passed off as `entertainment' or `art' or `news', but really it is often a very subtle form of anti-racist propaganda which is directed at those people unlucky enough to have watched an NFB short film or an episode of DeGrassi Junior High) --
Subsidies to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council --
Other Provincial and Federal court cases related to frivolous `hate crimes' --
Prison, Court, and social service costs for criminals in the justice system who have committed crimes based on high racial tensions that were ultimately caused by high immigration --
Court costs to provide foreign language translation services for people who shouldn't have gotten into Canada in the first place if they hadn't known English. --
Costs to give English language training to new immigrants --
Costs to teach faculty and students in schools, colleges, and universities about the "beauty" of Canada's multiracial mosaic and that standing up for your culture is perfectly fine and legal (unless you were unfortunate enough to have been born white).

Perhaps there is a simple solution to the `problem' of racism: stop letting all the third-world immigrants into Canada. That way we won't have to spend so much money each year to be told that we should be accepting more third-world immigrants next year. This solution would help to eliminate racial strife, lower court costs for prosecuting `hate criminals', reduce the cost of anti-racism propaganda, and slash a host of other related expenses. Ottawa could even use all the saved money to reduce our ever-burdensome national debt. But, of course, the government would never go for such a simple, logical solution. [(UP FRONT, Eric Foucault)]

Living in a leftist society -- per Canada but true of almost every majority-white society -- is to pay to import people unlike you, to pay other people to teach those people to dislike you, to pay still other people to teach you not to resent any of this, and to pay still other people to target, harass, revile and prosecute you and your kind if the lesson doesn't take. And to do it all again next year "a little bit louder now," as the song goes.

Now we return to the United States for our closest inspection of all. Here we are going to nail down the context from which a white nationalist movement must emerge. We will use figures and examples to track demographic trends, find out what it means to live amongst minorities, and bring to light the nature and makeup of the media, including an analysis of both the mainstream and the right-wing press. First, let's consider this remarkable tidbit from Japan, an example of one of the benefits of homogeneity:

Japanese prisons...enjoy a luxury that would make American corrections authorities weep: plenty of room. With a low crime rate and prison usually reserved for only the worst cases, Japan has one of the lowerest incarceration rates in the industrialized world. ... In the whole prison system, only one inmate was murdered from 1992 to 1995. [(3/16/97, AP)]

Although Japan has been attacked sporadically from the seventies on for its economic policies, there is a hidden reason for resentment: the liberal media hates Japan because the ideas of the Leftist Jews -- Jesus, Marx and Freud -- don't dominate there the way they do in the West. Plus there's the fact that Japan doesn't suffer from diversity the way we do, and its continued existence is a bothersome proof that the Diversity Myth is just that -- a Big Lie. So they use their tools, the AP, for instance, to attack it, to suggest that it is or ought to be opened up in the way that has worsened every other country that has tried it. In a very real sense, the AP and its apes hate -- civilization. Look what they are doing to America.

Let's start, as in Zimbabwe and South Africa, with demographic facts and trends. The following, put forward by Jared Taylor, author of the best recent book on white dispossession -- Paved with Good Intentions -- put it this way in a speech carried on C-Span:

In March, the Census Bureau released its periodic projection of the ethnic makeup of the United States during the next few decades. It reported that if current immigration and birth rates hold steady, by the year 2050 the percentage of Hispanics will have increased from 10 to 25 percent, Asians from three to eight percent, and blacks from 12 to 14 percent. All these increases will come at the expense of whites, who are projected to fall from 74 percent to about 50 percent. Within 54 years, therefore, whites will be on the brink of becoming just one more racial minority. And because whites are having so few children, they will be an old minority. Within just 34 years they will already account for less than half the population under age 18, but will be three quarters of the population over 65. [Jared Taylor, speech to American Renaissance conference, 1996]

The other significant demographic fact is immigration, legal or il-:

Much of the racial shift the Census Bureau predicts would be caused by third-world immigration. Every year about 800,000 legal immigrants and who knows how many illegal immigrants come to live in this country. Ninety percent of them are non-white. Now immigration is not a force of nature. It is the result of a national policy, which Congress could change. The United States has therefore chosen, in effect, to make more and more parts of itself essentially off-limits for whites. [Taylor]

Taylor correctly emphasizes the "choice" aspect of America's immigration situation. Although multiculturalism is inevitably presented as inevitable, it is in fact entirely evitable. The minute we or our "right wing" Congress say no more immigration, it ceases. If we had the guts to shoot even a handful of the invaders crossing the Rio Grande, the flow would dry up overnight. This points up yet another philosophical constant of leftism: It reverses what is solvable and what isn't. For example, the huge, leftist war-on-human-nature burrocracy, with its myriad perverse welfare incentives, is aimed, ostensibly, at solving problems that are really conditions: predictable, unavoidable outcomes, functions of the people the leftists are trying to "solve." Human stupidity, poverty and malice will always be with us, no matter how many leftist schemes to eradicate-by-subsidization are come up with. To phrase it that way is to see what's going on, isn't it? On the other hand, with an issue such as immigration, the left immediately says there is nothing we can do about it. Not only that, but it insists, on point of law in most western countries, that we applaud this bogus "inevitability" and tape our mouths against obvious facts about these new "Americans" -- plus pay additional taxes, as we saw in Canada, to support the litters of our unsolicited countrymen, plus pay to add leftists to the burrocracy to ward them, teach them, clean up their graffitti, plus pay other libs to tell us how racist we are for resenting any of this. We Americans are fools: we spill sugar all over our house and then complain when whole colonies of ants come in to eat it up. It is the choice of the left to push immigration in all forms as all-American. In other words, and yet another illogical leftist paradox, the only legitimate way for America to stay true to its roots is to radically change itself by admitting huge numbers of "diverse" peoples from across the globe. We can only stay what we are by becoming what we aren't. Whole millions of people, including most of the public right, grin and nod their heads in time with this paralogic. The public right, tied intellectually by the false assumptions of the Opportunity Society (that people are bills, just like Jack Kemp, not Americans, Guatemalans, Jamaicans or Filippinos), applauds as the country disintegrates, celebrates it even. And after all, why not, if to be an American is to be a dollar and to be a non-American is to be an economic unit, a rupee, a peso, a dinar that hasn't been exchanged yet?

Let me pause here to make an obvious observation that escapes most of the public right: While you bask, sun-sleepy in the assurance you still have the heart of middle America in your pocket, your pie is getting eaten out back. The only reason the Republicans have had comparative success the last fifteen years in winning the presidency and retaking Congress after forty years is that the balance of white males has slowly come to realize that the Democratic party by definition is antagonistic to its interests. Plus, except for the upper-middle class crybabies who make up the thin ranks of feminism, the story is pretty much the same for white females. Your average working white woman, and there are tens of millions of them, has a husband who suffers from those anti-white, anti-male policies the Democrats have enacted -- which means that she suffers from them too. Those stupid policies that reward professional women who run away crying anytime someone brushes their skirt cost the working white woman plenty, and many of them realize this. In short, anyone who is white and works in the private sector rationally votes Republican before Democrat. Historical legacies predating the black supremacy movement obscured this for a few years, but now it is clear to nearly everybody. For that reason, we have finally seen Southerners abandon their century-old hatred of the Republican Party, in line with the new political reality. But the Republicans don't understand their own base: the people like Gingrich and Kemp really believe people love their reaching out garbage, their me-too suck-up-ery on "women 'n' chilren" and will forgive their treachery on gun rights, taxes and affirmative action. They don't realize that people see them as a Diet Coke that's the only thing left in the refrigerator except for some spoiled milk when what they wanted was the Real Thing. The Reps get the nod, but it's a mostly dissatisfied nod, as you can hear on talk radio any day of the week. Pat Buchanan is one of the few national political figures who understands all this, yet because of his Catholic principles, I would guess, he is unwilling to pretend to a racism that, though often accused of, he does not share. As a side opinion on Buchanan, I observe that it is funny that he is always portrayed as what he is not by people who never look in the mirror -- where they might find the Caliban of their caricature in the flesh. Buchanan usually speaks what he believes to be the truth. He is called vulgar because he is courtly; an exponent of reactionary stupidity because he is far-sighted and intellectual and doffs his cap before evidence and logic; an extremist hater because he hints at group interests among Jews and minorities that do exist and that they'd prefer to advance on the sly (at least the Jews) rather than argue for openly -- even as they press their attack on those, like Buchanan, who press their interests, charitably enough, in individualist, color-blind terms (wrong though I believe this approach is). Buchanan's flaw is not that he is a racist, his flaw is that he is not. Buchanan, never forget, was totally loyal to the one administration that more than any other made the anti-white discrimination of affirmative action a ponderous and entrenched institutional reality in America. That tells me something about him. Buchanan is more like Gingrich and Kemp than the white nationalists we have been talking about; the difference is that he is considerably more honest and open to evidence than the Republicans. That Buchanan can be taken for the Real Thing is more an example of how washed in leftism we have all become, thanks to the Jewish industry (the media). That Buchanan is portrayed as some sort of white racist Nazi is merely the Jews pushing the border of respectable opinion leftward. One of the most telling political events of the nineties, very seldom noted (except by Dan Quayle, who subsequently reneged) was that the polling numbers went up after Buchanan's Culture-War speech at Bush's nominating convention in 1992. This was the only time in perhaps the last twenty years a white-nationalist case has even been hinted at by a "respectable" public figure. So fearful were the leftists and Jews and media of the appeal of his arguments -- documented by the polls taken immediately after his speech -- that it was necessary not merely to hide but to reverse the truth. Although Bush and running mate Quayle initially supported Buchanan and mentioned the poll results, soon they too fell in line with the Jewish industry's lie that Buchanan had actually hurt the president. Within a very short span, the lies about the effects of the speech, together with round-the-clock abuse of Buchanan combined to produce the real thing: polls showing that Buchanan indeed had spoken something sordid and injurious to the Bush campaign. Thus what might have been the greatest opening for white nationalism in years was converted into yet another reason to run like hell from those "evil" thoughts. It was a masterly display of the way the "free press" in a democracy can work as one in quashing a point of view that scares the people who operate that "free press." Today -- and the speech is still referred to, now that public has swallowed the proper take on it -- it is always claimed that Bush's support went down because of the speech. Thus has the Jewish industry impressed into the American mind the exact opposite of the truth. I do not exaggerate in the slightest when I say that the whole incident -- the speech, the initial polls, the reactions of Bush and the media, the anti-Buchanan hate campaign by the media, its reversal of reality on the popularity of the speech, the new poll numbers as a result of that successful hate/reversal of reality campaign, and the consequent getting-back-in-line of Bush, Quayle and the rest of the Establishment Right -- is worthy of a book. In this one tiny microcosm there is much to be learned about the manufacturing of "reality" in a democracy. There is much food for thought about the meaning of "freedom of press." In the Soviet Union, everybody knew the media were state-paid shills, and read/listened/watched accordingly, but in America how many people realize the neat little reality-turn the Jewish industry performed in this instance? Probably the same percent who know that AIDS was originally called "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency" (GRID) before the left got hold of it. Media power is far stronger than political power in the television age. In effect, media power is political power. (If this seems like a dubious proposition, put yourself in Newt Gingrich's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you feel more powerful than, say, CBS.) Most important of all, though, is the undeniable truth that Buchanan struck a chord that night. And nationalists who are willing to say openly what he only hinted at can strike a stronger cord. The Jewish media can lie all it wants, the message was there for those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it. In fact, the Jewish industry's reaction, even more than the country's response to Buchanan tells the observant all they need to know. If that latent nationalism truly isn't out there, why do the media Jews feel compelled to lie about the response to an appeal to it? Could it be that they are lying, that they know they are lying, and that they are lying for a very good reason? Where would the Jewish jockey be if the American great white horse shucked its blinders?

White is what everybody is looking for -- Where it's at!, as Beck might put it: the leftists are looking for it to crush it. They are aware that time is on their side, and that only openly pro-white politics can defeat them, hence their physical, legal, social, moral and otherwise attacks on the nationalist right from here to the Antipodes. The public right fools itself that the game is still being played by the old terms -- win some, lose some -- while the Jewish-led left attempts to pack Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, the United States, Norway, Sweden, etc. with leftwing barbarian minorities, reliably leftist and pliant, just the way the it tried to pack the Supreme Court under FDR, and for the same reason: so it never has to lose again; so it knows the result in advance. Politics is not a upper-crust gentleman's game to these people, as it is to the George Bushes; it is their reason for existence; a livelihood and a love; an everything, not an aspect. The Republicans, at some point, are going to change radically, I predict, or they will simply disappear, replaced by a strong and aggressively pro-white party. You can already see the big picture in the example of Bob Dornan, who was voted out of office by Mexicans (literally, as you recall): Every year more and more parts of the country become non-white and off-white, with liberal politics accompanying this unhealthy discoloration. This is obvious enough to anyone who pays attention -- white nationalists and leftists -- although it is ignored or praised by the media. Only the fact that the country is still three-quarters white keeps the public right in power, yet they stupidly refuse to see the picture that like an Internet graphic coming in over a modem is not-so-slowly building in front of them. Their not-seeing is less a function of weak resolution on the screen than weak resolution in the viewer.... Verily, I say to those of you on the nationalist right, have heart: We are the party of the future, and we are where the masses of disaffected Republicans will turn when they finally come up against problems they can't move away from. More data on immigration and its price:

[According to Census Bureau projections, in] less than a decade, Hispanics will surpass blacks...and by the middle of the next century they will outnumber all other minority groups combined.... The projected U.S. population for 2005 is 286 million, up from 265.3 million in 1996. Census data indicate that Hispanics, Asians and the elderly -- particularly those age 85 and over -- will be the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. population in the first half of the 21st century. [4/13/97, Washington Times National Weekly Edition (Joyce Price)]

Many, many more people -- ninety percent-plus non-white -- is exactly what our country doesn't need. The following is one good reason why -- although not the most important:

The 24.4 million legal and illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. since 1970 will cost the government $65 billion this year, according to a new study [by Donald Huddle, a professor at Rice]. His work, he said, shows that the United States could save $335 billion in the next decade by admitting a much smaller number of skilled legal immigrants and their dependents. ... "If we continue with the kind of society we have, you end up with L.A. riots, which were partly immigrant-related, and riots in Miami, which are also immigrant-related," he said. 10/24/96, Cox News Service [Eunice Moscoso]

The Huddle estimates are the tip of the tip of an iceberg of truths about immigration almost always obscured. Our population is skyrocketing, and the costs are moonrocketing. Yet we run the risk of making a serious political error here: Although it is important to keep in mind the price we pay to surround ourselves with Mexicans, Guatemalans and Cambodians, we must not let this blind us to what really matters -- the destruction of our culture that follows their arrival: the air filled with Spanish, the maternity wards filled with mothers (you pay their way), the asinine hieroglyphs on buildings public and private, the ubiquitous need to buy Clubs; the public drunkenness; the ubiquitous racial gangs, the drug sales, the drive-bys; the political gerrymandering; the affirmative action; the ceaseless hurl of the epithet 'Anglo.'

Why should we move aside and allow Mexico, for one, to recreate itself within our borders? To make the Cinco de Mayo our new national holiday? To allow our new countrymen to plead for our tax money for their separatist racial agenda?; to demonstrate under a foreign flag for our subsidization of the recreation of their notoriously corrupt, notorioiusly backward, notoriously inferior country? Mexicans have kept Mexico in a state of screwed-up-edness for as long as it has been around. It is better that we shoot them coming in than allow them to screw up our country.

Again, I have recourse to the power of the media in creating what I call a common mental environment, mental reality, picture of the world, mindset. In the sixties, part of what turned the tide for the black privilege movement was the pictures of Bull Connor's dogs and fire hoses turned on black demonstrators. These pictures sickened many white Americans, and softened them up for the enactment of laws that discriminated against their race. So it could be with the Mexicans in Southern California, for example. I have in mind two examples that, had they been played right, could have stirred up extremely strong anti-Mexican passion in middle America, were the media controlled by white nationalists instead of mostly-Jewish leftists: The first example is the riots that followed the Rodney King decision. The media could have played them as they were: a few nights of fun and profit for the jungle Blacks and the Mexican Third Worlders, made possible by weak official decision-making. (Again, as in the West Indian Day Parade in New York, the approach was Throw-a-tent-over-this-circus, with predictable results). News analysts could have pointed out that liberating Pampers and liters of Coke are not the actions of people fired by a desire for social justice. Instead, predictably, the liberal newscasters and analysts chose to emphasize -- against the evidence of their own cameras -- the multi-racial nature of the riots; the idea that you were just as likely to find whites rioting as blacks and browns; just as likely to find whites stealing, too. All lies, but lies that serve the liberal purpose of reversing the truth about multiculturalism.

The demonstrations against proposition 187 are my second example. The most remarkable aspect -- which went almost entirely unremarked -- was that the vast crowds of students and aliens and leftists were all marching under Mexican flags. In the 19th century, we would have gone to war over that. Here were a bunch of leftist parasites yelling and screaming for the preservation of laws discriminating against their white hosts -- under the flag of a foreign country! These people not only aren't Americans, they don't want to be. They want to steal the white man's store empty and then force him at gunpoint to replenish it. The whole scene was so grotesque and disgusting, all one could do was gape and shake one's head. Seeing those Mexicans demonstrating under their flag in favor of their right to steal our money and discriminate against our kind ought to make our blood boil. All I could think of was one of those nature films where a million tiny ants bite away at the corpse of a once-proud mammal. If we can't wake up and defeat these people, we deserve to die. Perhaps you think I am joking when I say these Mexicans aren't Americans and don't have any desire to be. That I am a nasty evil racist when I assert that what they want to do is recreate Mexico in our living room and have us pay for it. Consider this, from Georgie Anne Geyer:

[The] standard college and high school text in the fashionable "Chicano Studies" classes in California schools and universities is "Occupied America," by Professor Rudolfo Acuna of Cal State Northridge. In it, he states flatly that "Anglo control of Mexico's northwest territory is an occupation," and that "Chicanos are living in captivity." ... Voz Fronteriza,...a student publication of the University of California [funded in part through mandatory student fees] published the following before a meeting of immigration-control [proponents] in San Diego: "A large gathering of the most racist-fascist European-settlers will take place. ... The convention gives us, the targets, the colonized people, an opportunity to expose the fascist plans of the white illegal settler population presently occupying Mexicano indigenous lands." ... [Said another group, MECha]: "Every Mexicano must become an enemy of the colonial settler state. ... This is our homeland....Let us create create conditions for the Mexican intifada." [9/17/96, Washington Times (Georgia Anne Geyer)]

This is not a joke. These people can't be argued with, only opposed. They are nothing but clear, utterly clear, in their intent: to convert as much America as they can into Mexico -- literally, Mexico. And nothing the official right has come up with prepares us to counter the aggressive, unashamed irredentism of these us-funded Mexican nationalists. Even among the people who have specifically taken as their mission opposition to (illegal) immigration, the argument is always pressed in economic terms instead of racial-cultural. But you don't win fights by using your second strongest weapon, you win by deploying weapons stronger than your opponents. And the strongest weapon we have is the argument that America is a white country, and we are going to keep it that way. Not that it costs us hundreds of millions to pay for Maria's illegitimate babies (though it does). Not that the effects of tens of millions of immigrants on the environment will be bad (though they will be). Not that the welfare state and the absence of the traditional Americanizing institutions bid us be leery of admitting immigrants in tidal wave numbers (though they do). It must be instinctively obvious to anyone who has been to, say, L.A. that this is a racial fight -- or would be, if the right would defend its side. Economics is so much irrelevant chitter-chatter. This is about race and culture and the kind of country we want to live in, not dollar bills. Polite remonstrators such as Dan Stein at the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) never make any headway because they are shooting .22s instead of cruise missiles.

Here's the scene across the country in New York:

For the first time ever, high-school students will be able to take all their Regents exams -- except the English test -- in a foreign language... The new policy...will allow kids...to take their tests in Spanish, Creole, Chinese and other languages. "In this world of multilingual requirements we have to be compassionate and recognize talented kids," [said Jerry Cammarata, the Stanten Island school board member who has questioned the effectiveness of bilingual education...] "It's important that we don't leave these kids behind. But they [the Regents] must not allow this to be the standard for the future." [11/27/96, New York Post (Maria Alvarez)] Here's a thought: If they ever do go back to a single language, will it be English? Language is always considered one of the two or three elements that makes a nation: America is by definition an English-speaking country, and if it ceases to be, it won't be America any longer. As the census indicates, the America of tomorrow will be a Puerto Rico-style amalgam of North and South America, a cold and dirty in-between land where civilization exists in a few pockets as a sort of in-door hobby. In fact, as I write this, ironically enough, the Republican controlled Congress has just paved the way to Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state. A perfect microcosm of their entire intellectual approach on the border of the new milennium: We Republicans are in favor of allowing a Spanish-speaking island people with an average income less than half of any other state the right to vote itself membership in our Republic. Here you see the historically unusual example of people refusing to get off the tracks when they can see the train headed toward them. They are voting for their own political suicide -- knowingly.

None of this is inevitable. None of this needs to come to pass. We have in our midst plenty of people who can see what we need to do. One of them recently wrote a book:

Peter D. Salins, author of...Assimilation, American Style...[said that up] until 1960... the system was working.... Then in 1965, Congress revoked the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1917...[a] flood of immigrants, especially from Asian countries, began showing up on American shores. Their arrival, together with a growing tide of immigrants from south of the border...transform[ed] what used to be a casual acceptance of foreigners into..."ethnic federalism." Financed by...Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and other foundations, ethnic groups...began demanding bilingualism [instead of learning] English as quickly as possible. [4/13/97, Washington Times National Weekly Edition (Caroline Modorato-Rosta)]

From the moment our policy ceased to be "racist," it ceased to be effective. A nation that had been 90% white for 300 years -- and for 300 years had failed to integrate its most conspicuous racial minorities -- African slave descendants and aboriginal Indians -- began to change in numerous unhappy ways. White taxpayers, mostly without complaint, picked up the bill for their own dispossession. The more minorities that arrived, the greater the clamor for even more. The leftists enjoyed the poitical benefits, and the minorities enjoyed recreating the old country in the new, plus the free money. Only the natives got no benefits, only bills. Three decades later, white Americans made up barely three-quarters of the nation they had created from nothing, while thousands of impoverished third-worlders immigrated daily and -- being colored -- became immediately eligible for money and other benefits denied whites. Whites, in the face of the new, non-racist immigration policy -- were becoming strangers in a strange land -- a strange land that used to be their own land. Oddest of all, any opposition to the new dispossession was forestalled as racist, a term that had been invested with all the anti-white poison the leftists could pump into it, a meaningless, extremely effective smear used to stop debate before it started. Trapped in his private domicile, the average white, subject to the waves emitted by the most powerful amplifiers the world had ever seen (TV and radio) began to doubt, began to think that maybe he really was one of a tiny, tiny minority of nuts who couldn't adjust to this better new world, just like the movie-of-the-week said.

Back to VNN Main Page