Dec 21, 2015

The Token President: Obama’s Hollow Legacy

via Counter-Currents

President Barack Hussein Obama II, as he likes to emphasize, is the first Black(/White) President of the United States of America, with “a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya.” He is both a multiracial individual and a “third culture kid” (TCK) raised outside the U.S. mainland. This means, as I have recently written, that he has constantly suffered a certain amount of racial and cultural alienation, no matter who he is with or where he is. 

Obama has thought enormously about these problems and how to solve them. As he is clearly an intelligent and driven man, this makes his mediocre politics and bland rhetoric rather disappointing. Obama could be a thoughtful leader in working out America’s racial crisis, but he is not. 

For instance, Obama has thought about the merits of racial nationalism in solving the inevitable alienation and conflict of multiracial societies. In his lengthy memoir, Dreams from my Father, Obama explicitly affirms that achieving the well-being of the community through racial nationalism is more important than his well-being as a half-caste: 

Ever since the first time I’d picked up Malcolm X’s autobiography, I had tried to untangle the twin strands of black nationalism, arguing that nationalism’s affirm message – of solidarity and self-reliance, discipline and communal responsibility – need not depend on hatred of whites any more than it depended on white munificence. [. . .] 
If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.[1] 

This is what I would call a mature métis position, one which understands that the ego of aliens and half-castes is of infinitely less importance than the well-being of the community.[2] 

Obama, then, knows better. But he has chosen to be an American so-called “democratic politician” and, as Tocqueville eloquently wrote long ago, in American democracy the politicians, that is to say the government, are slaves of “public opinion.” In Tocqueville’s day, perhaps the People’s opinions were informed primarily by their life experience, their hard work and suffering, their churches, friends, and community, giving us a grand, pragmatic, and effective, if not very thoughtful, middlebrow bourgeois regime. 

Since at least the 1920s however, public opinion has been increasingly shaped by whichever ethnic and plutocratic elites control the mass media of news and entertainment. In America, the people do not rule. Rather, there is a slave-king, the president, and the kingmakers are those who control the media and finance political campaigns. 

Obama is in way out of his depth. He was a bright “international” kid who moved to America upon adulthood and was predictably alienated as a kind of foreigner and Black man who had never lived among Blacks (thanks notably to his deadbeat, alcoholic, polygamist, and Marxist absentee father, who died in his third drunk-driving accident). He claims to have consumed alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine to “push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.”[3] 

Obama then moved to a somewhat (only somewhat) more constructive reaction to his racial alienation: The rejection of White America/Europe and the embrace of Black America. Obama writes on touring Europe: “And by the end of the first week or so, I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine.”[4] He admits to dumping a White girlfriend on racial grounds. Instead, he chose to meld into Black America, marry into a middle class Black family, move to Chicago, join a radical Black church, and spend a life agitating for the Black American race through “community organizing” and ethnic litigation. 

Obama in a sense chose Africa over Europe. He notes in Dreams the similarities between fatherless matriarchal Black households in Kenya and those on the South Side of Chicago . . . very mysterious. Personally, I don’t know how one could choose Europe over Africa (indeed, Obama’s also half-White half-brother in Kenya perhaps unsurprisingly identifies more with Whites). But to each his own. 

Obama’s Left-wing White mother apparently indoctrinated him while growing up with a romanticized image of Black America as synonymous with television’s presentation of the apparently orderly, thoughtful, and very pious suited-up Blacks of the ’60s civil rights movement. (Martin Luther King, Jr., that philandering socialist preacher – whom young Americans now rank higher in greatness than George Washington or Abraham Lincoln – surely is one of the greatest marketing coups of all time.) Obama curiously persevered in embracing Black America even when he learned it had nothing to do with the glamorous image of the civil rights movement. (Personally, I had a pang that something was amiss when seeing Martin Luther King’s descendants, who are not remotely as “presentable” for television.) If you want to know what the Black American id really is about, browse some World Star Hip Hop videos.[5] 

Obama learned that being a Black “community organizer” however is a tough hustle. You’re not working with very promising human capital, as they say. Instead, as a bright young man in the meritocratic American system, he naturally drifted to that which worked: Being a nice presentable “articulate” Black man for White liberals. And, by golly, do the liberals need more bright, “articulate” Blacks! 

So Obama was the first Black president of Harvard Law Review and received ample coverage for this little accomplishment. Oh sure, he’s only half-Black, and he’s a fresh-off-the-boat African and not an African-American descendant of slaves, and he was exclusively raised by his White family. But he’s technically Black![6] 

Thus the Democratic Party and the media masters promoted the young Obama to be President of the United States of America. He had two assets: He had no accomplishments or power base whatsoever, and he was Black. Perfect. The inexperienced Illinois state senator (that does not mean much) was abruptly put in the spotlight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to downplay his previous Black identity and project a glorious image of “post-racial America.” 

Oh yes, that was brilliant. Finally White liberals would be absolved of the guilt of Black America’s failure. Only the incredibly stubborn persistence of White racism, after all, could explain Blacks’ continued inability to do well in schools since the ’60s integration program or Blacks’ committing of half of murders in America. And, as even the CIA noted,[7] having a First Black President would allow the United States acquire a moralistic veneer to its continued imperialistic wars in the Middle East, its torture of Muslims and mass surveillance on American citizens,[8] and its destruction of Arab nations in support of Israel. The antiwar movement is dead, the wars continue, the fallout from the “financial crisis” is contained. Oh yes, the “First Black President,” it was brilliant! Brilliant! 

This is why superficial liberals – so hysterically opposed to George W. Bush, so happy to tolerate Obama’s imperial crimes and impotence in the face of plutocracy, and again frothing at the mouth at Donald Trump – are contemptible. 

Before you knew it, Obama was elected to office. Sure, he had to publicly tar-and-feather his poor dying White grandmother as a “racist” in order to redeem himself from association with his radical Black pastor Jeremiah Wright.[9] The White House is worth a grandma, n’est-ce-pas? 

Of course, Obama was dependent on the kingmakers in the mass media, Big Business, and the DC political class who had manufactured him. Well, you know who controls our mass media of news and entertainment. 

Here are Obama’s top 10 donors of 2008:[10]
  1. University of California: $1,799,460
  2. Goldman Sachs: $1,034,615
  3. Harvard University: $900,909
  4. Microsoft Corp: $854,717
  5. JPMorgan Chase & Co: $847,895
  6. Google Inc: $817,855
  7. Citigroup Inc: $755,057
  8. US Government [sic]: $638,335
  9. Time Warner: $617,844
  10. Sidney Austin LLP: $606,260 
To summarize: Obama is the creature of the metastasized academic-industrial complex of liberal indoctrination and day-care of twentysomething man-children, Wall Street (organized financial speculation and skimming of the American economy), tech (a new power factor), the media, etc., a representative slice of the American oligarchy. 
Really buying off a politician is quite cheap and, relative to the plutocrats’ growing concentration of wealth, is getting cheaper. 

Academia, news media, print media, and tech companies overwhelmingly donate to the political Left and according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency “Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the [Democratic] party’s money.”[11] 

Without belaboring the point, Obama’s numerous handlers include David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Jack Lew, and a bunch of minorities and White liberals who don’t matter. He appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and Janet Yellen as Chairman of the Federal Reserve (third in a row!). He even sent Stanley Fischer – after having rationalized the plunder of the Russian economy by his kinsmen in the 1990s and fresh from being president of the Central Bank of Israel [sic] – to help Yellen out as vice-chair.

Oh yes, tell us how Obama was going to shut down Wall Street, end the wars in the Middle East, and undo racism in America. The clever Levantines around Obama know all about racism: It’s good bidness, very good bidness. It’s amazing that the Paul Krugmans, the Jon Stewart Liebowitzes,[12] and all the other Social Democratic hucksters[13] of this world can still get the ever-smug, ever-fashionable, ever-ignorant White college students and the nice liberal cat ladies (who inevitably get ever-more bigoted with age) excited about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – even as the same ethno-plutocratic elites command backstage through media control and campaign donations.

As Dieudonné once joked: “Talk to me about Obama! Make me dream!” 

Obama’s assuming office was definitely anti-climactic. I distinctly remember, during his inaugural speech, him having a look of “mission accomplished.” As though mere election of a Black man was the point, which was indeed the case. 

One of the biggest harms Obama has done to the Black American community, and indeed all Americanized Blacks everywhere, is to have eliminated the possibility of First-Black-President jokes. Blacks used to be able to lick their inevitably wounded racial egos with the idea that their failings were purely due to exclusion due to White racism. The more racism is shown not be the problem through achievements like Obama’s, the more Black pride is hurt. 

Before Obama, Blacks could fantasize about the days when there would be the First Black President and how, by this magical event, they would finally be free to act upon their whims and particularities. Richard Prior for instance performed an amusing skit as the First Black President in 1977[14] in which featured:
  • Solemnly declaring MLK-style: “I think it’s time that Black people went to space.”[15]
  • Beethoven would be replaced with Miles Davis.
  • Huey Newton was appointed head of the FBI.
  • Blacks would start becoming football quarterbacks, coaches, and owners, as opposed to just players (of course, four decades later, there has been no progress in this area).
  • The First Black President slowly turns into a Black preacher.
  • Public humiliation of an aroused White woman and a White Southern journalist.
  • The First Black President philanders with White women, prompting “ooohs” of disapproval from Black women for his racial disloyalty. 
Good stuff. Black humor is good humor insofar as Blacks only find it funny if their lived truth is included (White liberals in contrast laugh at racial stereotypes on the assumption the unfashionable prejudice of the stereotypes is what is being mocked . . .).[16] 

Obama, in contrast, is pretty damn boring for a First Black President. Obama’s first public appearances as President were unbelievably stilted. He cannot fake interest and is easily bored. Only race and himself interest him. On every other topic, his every sentence is punctuated with copious “uhms,” “uhs,” and so on, visibly trying to remember the banal talking points he doesn’t care or even care to pretend to care about. In 2010, Big Business rallied and White America panicked at electing an agnostic post-Muslim/pseudo-Christian/post-Marxoid/post-Black Nationalist whozawutsit to the White House, hence putting the Republicans back in charge of Congress. 

It’s a tough grind. 

We are almost at the end of Obama’s second term in office. What has he accomplished? 

Firstly, Obama, as a Black man, had the courage (stop sniggering!) to present himself for election and win in the dark Bush years, thus proving the American people are not wholly racist. This is why the Norwegians gave him a Nobel Prize even before he had done anything, making for the first Affirmative Action Nobel as well as the first Affirmative Action President. 

Secondly, Obama passed the middle class tax shift and Obamacare, which are not without their merits. The tax shift undermined (gentile?) Big Business. Obamacare (the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) enormously empowered the Federal Government, being effectively granted authority over the bloated regulatory chaos of state healthcare legislation and the Big Pharma/Big Insurance cartels, one sixth of the U.S. economy. There are few things as complex than a modern state-economy nexus and actually it is quite hard to gauge these sorts of things which, in a Weberian way, are much bigger than any individual like Obama (even Adolf Hitler was rather overwhelmed by the superstate and associated bureaucracies he created). The aim was clear however: A medical security net for the 47 million (or whatever) uninsured, among other things a transfer of resources from White America to Black America. Obamacare was also another milestone in the long march towards Social Democracy and the globalists’ dream of destroying the particularistic work of the Founding Fathers (other major milestones will include the de facto abolition of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, abolition of the First Amendment’s right to free speech, and the introduction of the metric system; America is to be “Europeanized,” which is fine if the government is indeed a solidary European one, as opposed to one whose “progressivism” is motivated by alien hostility). Obama’s supposed regulation of Wall Street and action on “climate change” also fall under the same category, of the inexhorable “statification” of the American economy. 

Thirdly, Obama was reelected as the First Black President, redeeming his tribe’s wounded pride forever. Don’t believe me? Look at him bawling in front of his campaign staff in 2012.[17] There again, “mission accomplished.” 

Perhaps I am being too harsh. Obama is no different from Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. They all answer to the same masters, though their emphasis may differ. There hasn’t been a U.S. president with any real character since probably Richard Nixon, hence his comments on Jews. 

President Clinton, an enthusiastic post-’60s nihilist, celebrated and prophesied the end of White America for the first time from the Executive bully-pulpit, rejoicing in European-Americans reduction to a vulnerable physical minority in the land founded by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. 

President Bush, a very good goy, thought himself mandated by God after 9/11 to wage a Crusade against radical Islam and “the Axis of Evil” [sic] (David Frum’s expression . . .), thus massively expanding the military-industrial complex and Surveillance State, and destroying Iraq, the then-leading enemy of Israel. The New York Times and rest of the controlled media were happy to egg Bush on initially and, as soon as the “mission accomplished” banner was up and things turned sour, was unceremoniously dumped by them. This was symbolized his humiliation at the 2006 White House correspondents’ dinner by Stephen Colbert, another very good goy.[18] Of course, the real architects of America’s pro-Israel foreign policy and military-plutocratic empire, the oligarchic masters of the politicians and the controlled media, were safely backstage . . . 

Bush too advocated White minorityhood and suicide in America. Immigration is good for bidness (in the short run, anyway), as he had learned as Governor of Texas. Besides, aren’t his nephews beautiful Mestizos? He advocated loans to make minorities homeowners regardless of their actual income or creditworthiness, paving the way for the financial crisis. “Conservative values are anti-racist!” Bush the “conservative” even approved of chaotic semi-centralization and bureaucratization of American education with “No Child Left Behind.” 

Yes, the Bushes are members of that often beautiful WASP patrician class, the closest thing America has had to an aristocracy since the Civil War, often worldly and multilingual, but which ultimately has always bent with the wind (hence grand-pappy Bush’s flirting with Hitler . . .) and has since completely degenerated. 

Then we come to Obama. Clinton and Bush have never claimed to stand up for the interests of White people. Obama too has never claimed to defend Whites, but he has claimed to defend Blacks and indeed has entertained outright Black Nationalism. 
But many Blacks have been asking Obama: “What have you done for me lately?”[19] That is a good question. 

Obama is actually far more than the First Black President. He is the first Cosmic President, the first truly post-American and global president, a, in his own words, half-caste “mutt” with no upbringing in the mainland United States.[20] That is his empty glory, his gloriole. His actions in office as an empty suit – an amiable figurehead for far, far greater ethnic, plutocratic, bureaucratic, and imperial forces – are irrelevant. He has already been given his supreme reward: Lifetime membership in that most select global club, which even Clinton does not have access to, let alone Bush. 

Yes, Obama is but one of the leading members of the Cosmic Aristocracy[21] manufactured by the media masters to condition the public for the emerging ethnic chaos and plutocratic domination of post-nationhood. That they associate raceless chaos with feel-good nonsense and a big deceptive smile, rather than the Balkanization, ethnic tensions, inequality, and destruction of everything we hold dear which is the reality of our ever-more “multicultural” societies. That the masses believe their television sets and radio stations and films – with which our people have spent many hours every single day since the 1960s – rather than own lying eyes. Not to mention the Marxist professors. 

Obama has much more to do with Beyoncé and Jay Z, Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian, or Nicki Minaj and Lady Gaga, than with Abraham Lincoln or Malcolm X. “Lady Di” and the Kennedys are in the same genre. 

The point is, if Bush was a “cuckservative” (no surprise that he idolized Churchill above all), then Obama is an Uncle Tom. 

Hence, finally, his fourth set of accomplishments:
  • The unconstitutional (even the courts are upset), indeed treasonous post facto legalization through Executive amnesty of the Mexican invasion.
  • The egging on of so-called “Black Lives Matter” rioters in burning down their own neighborhoods in defense of Black criminals, and of shrill activists in wrecking their own universities.
  • The softening of sentences against Black criminals and their release en masse from prison onto the streets.
  • Forced racial integration of American suburbs (i.e. moving inner city Blacks away from gentrifying areas to powerless, innocent suburban White areas).
All of this is obviously deadly to White Americans, but does it help Black people either? Obviously not.

I would guess Obama, who is conscious of being a sell-out, is using what Executive power he has to do a little symbolic coddling of the Black community. This is unpardonable, because Obama – knowing the Black community inside and out, so to speak – is more than smart enough to know that that is not what it needs to reach its highest potential. Presumably he is doing it out of the self-destructive, instinctive kind of racial feeling which has made Black Nationalism an absolute disaster in Haiti, Liberia, and Zimbabwe. Or perhaps out of a more feminine instinct.

(Hysterical racial nationalism, a natural reaction of “purging” and refounding of the national body in times of crisis, does lead to chaos in the short-term. Mao’s China was a pretty horrible place. But notice that the Chinese, being a talented people, have since been lifting themselves up with astonishing speed. In contrast, Sub-Saharan African and African diaspora countries seem to at best maintain, precariously, the limited civilization they receive from the West, but that this can easily fall back into tribal chaos and a vicious cycle of permanent barbarism, which they have very, very great difficulty in overcoming.)

Already, Obama’s softening of disciplines on the Black community and the cultivation of their illusions has led to sharp increase in the murder rate in many cities, mostly of Blacks killing other Blacks.[22] How is that good for Blacks?

The young Obama wrote eloquently on the power of nationalism. He is intelligent and experienced enough his policies are destructive even of his own community. Every people reaches its highest potential only through solidarity: The solidarity of an elite willingly refraining from abusing their power with regard to the people, the solidarity of a people in respecting the elite’s disciplines in service of the public good, the solidarity of people with each other in promoting social justice, welfare, education, and so on, the solidarity of a loyal political minority in bowing before government policy, the solidarity of lessers respecting their betters, of betters acknowledging their responsibility to their lessers, etc.

That is the road to salvation, the source of the historic power and well-being of the great nation-states: a France, an America, a Germany, or even a Sweden (the Nordic country which Sanders, Krugman, and the other Social Democrats claim to love so much . . . I can think of least one prominent Austrian politician who had a far more credible plan to make the world more like Sweden[23]).

That is, the solidarity and selflessness of love of family, not the faux-solidarity of grievance-mongering and narcissism promoted by the Marxists (including the Social Democrats).

Every people, whatever their political system or condition, needs a certain enlightened, benevolent paternalism.

Obama’s collaboration in the steady destruction of the historic American nation is no different than that of Clinton or Bush’s. His destructive coddling of Black America and, indeed, legitimizing of a Hispanic invasion which also undermines Blacks is not fundamentally different in significance. Obama is perhaps, as a “mutt,” even more temperamentally suited to the idea of America Cósmico than his predecessors. As he told the self-styled explainer Jews at Vox: “[O]ver the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks.”[24]

What a bunch of hogwash. Obama knows that’s BS and the liberal Zionists (paging Paul Krugman) know that’s BS. If universal miscegenation were a solution, Mexico and Brazil would be well-adjusted métis nations, not violent, unequal, semi-Balkanized mongrel hells. If Krugman were not a disingenuous fraud in his advocacy of “equality,” his kin would not so unbelievably “privileged” in the United States and elsewhere, that is to say, so superior in economic, cultural, and political power. If miscegenation were the solution, liberals Jews would not be so strangely tolerant of their Hassidic brethren or of the Zionist project’s excesses. (If Binyamin Netayahu’s Israel is their “insurance policy,” what’s ours?)

The point is, Obama is a non-thing. He’s just gone along with and put a little ribbon on the long-term project of destroying the œuvre of the Founding Fathers with the full statification of the American socio-economy, a permanent military-industrial, surveillance, and imperial state to destroy independent European nations and the enemies of Israel, and ultimately the final liquidation of the historic American nation through mass immigration.

Americans are to be turned into raceless, soulless, docile, frightened, effeminate hamsters, shuffling back and forth from the office (or simply passively receiving welfare), and consuming garbage (both at fast-food outlets and on television), ad infinitum. Only then will the state and the “international community” be safe. Rather like the Wachowsky brothers’ inspired vision, or logical deduction, of humans-as-battery-pods in The Matrix.

President Barack Hussein Obama II: the Cosmic Puppet who knew better, loyal neither to his Bantu nor Aryan forefathers.

He’s no Dieudonné, that’s for sure.

1. Barack Obama, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (New York City: Three Rivers Press, 2004, first published 1995), 198-200. On reading Obama’s memoir in plain English, see Steve Sailer, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance” (VDARE, 2008).
2. Obama rejected Black Nationalism only insofar as he considered, basically correctly, that it was economically unworkable, at least without foreign assistance.
3. “Obama gets blunt with N.H. Students,” Boston Globe, November 21, 2007.
4. Obama, Dreams, 301-302.
6. See: One-drop-rule.
7. Glenn Greenwald, “The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters,” Salon, March 27, 2010.
8. Curiously, Edward Snowden has in some circles acquired a saint-like status today not unlike that enjoyed by Obama in 2008.
9. Ben Shapiro, “Barack Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus,” Town Hall, March 26, 2008.
10. Top Contributors to Barack Obama, 2008 cycle, Open Secrets.
11. Guillaume Durocher, “White Nationalism Explained in Charts, Part III: Jewish Privilege,” North American New Right, December 3, 2015.
12. Liebowitz himself has been replaced by a South African Cosmic Mixling at The Daily Show, but ratings have suffered, presumably the former viewers were racists.
13. The liberal Jews (Krugman) argue that if people like Bill de Blasio and Bernie Sanders are elected, then racial inequality and tensions in America will disappear. De Blasio, however, will obviously not significantly reduce New York City’s residential and school segregation, which is the worst in the country. Chairman Sanders’ Marxian socialism will obviously not increase Black school performance, reduce that of Asians, or even mention his own people’s role in the plutocratic/Wall Street elites he loves to condemn.
14. Richard Pryor, “The First Black President,” 1977.
15. Mohammed Ali was very, very proud of riding in an African airplane in Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaïre. The Zaïrois nuclear program, not to speak of the space program, has run into some kinks however.
16. Black comedians often provide the most staggeringly politically-incorrect material, such as Richard Pryor on Black criminals, Dave Chapelle on welfare and reparations for Blacks, Chris Rock on instinctive Black racial pride, or Aaron McGruder’s entire œuvre, from commentary on Black violence (“nigga moments”) and the paradoxes of combined-and-uneven development between high technology and dysgenics (“nigga tech”)
17. Of course, the First Black President’s reelection campaign staff were “almost uniformly White.” Mytheos Holt, “‘Almost Uniformly White’: How Diverse Is Obama’s Campaign Staff, Really?,” The Blaze, April 9, 2012.
18. John Oliver, another Liebowitz spawnling, is another nauseatingly disgusting good goy.
19. For example this Jamaican newspaper columnist: George Garwood, “What has Barack Obama done for black people?,” Jamaica Observer, December 16, 2014.
20. Matt Parrot, “Cosmic America,” North American New Right, December 13, 2010.
21. Supposing I have not desecrated the word by using it in this manner.
22. Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities,” New York Times, August 31, 2015.
23. Not to mention quite a few 1920s American immigration restrictionists.
24. Ezra Klein, “Obama: The Vox Conversation,” Vox, February 9, 2015.

German Photojournalist to Be Tried for Entering Europe with Illegals -- They're not!

via The European Guardian

Photographer Felix Kleymann wanted to visually document how immigrants get to Europe illegally. He started from Northern Iraq, traveled through Turkey, and paid smugglers to board a boat bound for the island of Lesbos, Greece.

But when he arrived, he was arrested because he is a European citizen, and had his EU passport on him.

Kleymann said:
“When we landed in Lesbos, I was arrested immediately”

“I had illegally entered from a non-European country, as an EU citizen. I was interrogated and locked in a prison cell. The trial was the following day. There I could explain everything and was acquitted.”

“Because of the delay, however, I have lost all my fellow travelers from the boat and have not found them again during my journey.”
I wonder if he has questioned why he, a White European man, was arrested for entering Europe illegally, but the immigrants he was with were not?

Why is it that of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants who have crossed Europe’s borders, very few are actually arrested or taken to court, despite them committing a crime?

To answer this question, we must realize that the people in charge of EU’s borders want an agenda known as White genocide. They themselves would call it “diversity”, but since they only target White areas for this “diversity”, it fits the legal definition of genocide.

They tried bringing in non-White immigrants legally, but people started voting for alternative parties.

Then they tried to absolve themselves of responsibility by not enforcing border laws, and allowing illegal immigrants to pour in – and yet again, people voted even more for alternative parties.

It’s a big conundrum to them. They want White genocide – to “diversify” (destroy) all the White areas by force, but when they do this people vote against them.

So now they are arranging behind-closed-doors deals with Turkey, but just not telling us.

The Future of France's National Front

via Right-On

Alain de Benoist
This interview with Alain de Benoist was posted in French on 15 December 2015, on the Boulevard Voltaire Website. Nicolas Gauthier was the interviewer. It was translated by Eugene Montsalvat.

‘National Front, a defeat that weighs heavily’, reads Le Parisien, as the National Front deputy Gilbert Collard celebrated a ‘victorious defeat’. Your opinion?

The National Front (NF) certainly did not take any region, but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that it continues to progress in each election. The regionals were not an exception. The bar of 40% was broken, and the movement of Marine Le Pen was henceforth assured to have more than 350 regional councilors (which also incidentally resolved the problem of sponsorships for the presidential election). The essential fact is that a party that has both the Left and the Right against it, as well as all the big parties in government, all the big newspapers, all the radio and television states, and without forgetting the moralistic organisations, show business, the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions, the Movement of the Enterprises of France (MEDEF, an employers’ federation-Ed.), and the Grand-Orient (the primary Masonic organisation-Ed.), Pierre Gattaz (the President of MEDEF-Ed.), Bernard-Henri Lévy, and Dany Boon (a comedian and filmmaker), is on its way toward gathering at least as many votes as the other two. In brief, the more they put the French on guard against the NF, the more they vote for them, which shows that the French increasingly believe nothing they say to them, as well as to how immense their anger and disgust have grown.

The NF answers a formidable demand for collective identity, political sovereignty, and security in social matters. Its two points of appeal are, on one hand, the youth, and on the other the popular classes, meaning members of the middle classes who are threatened with falling into a lower class or faced with stagnation across inter-generational social positions. The two springs of the NF vote are unemployment and problems resulting from immigration, which strikes first in the same milieu of peripheral France, in particular to the east of the Havre-Marseille line (to the east of this line lies the bulk of France’s heavy industry; to the west it is primarily agricultural-Ed.). On one side are those who profit from globalisation, on the other are those who are its victims. On one side France protects the globalised bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie that depend on it, on the other is the fragile, precarious, and humiliated France, in a state of insecurity and relative pauperisation. On one side are the elites; on the other, the people.

Marine Le Pen

This was seen well by Jacques Julliard, who wrote, ‘The vote of the National Front represents the ideal dream of the bipolar sociology of Marxism: the alliance of the proletariat and middle classes against the ruling classes. On the inverse, the “republican resistance”, as Jean-Christophe Cambadélis said, is constituted by middle- and upper-class cadres, the bosses, the bobos (bourgeois-bohemians-Tr.), the high intellectuals return to it… The NF vote is increasing in response to the contempt which today’s elite holds for the people, and this cleavage is a class cleavage.’

What is new is that the Left no longer hesitates to commit harakiri, by calling to vote for a party it still accused only a few weeks ago of wanting to imitate the NF on its ‘right’! That speaks volumes on its disarray, and that also shows that the prayer wheels have become powerless to stem the rising flood. The proponents of the anti-fascism of comfort and posturing (Robert Redeker), for whom the internal enemy is henceforth the little people, are stunned, because they state that all the anti-NF strategies used until now (demonisation, trivialisation, reclamation) are failures, and the excommunications mumbled by the devotees of the Eternal Return of the 1930s have ceased to be heard for a long time, that is when they do not simply make everyone burst out laughing.

Manuel Valls
Manuel Valls

It was therefore necessary to step it up. Where there is this surrealist spectacle, where we saw Manuel Valls abandon his role as Prime Minister to transform himself into the recruiting sergeant for Christian Estrosi (centre-Right politician-Ed.) (who Cambadélis [First Secretary of the Socialist Party-Ed.] had denounced two weeks earlier as ‘much worse than Marion’), the militants of Europe Ecology-The Greens distributing tracts in favour of Xavier Bertrand (centre-Right politician and former Minister of Labour), thus inviting the victims of austerity to vote for those who put it in place, and the directors of the ‘Socialist’ Party demanded that their adherents commit collective suicide by choosing to desert the regional councils of the old fiefdoms of Pierre Mauroy and Gaston Defferre (former socialist leaders-Ed.) for six years. Of course, the NF will be the clear proof that the Left and the Right of the government are definitively only two concurrent tendencies of the same party. The drag wind has not gone away. But the whole system finds itself being questioned.

Regarding these elections, the media invokes a ‘tripartism’, while Marine Le Pen speaks of a new ‘bipartism’, the patriotic NF against the globalist Union for a Popular Movement. Who is right?

The actual tripolarity (a preferable term to tripartism) can only be provisional. But the important thing, and we are coming to see it, is the postponement of the vote. The Right only took the North and the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region because it obtained the vote of the Left, and Marine Le Pen didn’t know how to prevent this postponement. Thus, the whole question is one of knowing if the NF is capable of checking this reflex by showing to a substantial number of the Left’s electorate that a vote in favour of the NF better represents their interests than a vote in favor of the Right.

The force of the NF holds from the fact that it is not situated in relation to the Left-Right cleavage – a cleavage by which the suicidal strategy of Manuel Valls shows that it is only the fulfillment of an illusion. If she reaches the second round of the presidential election, which is possible (but in no way certain), she will face it as an adversary of the Left and as an adversary of the Right. In the first case, it will be necessary to rally the electorate of the Right, in the second, the electorate of the Left. This implies different discourses. In any case, contrary to what happened in 2002, it will be a radical transformation of political life. The consequences of a final victory for Marine Le Pen are scarcely imaginable. If the Left wins, it is the dislocation of the Right; if the Right wins, it is the decomposition of the Left. That will be the opening of a new political cycle.

Trump, Putin, and the Future of the White World

via Radix

Listen Now

Richard Spencer discusses Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's recent "bromance," Carl Schmitt's Friend/Enemy dialectic, the problem of ethno-nationalism, and the future of the White world.

The Friends of Boris Johnson: The Backing of Jewish Networks Is Vital to Political Success

via The Occidental Observer

There are two pilgrimages which any ambitious British Conservative politician should undertake if he wants to seriously improve his chances of getting the top job. One is to Israel to be pictured with wearing a skull cap at the Western Wall.

The second is to the most exclusive Jewish charity event in the London social calendar. The Norwood Trust banquet is one of the most glittering social occasions in London. Under the chandeliers, networkers rub shoulders with likes of Elton John, Simon Cowell, Tom Jones, Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Sir Philip Green and anyone who is anyone in British Jewry.

It was on this august occasion last month that the Mayor of London Boris Johnson addressed the assembled notables and as usual charmed, amused and entertained the huge crowd at London’s Grosvenor Hotel. For “Boris,” as he is universally known, it was the latest in a long strategy of letting Britain’s most powerful ethnic community know that they can count on him. He followed that up last week with a trademark witty denunciation of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration.

“The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.” It was a response that delighted the British chattering classes. Typical Boris! A suitably witty quip from a man regarded as humorous as he is unkempt, and a celebrity among the ranks of anonymous political suits.

Probably only the Prime Minister himself enjoys more name recognition than London’s Mayor. Journalist, broadcaster, author and most of all, politician, the showbiz crowd-pulling power of “Boris” crosses party boundaries.

His tousle-haired, blonde charm is legendary and he has buckets of that most elusive political quality “likeability.” Part of the appeal is the stuttering,  affable, upper-class buffoon act which seems cribbed entirely from the role Hugh Grant played in the film Four Weddings and a Funeral. The ‘act’ is not just his persona.  In fact he was christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and is called ‘Al’ by his family; “Boris” is a kind of stage name.

Deeply concealed though, is the driving ambition. His rivalry with David Cameron may have its roots in their school days at Eton or university at Oxford. Although a few years apart, it was Boris Johnson who struck most as “the man most likely to.” Their relationship has caused so much speculation it was even turned into a TV drama.
In the event, Cameron became Prime Minister while Boris was given the consolation prize of Mayor of London and used it to raise his profile even higher. Some thought he may have given up his plans for the top job when Cameron was so decisively re-elected last May but Boris’s ambition burns more fiercely than ever. How do we know?

Well, there is the ceaseless defence of the City of London — Britain’s bankers have no greater supporter than Boris. And then there is the informal campaign group and fan club dubbed the “friends of Boris” which seems to be on permanent stand-by.
But no Conservative politician can reach the top without the approval of the Jewish financial elite in Britain. And Boris has embarked on a long-term campaign of “signalling” to them that could not have been more blatant if he had hired a Goodyear advertisement blimp. There is the insistence that he is a “one-man melting pot” because he was born in New York and has French, Jewish, English and Turkish blood. There is the adulatory Winston Churchill biography. An addition to the vast Churchill lexicon is not exactly what the world needs, but it is a not-so-subtle pointer that the neocon agenda in general and Zionist foreign policy in particular, are safe with him.

There was the unlikely “row” over a trip to Palestinian areas which caused headlines when it was cancelled due to his pro-Israel remarks. There was the tearful visit to Yad Vashem.  There was his dismissal of Israel’s critics as “snaggle toothed lefties.” There was his repeated insistence, trotted out again only this week, that he will continue to stand up for Israel after his Mayorship ends.

And then there are his new associates. At the last Norwood banquet Johnson was seen congratulating the newly-appointed President of the Norwood charity, former political lobbyist Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn.  They bump into each other a lot. They were hobnobbing when Boris addressed a dinner at north London’s most prominent local synagogue with the Chief Rabbi. And at a tech conference Boris shared the stage with Lord Mendelsohn’s high-powered wife. Nicola Mendelsohn is the most powerful Facebook executive outside the USA and husband and wife are often described as a “power couple” .

It is hardly surprising that he should be seen conferring with a well-connected political fixer from the powerful Jewish community.  What is surprising is that Lord Mendelsohn is a serving House of Lords spokesman for — and member of — the Labour Party.
A former Labour Friends of Israel chair and trustee of the Holocaust Education Trust, he was a key link man between Number 10 Downing Street and the business community, and he personally fund-raised for both Blair as well as his successor Gordon Brown. After working for Blair for some years, he launched his lobbying company LLM almost immediately after Labour was elected in 1997. It quickly gained a reputation which has been memorably summarised by the influential Guido Fawkes website thus:
In Westminster there is no murkier business than lobbying and of all the sleazy lobbyists there is no sleazier firm than LLM — Lawson, Lucas, Mendelsohn. Famous for cash-for-access scandals, representing opposing sides on legislation and generally being the scummiest lobbying firm in the Westminster village with coincidentally the closest links to New Labour.
At 10 Downing Street in the early nineties, Jonathan Mendelsohn and his mentor Michael Levy were quite the fund-raising doubles-act. It was a time when the Jewish business community moved into a driving role in the building up of New Labour and this led to snide media references to the “Kosher Nostra.” As a revealing article in the Guardian noted:
New Labour elevated a pre-existing Jewish network to national importance — and therein lies the problem. The Jewish community has long preferred to attempt to influence the political process through discreet advocacy and relationship building rather than through public demonstrations and campaigning. This discretion is rooted in long-standing concerns to be seen as good British citizens, to not show ingratitude to the “hospitality” of this country. British politics since the 1990s has witnessed a paradoxical process in which lobbying has become ever more important to government, yet ever more the object of public suspicion.
Wealthy Jewish backers did not want their bankrolling of the party revealed because it did not look good. This presented an interesting problem for Labour’s fundraisers. So, various wheezes were dreamed up by which the identity of donors could be concealed. One was to disguise donations as “loans” to the party, a second was hand-outs to favoured think-tanks or charities, and a third was the use of third-party proxies in whose name donations were made.

And Mendelsohn’s own lobbying firm LLM was dragged into the mire time and again. There were the newspaper exposés revealing practices that looked suspiciously like cash-for-access. There was the time that LLM’s client, the — Jewish owned — Tesco supermarket chain donated £12 million to Labour’s The Dome arena project. This coincided with the dropping of a proposed car park tax that could have cost Tesco £20 million.

Mendelsohn’s company became embroiled in another sleaze row when he was Labour’s chief fund raiser. On his watch it turned out that approximately £650,000 of donations were channelled through three third party “proxies” in a manoeuvre designed to conceal the identity of a Jewish millionaire.  Despite calls for the lobbyist’s head  over this one, the Labour Party decided to believe Mendelsohn’s pleas that it had nothing to do with him.

Then there was the sleazy gambling machine episode. Britain underwent a gambling boom in the nineties. The spread of a new generation of highly-addictive gambling machines netted huge profits for operators — but were also a scourge in poorer, more vulnerable communities. Poverty advocates, including the Salvation Army, campaigned for tighter controls. This should have been a sensitive issue for a Labour Party which was still masquerading as a defender of the poor.

Blair’s government did eventually act, but all it was interested in was grabbing a bigger slice of the gambling machine profits through taxation. At the time the huge Jewish-owned betting shop chain Ladbrokes was seeking to reduce its exposure to this tax.[1]

To fight the proposed tax, Ladbrokes retained LLM whose lobbying strategy was later leaked and gave an eye-opening glimpse into a murky world indeed.  It revealed that LLM’s campaign involved a lobbying blitz targeted at ministers, MPs and civil servants. The campaign was notable for the lavish hospitality showered on these upstanding government servants, including  trips to continental race courses. The leak derailed one of the civil servant’s job applications to join Ladbroke’s parent company. His name was Gideon Hoffman.
LLM’s lobbying strategy paid off and the Labour government’s plan to tax the gambling machines was quietly dropped.  Instead of controlling the industry, the new Gambling Act paved the way for Britain’s first super-casino (eight more are planned).

Boris Johnson also has no compunction about being pictured with another figure from the sleazy world of fund raising — Lord Michael Levy who was a bag man for Tony Blair. From the moment he entered parliament Tony Blair was an enthusiastic member of Friends of Israel. But it was at a dinner party at the home of an Israeli diplomat in 1994 that Blair, the newly appointed leader of the Labour Party, met the man who was to bankroll his private office when he reached Number 10.  Michael Levy was a wealthy former record label owner who again, was seen as a gatekeeper to the wealthy Jewish figures whose names pop up again and again on the board of large charities — he was a former chair of Jewish Care, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

Potential donors would be invited for tennis at his palatial “hacienda” style home where Tony Blair would join them for a set or two. Levy would then proceed to ask the guests for donations after Blair had left.

When Blair became Prime Minister, Levy’s efforts paid off big time. Levy was subsequently ennobled as Lord Levy and then appointed as a ‘special envoy’ to the Middle-East, leading predictably to the development of a strong pro-Israel line. This drew much critical comment as Levy had both a house and business in Israel and Levy’s son Daniel used to work for the former Justice Minister of Israel. The fact that Levy acted as a fundraiser for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak cast further doubt on his capacity for impartiality.

But it all ended in tears, scandal, and police investigations. Lord Levy was arrested by police three times on suspicion that cash was being exchanged for peerages. (Predictably, police could not make the allegations stick and law officers decided not to prosecute.)

Each row seemed to have common characteristics.  They involved Jewish businessmen, deception and apparent willingness to go to great lengths to achieve their goals, knowing that they had friends in high places in case things went wrong. There is no suggestion that Levy and Mendelsohn’s connections and access to Jewish funds gave them immunity, but it was striking how they emerged, if not smelling of roses, then unscathed, after each row.

Since then both men have prospered.  After leaving politics without a stain on his reputation, Lord Levy is still glad-handing and schmoozing on behalf of his favourite Jewish charities. Lord Mendelsohn sold his company for £10 million and is now a Labour shadow minister in the House of Lords.   At his induction he was accompanied by old friends and allies Lord Levy and Lord Greville Janner, the alleged pederast, who himself, of course, is no stranger to controversy.

Boris Johnson is doubtless quite aware of all this and is using it to ascend the corridors of power by taking full advantage of Jewish political consultants. Even his successful campaign to become President of the Oxford Union was won only with the help of a Jewish adviser who was to become a prominent political consultant in the US, Frank Luntz — which reminds us that a similar situation obtains in the US, except that Donald Trump’s candidacy is notable for eschewing the usual bowing and scraping before Jewish money.

Boris will step down after the next Mayoral elections are held in May. As his successor to the Mayorship, he is grooming another fellow Old Etonian, Zac Goldsmith, whose marriage to a Rothschild heiress represented a union of two of world’s wealthiest Jewish banking dynasties.

And curiously enough it is the Jewish and banking constituencies which may be most important if he tries to lead the Conservative Party. If he does make a bid for the top job, you can guarantee that Boris Johnson will have done his best to make sure he has all the right friends in the right places.

[1] Ladbrokes was owned by a controversial Jewish businessman and philanthropist called Cyril Stein who lost his gaming licences in the early eighties after a regulator decided he was not a “fit and proper person.”

The Voice of the American Right: The Political Cesspool Radio Show for 12/19/2015

via The Political Cesspool

Last night’s show featured excerpts from some of the most classic Christmas carols of all-time and was very uplifting! The program was highlighted by our interview during the second hour with Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, which turned into what was probably the most profound discussion we’ve ever had on the role of men and the proper structure of family. His views on “racism” were equally impressive. Be sure to listen to each hour, while paying especially close attention to the second one.

Here’s an hour by hour breakdown of the December 19 broadcast:
Radio Show Hour 1
Hosts James Edwards and Keith Alexander read Christmas cards sent in by listeners from around the world before discussing the brawl between two elected officials in Birmingham and the desecration of Confederate monuments in New Orleans.
Radio Show Hour 2
Guest: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson – Eight years after they appeared on CNN together, Rev. Peterson rejoins James Edwards to discuss his new book, The Antidote: Healing America From The Poison Of Hate, Blame And Victimhood. Jesse Lee is frequently seen on major TV networks and is the founder of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny.
Radio Show Hour 3
Guest: Sam Bushman – The talk radio legend joins James to discuss the majesty of Christmas and the power of talk radio! James wraps up our final show before Christmas by reading the Biblical accounting of the Christmas story as documented by the Gospel of Luke.
If you missed our live show, click here to access our most recent program podcasts, or click here to access the complete broadcast archive dating back to 2004.


Less than two weeks remain in TPC’s crucial fourth quarter fundraising drive and we need your urgent help to stay on the air. We ask that you please remember us during this Christmas season and help provide us with the gift of being able to continue our service.

Where Have all the "Leftist" Blogs Gone?

via TradYouth

Ever wonder why there are no real blogs by leftists? Perplexing, don’t you think?

Any person on the internet who identifies as a conservative and has the compulsion to write in any capacity will generally start a blog or can find one with whom to write.  And for the ones who don’t care to write there are plenty of blogs to choose from.

If you’re a liberal or an anti-racist and you’re looking for a good blog?  Good luck.  Daryle Lamont Jenkins’s One People’s Project continues to sputter along while the rest of the leftist blogs are worse than two old ladies scheming together on how to kill the neighbor’s cat.  I’ve been searching for some time now trying to find a legitimate leftist blog.  I can’t find any legitimate left-wing movement blogs, and the only ones I do find are more concerned about DoXXing and chronicling what “the Nazis” are up to than with teaching and educating anybody as to why their school of thought is correct.  What do they think they’re doing, keeping a running tally and list of grievances?  No, their entire collective argument is one messy argumentum ad bacculum: Agree with me or I’ll smash you!

And liberals will still claim to be oppressed and disenfranchised despite the fact that every major corporation supports their world view.
And liberals will still claim to be oppressed and disenfranchised despite the fact that every major corporation supports their world view

It is not the case that we have a great dearth of leftist writing.  The fact of the matter is that we have a glut of leftist writing, and that most of it comes from major news and advocacy outlets such as The Daily BeastDaily Kos, Salon, Buzzfeed, Now This News or any of another variety of click-bait social media “news” platforms.  Liberals and leftists have just as many news outlets to choose from as we do.  The difference is theirs are almost exclusively corporate entities that we would contemporarily identify as “big business” whereas ours are almost entirely long-term projects by teams of dedicated activists.  This estimate doesn’t even include every print newspaper in the country.  No matter which news outlet that a leftist turns to (except for maybe Breitbart and Fox News) can be expected to enthusiastically affirm their liberal narrative.

Where are the small-time liberal bloggers for the left?

I guess it’s unfair of me to say that there are no liberal bloggers, because there are leftists who like to self-publish.  The trouble is that most of them are confined to Tumblr, Reddit, Facebook or other social media platforms.  The ones who do write typically don’t do more than brood about perceived social inequalities, poor racial equity or the wondrous new state of The Current Year™®.  And it begs the question…  Why aren’t there any well known leftists blogs that do more than bitch and moan about “the Nazis(!)”?

The answer is that they don’t need to focus on anything except for us.  You won’t find any leftist blogs that teach their philosophy because Big Corp. and MSM are already doing it for them.  The only thing that the leftists and anti-racist communities need to do is scheme up which new overly obvious false flag, failed street fight and poorly disguised anti-white information campaign to embark upon.  The only thing that leftists need to do is attack anyone who disagrees with them.  That’s pretty fucking sad.  The only argument that leftists can make involves “check your privilege!” and throwing stones.  All they have is fear, and somehow they keep getting away with it.

But, why does anybody write in response to something?  This is like asking “why did the chicken cross the road?”.  The simple speech-act itself must be considered in conjunction with the exigency that it seeks to solve or create.  Speech-acts are performed in the public sphere so as to bring about a certain goal or condition, and so too can it be used to prevent or reverse certain goals and conditions.  More simply, we publicly speak and perform advocacy to either get what we want or to stop others from getting what they want.

The most salient exigency we’re dealing with right now has to do with Syrians, and people who claim to be Syrian, defrauding Europeans and Americans via their exceptionally generous refugee programs.  The host countries’ citizens are generally opposed to receiving immivaders, and many are starting to realize that this was a terrible and grave idea.  So, what gives?  Why are our leaders ignoring our pleas for moderation?  Simple.  Somebody is asking them to ignore us.

It’s simply uncanny in the way that every time we have a crisis that involves destroying and perverting our identity, religion or accepted social practices that there is always a Jew involved.  This “refugee crisis” is no different.  The folks over at The New Observer have noticed that every major Jewish organization in America has called for Americans to accept refugees.  No, you won’t find them advocating for Israel to accept more refugees, and in fact Israel won’t accept any refugees because they know it’s a terrible idea that will destabilize their (illegitimate) country.

This is why conservatives like us write and speak, we do not agree with what is happening and we are trying to stop it.  Have you figured out yet why liberals and anti-racists don’t write?  It’s because they agree with and support this wholesale destabilization and destruction of everything that has come to form us as Americans.  Where’s a good sedition prosecutor when you need him???  (McCarthy, we could really use your help right now…).

We on the Right can’t expect all of our supporters to be writers and authors, and neither would that be a long-term solution because the conclusion to any speech-act is to gain or exercise political power.  We speak to achieve political ends, and we need your support now more than ever.  The newly formed Traditionalist Worker Party is here to speak for the White working class and to make sure your political power is being flexed for the benefit of our people.  Amplify your voice, amplify your action.  We’re here for you.

Every Nation Is a "Nation of Immigrants:" Brief Remarks on the Poverty of US Discourse on Immigration

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Leftist and Jewish support for liberal immigration policies is often coupled with superficial arguments, weak analogies, and hollow rhetoric; a prime example is the argument that the US, as a "nation of immigrants," is obliged to carry this fact to its logical conclusion and liberalize its immigration policy. I argue that every nation is a "nation of immigrants" and that this has no political implications, much less liberalized immigration.

As of this writing, the page dedicated to US immigration on the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) website, which tracks "hate speech" and monitors "anti-Semitic" behavior in the US, and is a fervent supporter of the State of Israel, has a button with the words: "We are a nation of immigrants." This page lists several resources and links, and it even includes a link to comments and remarks on John F. Kennedy's, A Nation of Immigrants.

Mark Zuckerberg, the Jewish founder of Facebook, in pushing for amnesty and donating to undocumented immigrants, argued that "America was founded as a nation of immigrants" and, consequently, that "We ought to help young people from every nation..."

Barack Obama has regurgitated this phrase repeatedly, and the White House's website has a page dedicated to elaborating to Americans why they should open their hearts to others who, like we were at one time, "strangers, too." The claim is that America's origins lay with people who arrived here from other countries. Like Zuckerberg and the ADL, Obama wants America to liberalize its immigration policy, and disregard any real criteria.[1]

This argument is pervasive in US discourse and rhetoric on immigration. Leftists, Jews, and even some on the "right" use it. The claim, at root, is that America is not defined by racial or ethnic heritage, but rather as a plurality of peoples who have "immigrated" to America. To see the full implications of this argument, and how it is flawed, it is necessary to distill it. Its basic logical structure can be identified; distilled, its form is something like this:
Premise 1: All "nations of immigrants" are not defined by ethnicity or race.
Premise 2: America is a "nation of immigrants."
Conclusion: America is not defined by ethnicity or race. 
The concomitant of the conclusion is that US immigration policy should be less restrictive, or even omit racial and ethnic considerations, since America is not defined by race.

Premise 2 is actually true, but I will discuss it later; its truth, however, must be viewed in relation to what is often understood about being a "nation of immigrants" in US popular discourse. Premise 1 is false, based on the nature of the truth of Premise 2. Once Premise 1 and 2 are properly understood, the falsity of Premise 1 ensures that the Conclusion does not follow from the stated premises. This is an unsound deductive argument.

The argument is deceptively persuasive, for several reasons. One is that the argument is based on a valid deductive argument form. Here is the distilled argument form:
Premise 1: All N are not-R.
Premise 2: A is an N.
Conclusion: A is not-R.
Arguments of all sorts, legitimate or not, can use this same argument form. An example of an argument that is legitimate and sound is this: All nourishing foods are not poisonous, fresh apple is nourishing food, and in conclusion, a fresh apple is not poisonous.

Both the apple argument and the "nation of immigrants" argument use the above form, but while the apple argument is valid and sound, and legitimately persuasive, the "nation of immigrants" argument is unsound and illegitimate. The "nation of immigrants" argument uses a false premise, and the conclusion cannot follow from the premises, as a result. The "nation of immigrants" argument should not persuade anyone that hears or reads it.

The National Review published a critique of the "nations of immigrants" argument. It accepts the basic claims of the argument, but argues that it means nothing, politically; Americans should not be compelled to liberalize immigration policy further, because of it.

My argument rests on a different basis. The claim that America is a "nation of immigrants" is trivially true, because all nations are "nations of immigrants." It is true that America was founded by immigrants who came from another place. But what people, of what nation, has not originated with "immigrants" who arrived from somewhere else? Every people originates with a founding population: People journeying to a destination from elsewhere.

The ancestors of modern-day Britons were immigrants when they came to the British Isles. Likewise, the ancestors of modern-day Germans immigrated to the territory of modern-day Germany. The ancestors of both moved into continental Europe, as did the Neanderthals that came to continental Europe, before them. American Indians immigrated from Asia to North America, across the Bering Straight, and continued moving about, further.

The history of humanity is but a unique instance of the history of organic life; likewise, the history of America is but a unique instance in the history of all nations. There is nothing that distinguishes the fact that America originates with immigrants from any other nation, just as there is nothing to distinguish the fact that human beings have sought out new living space, from other organisms. There is no basis for separating either of these.

When a founding population, whether it is a population consisting of birds, lizards, turtles, or human beings, settles in a place, that population will continue to act to segregate itself from members of other subspecies (that is, races). This is exactly what happened in colonial America. European settlers did not grant citizenship to non-Europeans, and they did not allow large numbers of non-Europeans to settle even as non-citizens.
 The same holds for the ancestors of modern-day Chinese, Germans, and Mexicans. People move around, and they take up residency somewhere; a nation in its infancy starts with a founding population that arrives from elsewhere, and so long as there is nothing to constrict the descendants of that founding population, it will try to preserve its identity.
The point is that the first premise in the "nation of immigrants" argument could not possibly be true. A "nation of immigrants," whether it is Germany, China, Mexico, or Afghanistan, will work to preserve a reasonable degree of racial homogeneity, even if there is a degree of ethnic heterogeneity within the population. The same applies to other nations; there will be numbers of non-indigenous racial aliens in most nations and most peoples.

Political ideology, derived from the Civil War, two World Wars, and constant anti-racial postwar propaganda, has diminished America's early European-based racial identity. Without the two World Wars, and especially World War II, the momentum to racially diversify and pluralize America would never have gained traction nor culminated in the 1965 Immigration Act. America's current racial diversity is owed to this political ideology.

The argument that because America is a "nation of immigrants," whose founding population consisted of foreigners, should not only disregard racial or ethnic criteria but further loosen any relevant criteria for immigration, exploits a trivially true fact of America's early history that happens to be true for most nations in the world. Applying it consistently would cause every unique people, of every nation on Earth, to wither into abstraction.

[1] America, in fact, already has a "liberal" immigration policy. From 1925 to 1965, America used racial quotas to determine how many immigrants of each racial and ethnic group could immigrate to America. The 1965 Immigration Act abolished quotas. What Obama, the ADL, other Jewish and leftist groups, and Zuckerberg are trying to do is liberalize our policy even further, to not only disregard racial and ethnic issues but make immigration even easier, and make citizenship easy even for foreigners who arrive in America criminally.

Authority and Compliance

via Alternative Right

"The experiment requires that you continue."
Compliance, a barely-known and rarely-discussed 2012 film written and directed by Craig Zobel, features a thoroughly unglamorous, no-name cast and is set almost entirely in the most familiar and ubiquitous of establishments: a fast-food restaurant somewhere in the heart of the large swath of country known as "Middle America." Yet this thoroughly unnerving film manages to create an atmosphere of unbearable suspense and creeping horror without introducing any blood, violence, or pyrotechnics whatsoever.

The central premise of Compliance is indeed more disquieting than any "torture porn": the movie suggests that people generally would rather obey authority, even at the expense of their own moral beliefs, than challenge or resist a supposed "man in charge." Instead of fighting, they would sooner meekly allow themselves to be degraded, molested, and violated; worse, they are at least as likely to become equally hapless instruments of degradation, molestation, and violation against others, all to avoid being a bother to someone who claims the power to demand compliance from them.

Compliance, which purports to be based on a true story, in fact takes its cue from the famous — and, one might with justice say, deeply shocking — experiments conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, which appeared to confirm that human beings will indeed follow nearly any orders, as long as said orders are delivered authoritatively by someone with an imposing presence and a forceful voice.

But Compliance adds texture to the Milgram thesis by confronting us with the ways in which we sometimes positively yearn for just such an authority figure in our lives, to justify our doing the sort of things that we would like to do anyway, but lack the nerve to justify to ourselves. Yet if a Man In Charge tells us that it's okay, then we have license to indulge those wicked impulses, from which the better angels of our nature held us in check before the external authority figure managed to override our conscience.


The pivotal character in "Compliance" is Sandra (Ann Dowd), manager of a "ChickWich" franchise at an indeterminate location in suburban Ohio. Sandra is a frumpy middle-aged spinster whose strict, stalwart work ethic belies a deep and fearful personal insecurity. We get the clear sense that this competent but somewhat pitiful woman would like to "fit in" better, particularly with her younger employees, and most particularly with Becky (Dreama Walker), a pretty teenage blonde.

Sandra resents Becky for being young, attractive, and popular. So when a call comes in from a man claiming to be "Detective Daniels" of the local police force, apprising her that a customer has claimed that Becky stole a wad of cash from her at the counter, and asking Sandra to detain the girl until the police are able to show up at the scene, she is altogether eager to be of service, inwardly relishing the opportunity of helping to bring low the alpha-female prom queen.

Ann Dowd in "Compliance"
Of course it doesn't stop there. The "detective" speaks to both Sandra and Becky (they obediently hand the phone back and forth when instructed to do so), claiming now that he is with a squad at Becky's house, uncovering a huge and scandalous criminal operation involving both the teenager and her supposedly drug-dealing older brother. Since it will be a while longer before any of his men will be able to arrive at the "ChickWich," he asks Sandra to strip-search Becky in order to see whether she has stashed the cash anywhere on her person. Becky, for her part, is mortified by the idea, claiming insistently that she hasn't stolen anything. Still, she agrees to remove her clothes, thinking that by doing so she can finally show everyone the truth. Daniels then commands Sandra to take the girl's clothes to her car, leaving Becky naked in the employee break room. (A sympathetic co-worker gives the now weeping and distraught girl an apron so she may at least partially cover herself.)

It soon becomes clear — as we have suspected from the start — that "Detective Daniels" is a fraud; he is in truth no police officer, but a man calling from his house, engaging in a terrible scam, apparently for no other purpose than to get his sadistic jollies. Like Dr. Milgram, he speaks authoritatively and cajoles or threatens nearly everyone with whom he speaks into doing his will, and no one challenges him or questions his status. Meanwhile he opens his refrigerator and fixes himself a sandwich.

The plot thickens still more when Van, Sandra's dim-witted and drunken boyfriend, a paunchy fellow pushing 50, shows up at the scene. The bogus "Detective Daniels" is able to recruit Van to take the prank to a horrifying new level. Van gives off a slightly seedy vibe, though he generally seems docile and harmless; such a one as he would be easy to manipulate even with all of his faculties intact; inebriated as he is, the man is simply putty in the hands of his master.
Van: paunchy putty in the hands of an adept manipulator.
The faux-detective directs this unfortunate man to keep an eye on Becky, the cute blonde wearing only an apron in the back room. Sandra is well aware of where her fiancé is during this whole time; strangely, she fears nothing going amiss, since the Man In Charge directing Van's movements is (she thinks) an officially appointed authority figure, who presumably can neither do wrong himself nor influence anyone else to do wrong. Detective Daniels solemnly informs Van that the first strip search of Becky wasn't thorough enough; he'll have to make her remove the apron and then do jumping jacks, to jar loose the money she must have hidden in some crevice of her body. What's more, Becky needs to learn some respect for her elders; Daniels directs Van to command Becky to call him "sir." And afterward, the "detective" promises, she'll be made to do something else for Van, something to reward him for all of his untiring efforts to see that justice prevails and that wrongs are righted...

We don't see all that happens next, but we see enough to know that neither Van nor Becky calls a halt to the increasingly lurid and debased proceedings. When Van leaves a few minutes later, it is hard not to feel sorry for him; he wears the expression of one keenly aware that he has behaved monstrously, out of obedience to inner lusts he would ordinarily have forsworn, all to placate a voice on a telephone who claimed to know what was for the best. Deep down, Van knows that he always knew better. Indeed, when he gets on the phone with a friend, he sadly announces, "I've done a bad thing."

The truly chilling aspect of this final degradation of both compliant victim and artfully recruited victimizer is suggested in a final scene that subtly puts a new perspective on the entirety of what has taken place.

While gleefully manipulating his human marionettes via phone to the final and most devastatingly horrific violation, the man pretending to be the detective sits at his desk and calmly lights a cigarette. That gesture conveys a sense of cruel detachment from the havoc he has wreaked. Eventually, though, we briefly meet the real detective summoned to investigate the malignant prank caller who caused all the chaos and confusion. In a long shot in which we see the true investigator's face as he drives to the crime scene, he too pulls out a cigarette, lights it, and puffs away.

The fact that this gesture of the "real" cop mirrors that of the "fake" one isn't meant to imply moral equivalence between the two characters, or to suggest that if given a chance, the actual investigator would behave just as wickedly as the impostor has. Rather, it's meant to make us wonder: just how does a supposedly "legitimate" demand of compliance from a "legitimate" source — that is to say, from an agent of the state — differ from that of an "illegitimate" one?

There appears to be no satisfying answer to this question. Thus, one is prompted concomitantly to wonder if one truly has any obligation to comply with any authority that demands our allegiance, be that authority officially sanctioned or, as it were, independently asserted. After all, anytime we are compliant to one who claims power over us, our compliance comes at great peril to our lives, our well-being, and everything important to us. Far better to be defiant, even if such a choice leads to our being held in contempt by the powers that be. For in that case, we will surely be able to return the favor.