Blog

Monitoring Genocidal Immigration and Anti-White Discrimination

3 Comments

2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.

* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race – Print race.

Explanations provided by census.gov:

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

What is Person 1’s race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority – Minority births on track to outnumber white births  | ajc.com:

Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the “tipping point” when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census – USATODAY.com:

When Barack Obama was elected the nation’s first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.

At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA’s demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.

“It’s showing that tomorrow’s children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society,” says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.

“The issue isn’t just multirace,” says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “It’s the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down.”

The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds – New York Times.

Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to “monitor compliance”, “assess fairness”, and “monitor racial disparities”, discriminating in favor of “protected classes”:

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII’s protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a “business necessity.”

This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.

The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

What is genocide?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:

1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.

The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of “protected classes” are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.

Blog

Sailer on Sherman

5 Comments

In “Depression v. Nervous Breakdown”, Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year’s campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, “Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.”

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term “nervous breakdown” and blames “the concerns of command.” In contrast, James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term “depression,” and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn’t likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant’s Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the “Department of the Tennessee,” an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Blog

Genocidal Immigration and Anti-Nativism in Britain

27 Comments


Gates of Vienna: Ethnically Cleansing the English, by Paul Weston:

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

Fjordman said…

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn’t realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing,” thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?

It’s time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the “free and democratic West.” If “democracy” means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for?

Fuchur said…

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here

I cannot take someone serious who uses the words “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in that context. Just look at the word “genocide”: “Killing” is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there – how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.

This is racism, in it’s purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn’t all that bad and so on… but please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn’t racisim. Really. It’s just too ridiculous…

Paul Weston said…

@Fuchur

Curious name, curious morals.

You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.

You must hate the white race with a passion!

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”

You see, no mention of the word killing…

Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.

Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?

Yes or no.

Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.

The genocidal regime in Britain, and indeed in all White countries, agrees with Fuchur.

BNP ‘whites-only’ membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk:

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party’s rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration.

Our enemies see concern for the interests of indigenous Whites as “racist”, and not being “racist” against alien interlopers takes precedence over the desire of native Whites to ensure our very existence. That they have the power to legalize their crimes does not absolve them of responsibility.

Blog

Shaming the Shameless

8 Comments

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I’m glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He’s notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island”, see Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.

Blog

Austarded

5 Comments

Prompted by the links discussed in Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time, Auster writes My November 2007 response to Tanstaafl about the First Law and the Jews.

He begins by rephrasing his “First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society” for the Nth time:

The First Law refers to a liberal majority’s concealment of the negative truths about minorities who are visibly dysfunctional, alien, or threatening: the more dysfunctional or dangerous they are, the more their negative qualities are denied and are blamed on the majority.

He goes on to deny that jews are dysfunctional. One of his commenters gets him to dissemble about their alien nature. He doesn’t address “threatening” or “dangerous”. His own reaction to the idea that his law applies to jews provides a vivid example of the law in action. He admits he was thinking of blacks and muslims and didn’t consider jews when he formulated this version for John Savage (his emphasis):

As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

The new, shorter version is missing the reference to “racism”. How convenient. Most of the rest of Auster’s comments are an attack on Chechar and myself for “anti-semitism”, that extra special form of “racism” most noted for its use in covering up the crimes, misbehavior, and dysfunctions of an extra special “minority”.

Auster could have called his law “The Law That Covers Everbody Except Jews”. Too late, it’s The First Law of Jewish Influence now.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light