Tag Archives: immigration

Blog

Why Labor Leaders Favor Genocidal Immigration

12 Comments

It’s jewish “social justice”.

New Labor Leaders Take a Page From History, from The Jewish Daily Forward:

Washington — If you want to see the movers and shakers behind the tumult in today’s labor movement, the place to be is Stephen Lerner and Marilyn Sneiderman’s modest home in Washington after sunset concludes Judaism’s holiest day of the year.

Last year’s dinner had an air of momentous imminence, coming, as it did, on the eve of Barack Obama’s election as president, amid a world economic crisis that recalled the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s. The labor movement itself was approaching the end of a year in which it would record an uptick in union membership for the second time in a row after decades of decline. Lerner began the evening by telling his guests, “The months and years ahead are our chance, our moment to be part of making history.”

Lerner and the other Break Fast attendees are at the core of a resurgence of Jewish involvement in the labor movement. Like the legendary Jewish labor leaders of the ’30s, the folks at Lerner’s house by no means represent a majority of union leaders. But like those earlier leaders, they are exerting an outsized influence, working at the front end of some of the most innovative, and occasionally divisive, union campaigns of today.

“When you are there, you physically experience the number of Jews in Washington who are in the labor movement — but also the larger passion for social justice that is driving that,” Lerner told the Forward.

There is, of course, a firm precedent for this quiet, mostly unacknowledged trend. Before World War II, an explicitly Jewish labor movement was an engine of change for the broader American society. Morris Hillquit helped found the United Hebrew Trades labor federation in 1888, and in the ’30s this body morphed into the Jewish Labor Committee, which was one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America. At that time, the heads of the heavily Jewish garment unions — men like David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman — helped pass the legislation that created America’s social safety net and labor protections. These were Eastern European immigrants who had risen from the factory floors and moved easily among the labor community, the Jewish community and the leftist political world.

The current moment shares many similarities with the ’30s, due to the election of a president friendly to labor, the plunge in the stock market, and the resulting openness to new economic models and social reforms. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently moving slowly through Congress, is said to be the most significant labor legislation since the ’30s.

But the labor leaders of today are a very different breed from those of the ’30s. Jewish union leaders such as Stern of the SEIU and Booth of AFSCME — along with Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America; Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Bruce Raynor, general president of Unite-Here — did not rise up from the working class. They have college degrees and are part of a new, sophisticated leadership that has come to the fore over the past decade and devised innovative tactics to battle the labor movement’s long decline.

“You really have the leaders of some of the largest unions — certainly some of the most progressive unions — being Jews,” said Simon Greer, a former labor activist and the current president of the Jewish Funds for Justice. “That comes out of history — and it ties back to the history.”

Unlike in the ’30s, many of the Jews involved in the labor movement today have little affiliation with the organized Jewish community — and the presence of Jews in the labor movement can be an uncomfortable topic at times, because of the relative paucity of Jews in the rank and file of union membership. But for many inside the labor movement, the Jewish presence — not just in leadership roles, but also throughout the professional staff — occasionally becomes so obvious that it cannot be ignored.

“One night last Passover, I was here trying to finish something just before Seder, and people were like, why are you here?” said Jessica Champagne, a young researcher at the SEIU. “There are just those moments where you realize that whether or not people are observant, there are a lot of Jewish folks who have found their way here.”

– – –

Despite some continuity between the earlier generation of Jewish labor leaders and the current one, the two are not connected by a simple unbroken line.

While the Jewish garment unions were national players before World War II, their political clout afterward began to fade. Then, it was industrial unions, like the steel workers, autoworkers and teamsters, that became the face of the union movement. These tended to have few Jewish members. Because many of these unions had a policy of taking leaders from the rank and file, there ended up being few big Jewish labor leaders.

“Labor was not particularly welcoming” back then, recalled Marshall Ganz, the son of a rabbi who got involved in social movements in the 1960s.

When he left the Cesar Chavez-run United Farm Workers — a progressive and open labor group — Ganz said: “For me to go work for a [conventional] union would have been a strange thing. The unions had to be reopened to a certain extent.”

This was the situation when one of the most prominent labor leaders of today, Stern, became involved. Stern joined his union of government social workers in 1972 after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school. Sitting recently at the SEIU’s sleek new headquarters in Washington, Stern told the Forward that back then, “my vision of unions was Teamster white guys and construction workers.”

Stern himself had become a social activist through his involvement in protests against the Vietnam War. But under AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a staunch anti-communist, the big unions had lined up in support of the war.

“The first thing I learned about unions was not a very good one,” said Stern. “In 1968 or 9, I was watching construction workers beat up anti-war protesters.”

But then, after Stern was elected to lead his local union, he attended the meetings of the local labor council in Philadelphia. There, he ran into a number of holdouts from the Jewish garment unions, and other Jewish union activists who “had a kind of ethical, cultural set of values that I understood better than people who had grown up in a more working-class — in many cases, Catholic — background.”

“I had never thought of the union movement as a place of Jewish activism in my growing up,” Stern said. His father had been a lawyer for small businesses in suburban New Jersey. But, Stern said, he saw at the Philadelphia labor council that “there was really a disproportionate number of labor leaders who were Jewish in major positions — and a lot of them were ones that were more involved in, I would say, the more progressive side of the labor movement.”

This was not true in many other parts of the country — and in many parts of the labor movement at that time. Stern said he sometimes thinks back on the serendipity of where he got his start.

“I always think, what would have happened if I had started my union career in, say, Ohio?” Stern said. “I don’t know what would have happened if there hadn’t been a lot of Jewish leaders. It just didn’t seem odd where I was to be a labor leader and be Jewish.”

– – –

The progressive tradition that Stern noticed was legendary in an earlier era. Tony Michels, a professor of Jewish and labor history at the University of Wisconsin, said that in the ’30s, labeling a union as Jewish was often a shorthand way of describing its socialist politics. A number were further to the left, which is to say, communist.

The two most powerful Jewish unions were the ones for workers in the men’s and women’s garment industries in New York City — the largest unions in the city at that time. It was no coincidence that both unions had close ties to the nation’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Daily Forward, with executives moving frequently between the publishing offices and the union halls. The head of the women’s garment union, Dubinsky, and the head of the men’s garment union, Hillman, were both immigrants from Eastern Europe who spoke with Yiddish accents. Together they helped found the socialist American Labor Party. Their socialist politics also shaped the unique structure and aims of the garment unions.

“The view of the Jewish socialists was that unions should be a vehicle for social change — not just a defense of narrow interests like wages and hours,” said Michels, who wrote the book “A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York.” “They were involved in cooperative housing, and educational programming and culture. Other unions just weren’t doing that.”

The Jewish labor movement itself was divided internally for decades by a bitter feud between socialists and communists. The socialists originally coalesced between 1897 and 1900 around the Socialist Party founded by Hillquit and Eugene V. Debs. The Forward, founded in 1897, was established originally as an organ for their more moderate views. The communists, who split off from the Socialist Party after the 1917 Russian Revolution, favored a more militant, confrontational approach in the workplace and in politics. The two groups battled for decades over control of union locals, newspapers and even Yiddish schools, until communists were expelled en masse from the major unions in 1948.

Historians and labor activists have given a number of explanations for the distinctive character of the Jewish garment unions. Ray Scannell, a labor researcher and historian, said that unlike many other immigrant groups, Jewish immigrants had already been isolated minorities in the places from which they had migrated. As a result, they were well practiced in banding together to protect their own rights.

“When you go back, one of the interesting things about the history of the Jewish labor movement is that they have these common organizational roots,” said Scannell, who has taught a class on Jewish labor history at the Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center. “Whether it’s in Vilna or Warsaw, or the Lower East Side, the poor and the oppressed in the community know how to organize themselves to protect themselves.”

Scannell, director of research at the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union, has watched these dynamics play out in his own life. He is from an Irish Catholic family in New York, but his wife and children are Jewish, and he has been fascinated to see the lingering influences of history in families like his own.

“It’s such an interesting story, because as Jews in America become more assimilated, nonetheless they continue this idea, that is frankly not as well rooted in the white Protestant community, of community self-help and organization,” Scannell said. “Even as they moved out to the suburbs and married the non-Jews, there was a continuation of these ideals of social justice that connected them back with community traditions that they might not have been entirely aware of.”

– – –

By the 1980s, as Stern was beginning to rise through the SEIU, the progressive spirit in the labor movement had all but disappeared. Union membership was in a tailspin. Federal law had made it more difficult to organize workers, and most of the big unions were committing few resources to organizing new members.

In order to combat the decline, a few peripheral unions began looking to new, more sophisticated strategies to win new members and stop the decline. Both the hotel workers and the SEIU led the charge in hiring college graduates to serve in research departments that had the task of developing elaborate organizing campaigns. Stern and Lerner were both brought into the SEIU leadership during this period by Sweeney, an Irish Catholic labor leader who had gotten his own start in the New York garment unions before becoming the SEIU chief.

A major turning point came when the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of national unions, decided to open up the Organizing Institute, which was designed to provide college graduates a direct entry point into unions so that they would not have to first pass through the rank and file. The institute was founded in 1989 by a young Jew from Kentucky, Richard Bensinger, who had been recruited into the union movement by Richard Rothstein, a Jewish labor organizer and activist at one of the garment unions.

Bensinger, who is a labor consultant today, remembers when his team began looking over applications from college students who wanted to attend the institute.

“It used to be almost a joke. They would all say, ‘I’m interested because my grandmother or my grandfather was in one of the garment unions,’” Bensinger told the Forward. “It was incredible how many people who came to the institute came out of families that were involved with that union. It was application after application.”

Amy Dean, who was the head of the labor council in California’s Silicon Valley during the 1990s, said that in the years after the Organizing Institute was founded, when Sweeney won the presidency of the AFL-CIO, she saw the first steps of a process that brought a “huge influx of Jews coming to the table and wanting to be a part of the labor movement.”

“It was exciting to be in there,” said Dean, who is currently finishing a book on the modern labor movement. “We were looking outward for the first time in many years.”

Dean herself had decided to join the labor movement rather than attend graduate school at the University of Chicago. A number of the other major labor leaders of today came into their unions after law school. This sort of influx has not happened at every union; many unions have maintained old policies of promoting leaders and organizers from the rank and file only. But it has been unions that took people from the outside, such as the SEIU and the hotel workers union, that have experienced the fastest growth. The SEIU, for example, has grown to more than 2 million today under Stern, from 625,000 members in 1980, when Sweeny took its reins.

But there is a potential downside: Stern and others in the new generation of union leadership have been criticized by more traditional union leaders for giving union jobs to people who did not get their start in the working class. The generation of college-educated leaders have also been involved in a number of recent fights that have divided the labor movement (see sidebar). Paul Buhle, a labor historian at Brown University, said that in the current era, when unions are largely trying to organize black and Latino populations, the presence of so many educated Jewish leaders can be an “embarrassing detail.”

“Not to be the rank and file is embarrassing — because Jews are giving orders even in progressive unions,” Buhle said. “It comes back to a conspiratorial view of Jews in American life.”

– – –

The labor movement is, of course, not the only progressive movement that has drawn well-educated Jews, but many progressive Jewish activists say that the labor movement has a different character to it.

On a practical level, the labor movement is one of the few progressive causes offering young people both steady work and a reliable institutional structure — in short, a career. Michael Perry, who works for the AFSCME in Illinois, observed: “These are kids like me, who grew up in middle-class life. They won’t go back and work minimum wage. They want to do justice. But I still have a middle-class job here — with decent wages and benefits.”

But Perry and others also point to the unique historical connection.

“The labor connection is more than 100 years old,” Greer noted. “This puts it in another category than other progressive causes.”

Even with the history, though, the current demographic gap between union membership and leadership has, at times, required some negotiating.

Lerner’s first job was in North Carolina, organizing workers for the garment union. During that campaign, Lerner said, one of the local newspapers wrote an article implying that the organizers were a bunch of “northern Jews and rabble rousers.” Lerner recalled what happened when the organizers next met: “After we all got indignant, we looked around the room, and there really were so many Jews in the room.”

It is no coincidence that the two most prominent films about unions in recent times have both been about the cultural exchanges that happened when a Jewish organizer pushed to organize non-Jewish workers. In the 1979 movie “Norma Rae,” the Northerner is Reuben Warshowsky, who is said to be a composite of a number of Jewish organizers who worked for the textile unions. The more recent movie, “Bread and Roses,” is based on a Jewish organizer, Jono Schaffer, who worked on Lerner’s Justice for Janitors campaign.

While the current generation of Jewish labor leaders has risen up in a largely non-Jewish labor movement, their work has nevertheless helped some of them find their Jewish roots.

Greer got his start at a campaign that was being run by Cohen, who is now the head of the Communication Workers of America. Greer said that at the campaign, known as Jobs With Justice, “I really came into my Jewish identity in noticing that among all these people I was working with, there was a disproportionate number of Jews.”

Greer said it made him want to explore “what led me in my background and what led them in their backgrounds to want to be in this kind of work.”

Outside of organizations like Greer’s, though, the connection is seldom made so explicitly and with such pride. Many Jewish labor leaders see few reasons to connect their labor work and their ethnic heritage, at least as they have experienced the latter. Most Jewish organizations today have not made labor a central theme in their political platforms. The Jewish Labor Committee, which has served as a meeting point between organized Jewish community and organized labor, is a fraction of the size it was when Dubinsky and Hillman founded it in the ’30s.

There are efforts underway to change that. Stuart Applebaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee, says he sees a greater willingness among labor leaders to identify with the Jewish community.

“There is a renewal now,” Applebaum told the Forward. “You find that the Jewish leaders have not run away from their Jewishness as they once did.”

Sneiderman, a longtime official at the AFL-CIO and wife of Lerner, said that the idea of the couple’s Yom Kippur Break Fast event is part of a “conscious effort to try to make the link for people who work in the labor movement and are Jewish, so that they see that it’s not by accident that they are doing this work — and that is tied to their roots and values.”

“We’ve lost a lot of our history,” said Sneiderman, who recently left the labor world to take a job at the Jewish youth group BBYO as chief field officer.

For his part, Stern said that he recently looked back through a family scrapbook to try to recover some of his own history.

“You do wonder how you get here — you know, what were my parents teaching me?” Stern said. Stern had a Jewish education; he became a bar mitzvah at a Reform synagogue in northern New Jersey. But at the dinner table, labor was never a subject for discussion. In his scrapbook, though, Stern found the project he had done for his synagogue confirmation. It was an ethical will that went into depth “about being ethical, and trying to use your life to help other people.”

“Clearly, the values that had been instilled in me by my parents had been much more of service than of success in a traditional sense,” Stern said, looking back.

“Underneath kind of a very normal middle-class, New Jersey life, they did actually teach me some things,” he said.

After a pause, he added, with a laugh, “I’m praying it’s true for my son.”

Via a comment by Lucius Vorenus on Sailer’s “Amnesty: Our betters are back at it”.

SEIU – Service Employees International Union home page. SEIU on immigration.

Blog

Symptoms of Hostility

67 Comments

In “Greenspan to testify on immigration” Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn’t even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, “Genocidal Immigrationists” comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn’t make sense it’s often because you’re view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it’s willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under “political correctness makes you stupid“.

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

– – –

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation’s validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don’t care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two – another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there’s an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It’s called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn’t see that as bad. No, it’s a wonderful boon. We’re so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist’s holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat’s essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

– – –

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen – and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn’t important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here’s one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. “Impossible to contain”, “every country”, “bring the world’s economy to a standstill”. Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren’t sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don’t think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 “the old days” and claiming the SARS outbreak is “totally different” is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. “Who cares how many people die”, seems to be the thinking.

– – –

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because “[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans”:

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we’re heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

– – –

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it’s only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all “people of color” decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

– – –

In “Swine flu” Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn’t bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It’s the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that’s the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

Blog

Genocidal Immigrationists

9 Comments

Or immigration genocidalists. Either phrase captures the meaning of the point I’m going to make here.

Several items in the news recently provide strong indications that our hostile, illegitimate rulers are preparing to once again foist amnesty and more aliens upon us. Whether they succeed or not hardly matters in the long term. The West is already brimming with aliens. Many are illegal and most are producing babies at a faster rate than the natives. Even so, legitimizing those aliens and inviting more is one of the highest priorities of our ruling class. After being rebuffed in their last treacherous attempt in the US in 2007 the housing bubble burst. Obviously then, at least to bubblists, a big part of getting the Holy Global Economy back on track is to jack up the already unprecedented migration of human herds to ever more unprecedented levels.

I wrote about one of the signs of this preparation in my last post, Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration. Below are several more.

– – –

In October 2008 the Sunday Express article titled Secret plot to let 50million African workers into EU revealed:

A controversial taxpayer-funded “job centre” opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”.

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. 

The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

It states: “Countries with low fertility rates could require a significant number of immigrants over the coming dec­ades if they want to maintain the existing number of people of working age. 

“Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.” 

The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. 

Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.”

No. We do not need immigration, we know this treachery is not new, and no we don’t have to accept it. And by “we” I mean as in “We the People”, as opposed to the royal “we” bureaucratic servants of the plutocrats are wont to use.

The proposals include the creation of a “blue card” system, based on the American green card, that provides full working and welfare rights.

Blue card holders would be entitled to move freely across the EU, setting up home in any of the 27 member states.

This is how a bait-and-switch works. First they create the EU, telling everyone what an advantage it will be for Europeans to visit each other. Then they make Africa part of the EU. Et voila, métissage EU-wide! Instead of co-opting the elected leaders of 27 countries all the immigrationists had to do was co-opt one. They may be genocidal, but they’re not stupid.

The proposals – part of the Africa-EU Partnership signed in Portugal last December – also warns of the negative effects of mass immigration and calls for “better integration of African migrants”.

It calls too for a compassionate approach to the eight million illegal immigrants already living in the EU.

It states: “Irregular migrants must not be treated like criminals. Many risk their lives seeking freedom or the means of subsistence in Europe. As long as the EU has a higher standard of living than those countries to its south and east, the temptation to come will exist – especially if there are jobs to be had.”

Eight million invaders and umpteen million guest aliens isn’t genocidal enough for the immigrationists.

If our leaders were not hostile toward us then this concern they constantly express for the well-being of “migrants”, “irregular” and otherwise, would instead be directed at least once in a while toward the natives. In the past this “there are jobs to be had” line was a dishonest way of saying “there are wages to be lowered”. Today, with jobs evaporating, it’s a dishonest way of saying “jobs, schmobs, all we care about is getting more africans into Europe”.

The declaration calls on the EU to assist African governments to set up migration information centres “to better manage labour mobility bet­ween Africa and the EU”.

One of the “negative effects of mass immigration” is that it lowers the quality of living of the natives and depresses their rate of reproduction. In consciously pursuing a policy that assists non-European “migration” and “labour mobility” the EU is perpetrating genocide on Europe’s native people.

– – –

Today in Tom Friedman disses Mexicans Steve Sailer links Friedman’s The Open-Door Bailout:

“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”

While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

How very slick of him to attribute the idea, and the backlash, to Gupta. Note however that Friedman quotes his own imagination in the second paragraph. The hooey about creative destruction and dead capital might smell less fragrant if it weren’t being spouted in the wake of a trillion dollar save-the-financiers bailout, a trillion dollar printing frenzy by the Fed, and a multi-trillion dollar save-the-financiers stimulation. And that’s in just the last six months. Imagine what kind of wage-slave-funded prizes the coming months hold for our wealthiest risk-takers.

In truth what fuels the “open economy”, and what the financiers really want, is much closer to what Gupta describes. Billions of little worker bees, working their little hearts out for the profit of rootless cosmopolitan bankers who have no scruples whatsoever about saying whatever they have to to keep the whole rotten scheme rolling. Gupta isn’t trying to sell his idea to the American public. He’s selling it to our hostile rulers. Through propaganda like Friedman’s (stir and repeat) nearly everyone is convinced that America is a big multicult corporation, and “wealth” is the only measure of what is good and right.

Friedman goes on to complain about restrictions on using bailout money to hire H-1B visa holders:

In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower — anywhere? That’s called “Old Europe.” That’s spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.

There’s a part of “Old Europe” these immigrationists seem very eager to reproduce across the entire West. It’s spelled: B-A-L-K-A-N-S.

The fantasy Friedman has for America already exists in San Diego. As recently as 25 years ago San Diego and it’s suburbs were populated mostly by conservative Whites with small town values. The blacks and latinos lived in enclaves. Today it’s one giant sprawl. The Whites who remain are mostly liberals who live in gated enclaves. The older communities have fractured and shrank faster than new ones could be built. Whites have been fleeing this dystopia for years but with the bubble bursting and a bankrupt government in denial the trend will accelerate. Replacing us is a tossed salad of aliens flowing in from every corner of the planet who want their piece of America.

The latinos dominate numerically, and once they’re legalized they’ll dominate politically too, as they already do in Lost Angeles. Lunch time at the food court in Sorrento Valley (home of Qualcomm and other high-tech employers) is a thoroughly multicult experience. A glimpse of what Friedman desires. It consists of predominantly latino food servers and custodians, supervised predominantly by middle easterners, serving a wide variety of foreign cuisine to a geeky clientele whose racial ratio is roughly 7-3-2-1 indians/pakis-“white”-chinese-other. By my inexpert eye a large fraction of the “whites” are related to Friedman.

“If you do this [H-1B hiring restriction], it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate at home,” said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. “We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know that for an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do business today with another Indian state?”

Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules. America should not be trying to copy that. “Your attitude,” said Dhar, should be “ ‘whoever can make us competitive and dominant, let’s bring them in.’ ”

This indian technocrat wants us to think he wants us to do something bad for his relatives. Hire them. Keep them from enriching india. Uh huh. Right. Remember this pitch isn’t aimed at the typical American, it’s aimed at our treacherous ruling class. “If you don’t hire us we’re going to compete with you!” That isn’t a threat, it’s a lame attempt to take American jobs without competing and to move into our nice society without having to create one of their own. They have the internet in india. They can do these “knowledge economy” jobs there. The cost of living is much cheaper. But who could blame them for not wanting to live in Mumbai? Of course they want to live in the kind of society Whites produce. Everyone does. They prove it every time they scream in our faces over the prospect that we might keep them out. The big problem for all of us is that wherever enough mexicans, indians, or chinese collect you get mexico, india, or china. Where they mix you get something like San Diego circa 2009. The weather is nice, but it’s not America.

Message to Tom Friedman, the NYT, and all the rest of you genocidal freaks: It doesn’t matter to me whether you think importing latinos, indians, chinese, or koreans is “profitable”. It’s destroying my society. I’d rather be poor, unemployed, and starving – and keep my society.

One last thing. Notice how Friedman appeals to “competitive advantage” and Dhar appeals to “competitive and dominant”. It echoes the “competition” rhetoric Obama occasionally used on the campaign trail. The weird thing about these globalists is they never explain who “us” is or who “we” are competing against. In fact most of the time they’re saying competition is a bad thing, “we” are all the same, and “we” don’t need borders.

– – –

The last item is Progress by Pesach:

Progress by Pesach is endorsed nationally by American Jewish Committee (AJC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B’nai B’rith International, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF), National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and Uri l’Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement . Progress by Pesach is endorsed locally by Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center (Rockville/Beallsville, MD), Jewish Community Action (St. Paul, MN), Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern Arizona (Tucson, AZ), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (Rockville, MD), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (Chicago, IL), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (New York, NY), Jews United for Justice (Washington, DC), MIKLAT! A Jewish Response to Displacement (Milwaukee, WI), and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (Los Angeles, CA).

Progress by Pesach is the national Jewish campaign to encourage the new administration and congress to choose humanitarian immigration reform over the failed policy of exclusively relying on raids and enforcement tactics as a means of controlling immigration.

Passover is a time when we celebrate our freedom from bondage and remember when we were strangers in a strange land. Connecting our history to the struggles of immigrants today is the inspiration behind Progress by Pesach.

From Patrick Cleburne comes The Kvetcher: Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Kvetcher’s post is titled Jewish Far-Leftist Boasts Goal of ‘Progress By Pesach’ is to Thwart the Will of the Majority Population! He writes:

I would love to declare that people like Rosenthal do not represent the mainstream Jewish organizations. But how can I reasonably claim that? Look at their “partners” list. These aren’t only radical and consistently shrill organizations…there are also mainstream Jewish organization that have signed on as well.

Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Cleburne writes:

The Kvetcher’s Blog is inwardly directed to the Jewish community. In that respect, it could be very valuable. I appeal to VDARE.com’s unjewish friends not to intervene. The Kvetcher has his hands more than full.

No intervention here. I’d just like to echo Kvetcher’s question. I’ll take it one step farther and say I’d really like to live in an ethnostate with a big concrete wall around it. And I’d like it by Easter. Got that Obama? Short of that I’d like to encourage these oh-so-self-righteous Pesachers to choose to progress themselves over to israel and take up their important humanitarian immigration reform work there. After all, israel is a nation of immigrants. They should be looking for whoever can make them competitive and dominant. Stir and repeat, stir and repeat.

– – –

The comment I left on Sailer’s post regarding Friedman reads:

Being a world-class progressivist-globalist economist is simple. There’s only one principle to remember. It holds under all circumstances – boom, crash, or in between.

“We need more immigrants.”

Of course we need more immigrants like we need more gangs, more shortages, more diseases, more crowding, more deficits, more taxes, more slums, more distrust, and more violence.

We need immigrants like we need more houses and less farmland, woods, marsh, and wildlife. The rationale, such as it is, was described by Sailer in The circular logic of the bubble economy, 2002-2007:

Hire illegal aliens to build new houses in the exurbs for people wanting to get their kids out of school districts overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens.

Except the circular logic didn’t stop in 2007 and it isn’t restricted to illegals. It transcends bubbles. It transcends parties. It’s hard to imagine anything that would stop it – unless enough people recognize it for what it is: a crime of monstrous proportions.

It’s difficult for that to happen because the media aids and abets the crime by downplaying its importance and pathologizing the opposition.

The crime is a pyramid scheme motivated in part by greed and in part by malice. Those who believe in limitless growth, regardless of the costs, are frauds. Those who believe in limitless immigration, regardless of the consequences and over the objections of the natives it is displacing and dispossessing, are genocidal maniacs.

Blog

Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration

10 Comments

The first editorial, dated 31 Jan 2009 and titled The Nativists Are Restless, starts the witch-hunt with a bang, accusing Vdare, The American Cause, and korean-jew Marcus Epstein of the second worst crime possible in their brave new progressivist-globalist world: “white supremacism”. (The worst crime being “anti-semitism”, of course. Surely the Times will eventually get to that.)

The next editorial, dated 2 Feb 2009 is titled The Nativists Are Restless, Continued. It continues the assault under the guise of seeking debate, accusing Republicans of not doing enough for latinos while saluting the Southern Poverty Law Center for sniffing out non-latino Whites distasteful enough to fret about our interests and audacious enough to actually pursue them. For the record, the Times states, they do not support open borders, and never have. They’re only concerned that their metaphorical “Golden Door” might be closed. They don’t favor “amnesty” either. They just want a “Golden Door” big enough so “that immigrants will go through, not around”. And that those who do go around get to stay. That’s not “open borders” or “amnesty”. It’s just the common sense of anyone who wants to “destroy America’s identity as a white, European country.”

The editorial dated 4 Feb 2009 is titled ‘The Nativist Lobby’. It broadens the witch-hunt to FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, and is based entirely on the SPLC’s bolshevist smear tactics. Here the pretense at debate has been replaced with a list of people to be shunned and silenced. They conclude by saying “people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about”.

This from people who don’t like to talk about the history of immigration or their own group’s role in shaping it. People who scream ANTI-SEMITE!!! at anyone who notices their relentlessly harsh and extreme pursuit of their own racial interests. Who scream HOLOCAUST!!! at anyone who mocks their fretfulness about their own race, culture and ethnicity. Who scream RACIST!!! if anyone suggests closing the “Golden Door” they worked so long and hard to pry open in order to create the multiracial majority-minority dystopia they desire and thrive in.

The underlying assumptions made by the Times editorialists are outrageously hypocritical:

  • Whites should accept a political regime which explicitly panders to the interests of everyone other than Whites.
  • Whites should not express concern about non-White immigration despite the obvious hostility of those immigrants and their supporters toward Whites.
  • Whites should reject and distance ourselves from anyone who does not conform to these rules.

Jews seem incapable of doing so, but we Whites have no trouble substituting “jew” for “White” in the points above and recognizing the apoplectic reaction any such attack would cause in jews.

Ever since Congress and the media, including the Times, failed to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats in mid 2007 we haven’t heard much from either source about immigration. Odd isn’t it? One day the “12 million” undocumented invaders is a critical issue we just absolutely have to address, immediately and comprehensively. Then when it doesn’t go the way they want the urgency evaporates and for some 18 months there’s hardly a peep. It’s doubly odd that this happened despite an intervening nationwide election. An election which, if the Times et al. really had been so eager to debate, would have been the perfect opportunity for Americans to debate and vote on immigration. Instead the Times, like the rest of the mainstream media and both major political parties, did their best not to talk about immigration. They quickly changed the subject when it did come up. It’s been so long since they talked about it they’re still throwing around the “12 million” number as if it hasn’t changed!

Actually, none of this is odd once you understand that our country has been hijacked by greedy and dishonest people who either don’t care about Whites or actively hate us. As Peter Brimelow says in a video the Times links at their own risk:

I think the issue in the immigration debate is not racism or xenophobia, it’s treason. The people who are running current policy embarked upon a course that will destroy the United States as we know it. They have no loyalty to it, they want to transform it. So it’s treason.

Well now there’s a new president. The first sired by a resident alien. The first with illegal alien relatives. The first whose own natural born citizenship is in doubt. Oblivious to these notable and unprecedented firsts the Times focuses instead like a laser beam on race, “It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out.” Among the views they consider pathetic in the “age of Obama” is anyone daring to mock their “Magic Negro”. What else but magic could explain how so many embarassing firsts were ignored by the Times and most of the rest of the media during Obama’s campaign? It makes far more sense to attribute it to jewish media influence and their self-serving interests in destroying America’s identity as a white, European country. That seems to be what frightens the Times most about Brimelow’s view. If their treason becomes clear to enough people they know they’re going to have hell to pay. Which they see of course as just another reason to carry through the destruction of America’s identity as a white, European country. They’re committed to smothering even the most hapless, harmless Whites who fumble around trying to avoid being called “racist”.

Despite the Times’ attempt to guilt-trip us, we know that Juan “CIR co-sponsor” McCain’s best efforts to woo black, latino, asian, and jewish voters failed miserably. It failed because the non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for the non-White:

Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

Obama McCain Other
White (75%) 43% 55% 2%
African-American (13%) 96% 4% N/A
Latino (8%) 67% 31% 2%
Asian (2%) 63% 33% 4%
Other (3%) 66% 31% 3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat’s stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain’s 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

Whites don’t deserve the blame for the lopsided non-White vote. The non-Whites do. After decades of legislated preferences for non-Whites, non-White immigration (legal and illegal), poisonous anti-White media propaganda (the NYT in the vanguard), forced integration, non-White on White violence, and piles of danegeld extorted from Whites and transferred to non-Whites by government mandate – after all this the hostility and resentment between non-Whites and Whites has only grown. The jewish-led, jewish-funded assault on Whites has only become more intense. The Times blames it all on Whites.

We have good cause to be angry. The harm done to us is by now crystal clear. Our country, as we knew it, seems doomed. What our enemies are doing now is trying to ensure that no one will be punished for the crime. The crime is genocide – a deliberately pursued policy to harm Whites. The editors of the Times and anyone who agrees with them are genocidalists. Their paranoia about what Whites might do to immigrants, or themselves, does not excuse them. Their response to White objections to the injustice inflicted upon us by immigration is not only unsympathetic, it is openly contemptuous and repressive. Their foot is on our throats. They meet our pleas to stop with derision and push harder. What they could in 1965 pretend was immigration, justified and debated on the basis of how many should be admitted in the best interests of the natives, has been revealed as a culture-killing invasion and alien colonization. Now we are told by our erstwhile dictators that it is expressly for the benefit of the immigrants, the cost to us irrelevant. It is a premeditated and coldly executed program to replace us, and the more we resist the more they pretend they are justified to dislike and fear us.

It may seem to the Times like a good time to once again discuss immigration. After the aforementioned 18 month quasi-blackout on the subject Pew recently announced that public concern for immigration is “slipping”. Never mind that every other issue people claim they are more concerned about is directly impacted by immigration. That the Times would advocate in favor of millions of alien interlopers just now, when so many natives are struggling to find jobs, confirms the malice and distain with which they regard us. I don’t believe this is a blunder. The Times considers it their duty, representing a combination of latino and jewish interests, to broach this subject now. They are preparing the ground so their Magic Negro and plutocrat-owned Congress can have another sham debate about the “12 million”, this time following the fast-track bailout bill template. In that they hope to secure the future of the non-White immigrants while definitively destroying America’s identity as a white, European country.

They hate us so much they can’t wait to forget we ever existed.

Blog

Obama: Just Say Si

27 Comments

Barack Obama: Your Children Should Learn To Speak Spanish.

Transcription via World On the Web:

I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just … we want English-only.

He begins with a lie. He understands what this means. He wants Americans to accept their fate as a conquered people.

Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But … understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language

More lies. The invaders aren’t learning English. That’s the only reason Americans have to learn spanish. The emphasis on children makes it even clearer. The invaders should all know English by the time our kids learn spanish, right Obama? So why bother? Because he’s talking about us adapting to latino colonization.

Widespread multilingualism isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing. Tower of Babel bad.

Bilingualism is part of the bigger lie of “diversity”. What it really means is division. The spanish language and the latinos who carry it here bring us confusion. They bring resentment. This is a natural and predictable consequence of alien invasion.

You know, it’s embarrassing … when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

Embarassed? About what? The vast majority of people who have ever lived, who will ever live, master only one language. Why do Obama and the Pilgrim-haters who support him only pathologize stupid, lazy, bitter, racist Americans for this? What’s next, we’re inferior because we don’t speak chinese?

Why compare Americans to Europeans? Why not compare us to the latinos Obama wants to replace us with? How many latinos speak more than one language? How many of them know what irony means? Because it’s ironic that the amerinds and mestizos use the word reconquista – speaking in the tongue of the European conquerors they supposedly detest – to describe what they want to do, and are doing, to America. Hypocrites.

Does Obama know what reconquista means? How about raza, aztlan, mecha, guero, and gabacho? Those are the very first spanish words Americans should learn.

Where I come from we have a very useful expression. Fuck that shit. Pardon my French. Feel free to translate it into spanish, ebonics, and hebrew for the benefit of Obama and his supporters.