This is of course a joke. Only candidates who will keep the world safe for plutocracy and thus put the interests of immigrants and israelis over American citizens have any chance of being elected.
This is of course a joke. Only candidates who will keep the world safe for plutocracy and thus put the interests of immigrants and israelis over American citizens have any chance of being elected.
From the transcript of Tuesday’s CNN primary coverage:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.
COOPER: One in five I think.
GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.
COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.
GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means — I mean, she’s been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.
You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn’t say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, I don’t want your vote. I don’t want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.
COOPER: Do you see her saying that?
GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion — she’s been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She’s never had redneck votes before in her life.
I see no reason why she couldn’t take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, “Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don’t think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this.”
I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.
COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That’s something we saw also in West Virginia.
And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, “No, he doesn’t.” This is some of the repair work that he’s got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She’s got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don’t want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.
BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?
TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she’s in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.
GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.
For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don’t think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn’t ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.
As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially “working class” Whites, with distaste.
On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the “more highty-educated” Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, “working class” Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:
GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.
David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the “redneck” vote, to distance herself from “racists”.
Note the conclusion they’re juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.
This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.
Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.
Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:
Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.
If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the “more-educated” Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that “smart” people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.
Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:
On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn’t spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?
Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn’t do well because he didn’t spend much time there. Maybe?
Bang the Drum says stop the world:
Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.
Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It’s historic!
Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?
All sarcasm aside, there’s a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the “racism” they want to see.
I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I’ll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.
- – -
My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that’s awfully honest. Whites don’t expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.
My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama’s “bitter, clinging” statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn’t understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his “typical White person” characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama’s thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it’s all about race!
Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?
Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can’t set aside Wright and overlook Obama’s gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.
Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can’t face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They’d sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.
My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?
For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It’s surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn’t. Wouldn’t it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn’t it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?
The AP writer says:
Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.
No black statistics. I’d like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don’t offer it, and I can’t find it.
WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:
In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.
So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn’t mention that.
What’s more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama’s voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton’s White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama’s black voters than it was for Clinton’s White voters?
Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet “redneck” in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn’t anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?
Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama’s black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren’t blacks who say it racist too?
Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?
I doubt it.
Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.
"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.
Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:
Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender – if they’ll let us.
For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. “I am race!” Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.
Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.
So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?
Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us – we know the boilerplate answer.
What’s interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you’re looking for another R-word, I also answer to “realist”), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied – especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.
Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam’s razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don’t have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.
I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.
Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:
Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.
These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.
Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don’t really matter because they are divided by class.
He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student’s naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s “liberated” in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you’d like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.
One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.
After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:
The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.
And I haven’t even stated my theory yet.
Fortunately, it’s not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.
This roughly translates as “using the barbarians to control the barbarians.” Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.
Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I’d like to think it’s obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.
Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.
They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it’s lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they’ll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you’re a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!
Of course, I’m not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it’s all working. They don’t need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they’re doing. And you can’t exactly call it a failure.
Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa’s leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting “kill the whites?”
Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting “kill the rednecks,” ie, Slovo’s hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.
No, I don’t like Mencius’ explanation. It’s certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.
The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.
A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn’t exist:
However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.
Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a “cosmopolitan Anglophone” Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.
Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.
Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I’ve sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.
For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn’t like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn’t really need. The ones whose brilliant “industry” boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.
Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist’s “logic” makes any sense.
Here’s what makes sense to me.
Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion’s waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.
Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as “liberals” warring on “the Christian majority”. He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn’t explain why his “brahmin” should want or need to attack what he calls “[t]heir real hereditary enemy … the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter”.
Caste/class make us “hereditary enemies”? Sorry, for my part it’s the fact that they’re trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it’s clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.
We don’t need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.
The evolution of evil
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 4, 2008, 01:47
Activists and dissidents should understand that evil forces and tyrannical governments have evolved. Just as human knowledge and science expand, so do the strategies and instruments used by rulers, elites and plutocrats. By learning from history and using new technology, they have smarter tools of tyranny. The best ones prevent uprisings, revolutions and political reforms. Rather than violently destroy rebellious movements, they let them survive as marginalized and ineffective efforts that divert and sap the energy of nonconformist and rebellious thinkers. Real revolution remains an energy-draining dream, as evil forces thrive.
Most corrupt and legally sanctioned forms of tyranny hide in plain sight as democracies with free elections. The toughest lesson is that ALL elections are distractions. Nothing conceals tyranny better than elections. Few Americans accept that their government has become a two-party plutocracy run by a rich and powerful ruling class. The steady erosion of the rule of law is masked by everyday consumer freedoms. Because people want to be happy and hopeful, we have an epidemic of denial, especially in the present presidential campaign. But to believe that any change-selling politician or shift in party control will overturn the ruling class is the epitome of self-delusion and false hope. In the end, such wishful thinking perpetuates plutocracy. Proof is that plutocracy has flourished despite repeated change agents, promises of reform and partisan shifts.
The tools of real rebellion are weak. Activists and dissidents look back and see successful rebellions and revolutions and think that when today’s victims of tyranny experience enough pain and see enough political stink they too will revolt. This is wrong. They think that the Internet spreads information and inspiration to the masses, motivating them to revolt. This is wrong. They await catastrophic economic or environmental collapse to spur rebellion. This too is wrong.
Why are these beliefs wrong? Power elites have an arsenal of weapons to control and manipulate social, political and economic systems globally: corruption of public officials that make elections a sham; corporate mainstream media that turn news into propaganda; manipulation of financial markets that create fear for the public and profits for the privileged; false free trade globalization that destroys the middle class; rising economic inequality that keep the masses time-poor and financially insecure; intense marketing of pharmaceuticals that keep people passive; and addictive consumerism, entertainment and gambling that keep people distracted and pacified.
The biggest challenge for dissidents and rebels is to avoid feel-good therapeutic activism having virtually no chance of removing evil and tyranny. Idealism without practicality tactics without lofty goals, and symbolic protests pose no threat to power elites. Anger and outrage require great strategic thinking from leaders seeking revolution, not mere change. And social entrepreneurs that use business and management skills to tackle genuine social problems do nothing to achieve political reforms. To the extent they achieve results, they end up removing interest in overthrowing political establishments that have allowed the problems to fester.
What is the new tool of tyranny? Technological connectivity achieved through advanced communications and computer systems, especially the rise of wireless connectivity. The global message to the masses is simple: Buy electronic products to stay plugged in. Connectivity may give pleasure, but it gives even more power to elites, rulers and plutocrats. It allows them to coordinate their efforts through invisible cabals, to closely monitor everything that ordinary people and dissidents do, and to cooperatively and clandestinely adjust social, financial and political systems to maintain stability and dominance.
In this dystopian world, all systems are integrated to serve upper class elites and the corporate state, not ordinary people. When ordinary people spend their money to be more shackled to connectivity products, they become unwitting victims of largely invisible governmental and corporate oppressive forces. They are oblivious that their technological seduction exacerbates their political and economic exploitation. Though some 70 percent believe the country is on the wrong track, they fail to see the deeper causes of the trend. And if Americans were really happy and content with their consumer culture, then why are they stuffing themselves with so many antidepressants, sleeping pills and totally unhealthy foods? In truth, the vast majority of people are in denial about the rotten system they are trapped in (a.k.a. The Matrix). They are manipulated to keep hope alive through voting, despite the inability of past elections to stop the slide into economic serfdom.
Increasingly, the little-discussed phenomenon of economic apartheid ensures that elites live their lavish lives safely in physically separated ways. Concurrently, economic inequality rises, as the rich extract unusually high fractions of global wealth. When the rich get richer, the powerful get stronger. Does some economic prosperity trickles down to the poorest people? Perversely, the middle class is moved into the lower class. In this new physics of evil, wealth transfer is not from the rich to the poor, but from the middle class in wealthier countries to the poor in developing nations, where a few new billionaires join the global plutocracy.
Some data on economic inequality: The after-tax income of the top 1 percent of Americans rose 228 percent from 1979 through 2005, while middle class income remained flat over the last four decades. The richest 0.01 percent of earners made 5.1 percent of all income in 2005, up more than 300 percent from just 1.2 percent in 1960. Bad economic times like the present just exacerbate inequality. Even as most Wall Street companies lost billions in the subprime mortgage debacle after they had already made billions, they gave obscene bonuses to their employees: the average topped $180,000 for 2007, tripling the $61,000 in 2002. Scholars used to predict that high levels of economic inequality like we have today would lead to rebellion. But there are now insufficient tools and paths for rebellion, because the plutocracy has eliminated them. Instead, citizens are offered elections whose outcomes can be controlled and subverted by the ruling class.
The New World Order is getting what it wants: a stable two-class system, with the lower class serving the elitist upper class. The paradox is that along with rising economic inequality and apartheid is mounting consumerism and materialism that is used to pacify, distract and control the masses. That’s where easy credit and cheap products from low-wage nations are critical. The poor can have cell phones, 24-7 Internet access and increasingly cars, while the bejeweled upper class travel in private jets and yachts, vacation on private islands, and have several gated mansions maintained by servants and guarded by private police. We have a technologically advanced form of medieval society. It is working in the US and China and most other places. Elections just mask economic tyranny and slavery.
The ruling class knows how to maintain stability. Keep the masses distracted, fearful, brainwashed, insecure, and dependent on government and business sectors for survival. Train people to see themselves as relatively free consumers. Maintain the myth that ordinary people can become wealthy and join the ruling class, which theoretically is not impossible, but of no statistical significance for the masses.
Via News From The West.
The most important question of last night’s debate:
Lieutenant, give us an idea of what it is you see, and then what it is you are worried about?
J. ROGERS: Well, we’re overwhelmed in the street. I mean, just the crimes are getting more violent. They’re out of control. We can’t communicate with these immigrants. My concern is these illegal immigrants get here, you know — what makes you think that they’re going to follow any of these rules put in place?
They’re not. Either you can build all the fences you want. If you don’t man them, they’re going to go over them, they’re going to go under them. They’re still going to get in here.
What are you going to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here? How are you going to handle that problem? There’s millions of them.
The opportunities I’ve had to deal with the situation — you call INS; they won’t even come down and talk to you. They’re just understaffed, undermanned. What are you going to do about that?
CAMERON: So we’re going to spin this one back to both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and ask the lieutenant’s question: How can you not call it amnesty?
Yes, spin away Cameron. The officer said law enforcement and ICE are overwhelmed with immigrants and asked what are we going to do with the ones already here? Watch as the media’s top three GOP darlings eagerly talk about anything but the officer’s call for reinforcement and leadership:
Guiliani blathers about IDs. Promises to secure the border. Never says what to do with the invaders already here. Can we assume he wants to issue them all IDs? How that will address the threat they pose to our country? What will we do if they refuse to carry the IDs? And by the way, Earth to Rudy…most of the rest of the country doesn’t want to be anything like New York City.
McCain blathers about his shamnesty’s toothless “enforcement” provisions. Then he talks about how wonderful “these people” are because some of them are working hard and dying in Iraq. Does he think we’re all stupid? He must. How else could he answer a question about illegal alien invaders with a story about legal immigrant US soldiers? McCain, like so many invasion supporters, thinks “these people” (you know who he means) are better than his own countrymen. Despicable.
McCain is already toast, but you wouldn’t know that from the time they gave him.
Romney chimed in at the end to point out that the Z visa would have legalized all the aliens immediately. He wants to crack down on the magnets: sanctuary cities and employers. He favors legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Sorry. No cigar. He doesn’t answer the question: what do we do with the ones already here? Of course we should put an end to the sanctuary cities and crack down on employers. But that won’t solve the problems. They don’t just come here for jobs and they don’t just live in sanctuary cities.
None of these guys comes close to recognizing the invasion for what it is, for the damage it’s doing, or the drastic steps that will be required in order for us to keep this country from becoming a balkanized turd world shithole with a banana republic government. With the massive political corruption that tolerates sanctuary cities and a wide open border, despotic judges ignoring the laws and the will of the public, and mobs and gangs running unchecked in our streets we’re more than halfway to shithole already.
Who will recognize this madness, face it, and end it?
Of them all Tancredo seems to see it most clearly. Paul and Hunter are also relatively clued in. The crowd rewarded the candor of these three with loud applause. As loud or louder than the media’s darlings got. At times the others were chuckling at Paul, laughing at him like stupid jocks. I may not vote for the man, but he at least has a saner position than any of the morons who were chuckling. Our country is in deep deep trouble. And some of these people think it’s a laughing matter.
The Democrats are in more or less complete denial, obsessed with climate change and health care. And more than half the Republican candidates are so deeply infected with liberal ideology they can’t or won’t recognize that America is being invaded and transformed into a place that soon not many of the indigenous people is going to want pay taxes to, live in, or die for, much less be president of.
It’s now obvious that the majority of American people, when asked directly and reported honestly, do not favor any form of amnesty for illegal aliens and in fact favor rounding them up and sending them home.
The problem has always been that we are not asked directly and the subject is not reported honestly. If for example our media reported on immigration the way it reports on Iraq – constantly questioning the premises and goals, always downplaying the positive news and emphasizing the negative – we would be much more aware just how disastrous the last four decades of immigration have been for the United States. The disaster would in fact never have been permitted to unfold.
Instead we have Big Liars like Ted Kennedy (“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset”) and John McCain (“I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”) crafting our immigration policy, and a president responsible for enforcing our nation’s borders and defending its citizens who thinks of himself as El Presidente and openly sides with the invaders instead. For this the big media lionize them. They are our great statesmen. Brave heroes.
The trouble for our treasonous and aloof elites is that despite their non-stop propaganda, constantly instructing us yokels how wonderful and enriching immigration is, the yokels are now very quickly waking up to reality. The reality that immigration has been a disaster.
All you have to do is look around. There are foreigners everywhere. Far too many who do not share our customs, traditions, values, or language and show no interest in starting. They’ve come here only to grab for themselves whatever they can get. The media has browbeaten Americans for decades to convince them not to reproduce, to ignore superficial differences like race, forget their families, abandon their silly religions, and shed their belligerent national loyalties – and no surprise, it has mostly worked.
Now here come the immigrants. With their giant broods and a shameless loyalty to their kin, their ethnicity, their faith (and ummah), and the nation they left behind. They care not one wit for America or the fat lazy stupid gringo-infidels who only by dumb luck and the sins of their fathers happen to inhabit it. They ignore our laws, evade our taxes, and demand rights exceeding our own. They claim they do all the work and constantly decry their supposed victimization and exploitation.
The reality of course is precisely the opposite. With regard to either work, money, or violence it’s the native Americans being victimized and exploited.
“You stole this land, we’re stealing it back, and there’s nothing you can do about it Pilgrim.”
Ladeeenyo mobs take over our city streets several times a year now, barely suppressing their primal urge to riot and loot. When legal Americans demonstrate in support of the law, within the law, they are harassed and threatened by those same unruly Ladeeenyos. El Presidente tells us they share our family values. Crime and education statistics tell a different story.
Any guero who’s rubbed elbows with Ladeeenyos since the Senate bill died can sense the tension, see their glowering eyes, feel their smoldering resentment. My city’s streets are full of “undocumented workers” pushing baby carriages with two or three “undocumented workers” toddling along behind. Aren’t they concerned about their carbon footprint? Shouldn’t these “workers” be, you know, working?
Likewise too many Muslims come here and then complain incessantly. Foot washing basins. Pork products. Hallucinations of discrimination. Let’s be honest. All of them, the so-called moderates included, won’t be happy until everyone is in pajamas on their knees praying toward Mecca five times a day. They differ only in the means and schedule for achieving that goal. Ask them. You’ll find them either so confident they freely admit it, or trying to evade your questions with transparent lies (eg. “Sharia? What’s that?” or “The roots of Islamist grievances are economic, starting with the injustices of colonialism” or “There shall be no compulsion in religion”).
The most impatient Muslims hatch attacks even more frequently than the Ladeeenyos march. After 9/11, Fort Dix, and JFK who can believe that our immigration problems are all about the Ladeeenyos or cheap labor? After the jihadi doctor attacks in Britain what infidel can now help but wonder about the more insidious damage Muslim infiltrators might wreak?
These aliens aren’t hiding in the shadows. They walk freely among us celebrating their rise, scheming our fall. They know they have friends in high places seeing to their rights, pursuing their interests. They’re disappointed amnesty has failed for now, but they know time is on their side. Soon enough the fat lazy stupid Americans will get their comeuppance.
“Gimme gimme gimme, and don’t get any ideas about defending yourself gringo-infidel racist fascist!”
It’s a testimony to the mind-numbing power of modern propaganda that things have had to go this far before enough people stopped believing the happy talk and started believing what they could see and hear for themselves. The Senate’s move was so brazen and so dishonest it boggles the mind to think that it only barely failed. They’ll regroup, and they’ll be back to try again.
And still many remain asleep. Busy busy busy with noses to the grindstone, they trust their government is working hard to protect them. To keep them that way our elites, previously much more subtle, have become desperate. Their stupifying message is now spelled out directly: If you oppose immigration or Islam you are a filthy racist. A criminal. The real threat, we are told, is white supremacist-driven nationalism. If we don’t ban their radio shows and silence their hate blogs they’ll form a Gestapo, load all the brown people and Muslims into railcars, and ship them off to concentration camps.
Riiiiiiight. Nobody I know has any such fantasies. But the nightmare that our homes and families will be trapped in a violent, intolerant Aztlan is slowly, surely becoming a reality. And if that doesn’t come to pass being trapped in an even more violent, less tolerant Caliphate is not that much farther off.
This is the great gift of immigration, multi-culturalism, and diversity? No thanks. Take it back. Now. We don’t want it.
In the middle of our nation’s “great debate” over its immigration policies Venezuela reminds us of two recurring themes in Latin politics: dictators and marching mobs.
Not that we should need reminders. Surly mobs march in our streets several times a year now. One of the many joys of multiculturalism. We’ll find out if we have a dictator in about 18 months.
Speaking of reminders, Lawrence Auster put his finger right on the problem:
We know the pattern. London, Fort Dix, JFK, and each subsequent event will be treated as though it were something “shocking,” new, and unique, because our liberal belief system refuses to recognize the transcendent reality that we have an enemy, that the enemy is among us, and that he is among us due to one cause and one cause only: immigration. There is therefore only one way to end Muslim terrorist attacks in the West, and that is to keep Muslims from entering the West and to initiate a steady out-migration of the Muslims who are here back to their native countries. Sixty-five percent of the Muslim population in the U.S. are immigrants.
Once everybody’s a zitizen the media will have a much easier time selling their “home-grown terrorist” whitewash. Just some “random” Americans planning “random” attacks. You have to be a racist who doesn’t want what’s right for the country to think our double plus wonderful open border policies are in any way to blame.