Skip navigation.

I've Heard That Song Before

Posts tagged with "Diversity - Killer of Nations"

The Benefits of a Diverse Staff

Friday, 27. April 2007, 22:50:46

Time Magazine - 04/26/07
by Lisa Takeuchi Cullen

Employee Diversity Training Doesn't Work

Some decades ago, the powers that be declared that employee diversity was a good thing, as desirable as double-digit profit margins. It's proving just as difficult to achieve. Companies try all sorts of things to attract and promote minorities and women. They hire organizational psychologists. They staff booths at diversity fairs. They host dim-sum brunches and salsa nights. The most popular--and expensive--approach is diversity training, or workshops to teach executives to embrace the benefits of a diverse staff.

Too bad it doesn't work.

A groundbreaking new study by three sociologists shows that diversity training has little to no effect on the racial and gender mix of a company's top ranks. Frank Dobbin of Harvard, Alexandra Kalev of the University of California, Berkeley, and Erin Kelly of the University of Minnesota sifted through decades of federal employment statistics provided by companies. Their analysis found no real change in the number of women and minority managers after companies began diversity training.

That's right--none.

Networking didn't do much, either. Mentorships did. Among the least common tactics, one--assigning a diversity point person or task force--has the best record of success. "Companies have spent millions of dollars a year on these programs without actually knowing, Are these efforts worth it?" Dobbin says. "In the case of diversity training, the answer is no."

The law is one reason that employers favor diversity training. In the wake of whopping settlements in race-discrimination suits against large companies, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, over the past decade, employers believe that having a program in place can show a judge that they are sincerely fighting prejudice. But this too is a myth, says Dobbin: "I don't know of a single case where courts gave credit for diversity training."

Social psychologists have many theories to explain why diversity training doesn’t work as intended. Studies show that any training generates a backlash and that mandatory diversity training in particular may even activate a bias. Researchers also see evidence of “irresistible stereotypes,” or biases so deeply ingrained that they simply can’t be taught away in a one-day workshop.

( More )

Parading Powerful Arguments? Protecting Fragile Minds?

Thursday, 1. March 2007, 15:32:33

Intolerant "protesters" assaulted Mr. Taylor and disrupted last month's speech before it began.
Daily News - 02/27/07
by Andrea MacDonald

Segregationist Coming Back To Halifax For Debate

( Halifax ) - Self-described “racial realist” Jared Taylor hopes to finish what he tried to start in Halifax.

The controversial American magazine editor will get to debate racial diversity after all. This session, however, features heavy security and a different sparring partner.

Last month, Taylor and Dalhousie University professor David Divine were scheduled to debate whether racial diversity is good for Canada. Divine, Dal’s Black Canadian studies chair, cancelled the talk because he feared people would misinterpret the subject matter. :confused:

Taylor supports racial segregation, arguing that mixing different races leads to tension.

When he later tried to discuss his views at the Lord Nelson hotel, protestors prevented him from speaking. Some wore masks. Halifax Regional Police are still investigating whether their actions constituted an assault.
Philosophy professor to “parade powerful arguments” in favor of multiracial society :lol:

Yesterday, Saint Mary’s University philosophy professor Peter March announced he’ll take on Taylor next month. The two men will square off March 6 at Saint Mary’s University.

SMU says it does not support the event or Taylor’s presence or views. March is organizing the debate and had to pick up the cost of renting the room, cleanup and security.

March said he’s also required to carry $2 million in personal insurance for the event. He had to clear a lot of hoops to make the debate happen, he said, but felt it was important to confront tough questions directly. March said:
Is it better to let someone like this talk and perhaps persuade some fragile mind in the audience to become a racist? Or is it better to confront him right away and parade the obvious and powerful arguments in favour of a multiracial society?

It’s a judgment call, but I think the issue is now so much in the air that we’re fools not to confront it.
March said he faced the same level of security during last year’s lecture on Islam and democracy held at SMU. (March created a furor by posting incendiary drawings of the Prophet Muhammad—the same ones that had triggered international controversy—outside his office door.)

Taylor said yesterday it wasn’t the security that persuaded him to return to Halifax.
I tend to be an optimist about human beings. I would like think that after what I would consider to be a rather shameful episode for Halifax, that an audience would be better behaved.
Halifax Regional Police Const. Jeff Carr has confirmed there will likely be “a small police presence” on hand to ensure everything remains peaceful.

Hopefully the Racist Bigots of Halifax who attacked Mr. Taylor on his previous visit will show some class and accord him the courtesy to voice his opinion. What is it they are so INTOLERANT of? Free speech? Freedom of Association? Freedom of mobility in a Democratic Society? Is it only they who determine these things? Do they believe we are all equal but they are just a little bit more so? I do hope they become employed somewhere in the next year so that they can somehow become contibuting members of society i.e. pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us working stiffs.

Posted by Discriminated against white boy at 11:46 PM on February 28
No, I have never heard of Mr Taylor arguing for any legal or government mandated segregation, only for the right of freedom of association. All that means is that people that want to segregate will segregate, and those that want to mix will mix, all on an individual basis.

Posted by Saul at 8:51 PM on February 28
There are many strong arguments for a multiracial society: high crime, social disintegration, high welfare costs, interethnic warfare and hatred and the list goes on. You should have a great deal of fun with this “philosophy professor”, Jared. Enjoy yourself.

Posted by at 8:41 PM on February 28
Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, some of my favorite socialists, were also concerned about protecting "fragile minds" from dangerous ideas.

I had not realized the FMV (Fragile Mind Virus) and the socialist cure had also made it to Canada.

Perhaps they caught it from Cambodia, Red China, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Fortunately, the Americans have a more robust constitution and the USA has a more robust Constitution.

Ideas are just not as big a threat to us as they are to Canadians of the red persuasion.

Posted by Big Bill at 10:23 PM on February 28
Website: hfxnews.ca

Make No Mistake About That!

Thursday, 15. February 2007, 23:21:28

Immigration - No Discussion, No Debate

Between 1925 and 1965, immigration into this country -- legal and illegal -- totaled less than 200,000 a year. I don't remember any debates taking place about increasing the number of immigrants. I don't recall anyone making the case for allowing more workers in. But it started to happen.

Between 1965 and 1989, the average annual immigration figure jumped to more than 500,000. That's a big jump -- more than 100 percent. It had profound effects on the country and our way of life. But it just happened, without a lot of discussion -- except in 1986, when the American people were told they would have to accept a comprehensive immigration reform plan (sound familiar?) that would include a one-time amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, along with increased border protection to ensure the same mistakes were never made again.

Yet the mistakes were made again -- only this time even bigger.

Through the 1990s, again, without any national debate or discussion and without any major congressional action -- immigration, legal and illegal (but mostly illegal) climbed to an average of 1 million people a year. One million. A million here, a million there -- pretty soon you're talking about a lot of immigrants illegal aliens.

And we've got a lot of immigrants illegal aliens in this country, make no mistake about that.

Website: forthecause.us

The <s>White</s> Brown House

Saturday, 10. February 2007, 23:44:20


How Mass Immigration Exacerbates National Problems

Although many immigrants have many good qualities and some immigrants are great assets to the United States, continued record levels of legal and illegal immigration and another amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens will seriously exacerbate major issues that concern natives and legal immigrants already here, because newcomers will use energy and need jobs, education, health care and many other social services.

But due to the limited incomes most can expect to earn, the
taxes they pay will not be enough to cover those costs.


Mass immigration exacerbates the health care crisis:

According to the March 2005 Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, one third of immigrants lack health insurance. Since 1989, immigrants and their children born here - nine million people - account for 73 percent of the increase in the uninsured population in the U.S.

A study released by Rand Corp. in November, 2006, estimates that health care provided to illegal adult immigrants costs about $6.4 billion a year nationally and that 68 percent of illegal immigrants are uninsured.


Mass immigration overburdens public schools:

California schools are struggling, in part because of skyrocketing enrollment by students who - in the words of a Rand Corp. study reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 4, 2005 - "come from come from low-income families or are immigrants who are still learning English."
Although all children deserve education, if American schools cut programs that affect natives and legal immigrants already here, it would not be wise or responsible to continue to admit large number of foreign-born newcomers who would place an additional burden to our schools.


Mass immigration exacerbates the energy crisis:

The U.S. population reached 300 million in October 2006. It was 76 million in 1900 and still less than 200 million when the big door for immigration was re-opened in 1965. From 1991 to 2005 alone, 50 million people have been added to the U.S. population -- all of them energy consumers.
Domestic energy consumption needs to be curbed, but little progress can be achieved if consumption is reduced by half while the U.S. population is doubled. Also, there are no alternative sources of energy that can cope with unlimited population growth. High energy prices negatively impacts all legal residents and particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.


Mass immigration exacerbates unemployment and budget deficits:
If the U.S. continues to export high-tech and manufacturing jobs while allowing millions of foreign-born job-seekers to enter our labor markets every year, unemployed Americans and legal immigrants already here will have great difficulty finding work and wages will be depressed based on the law of supply and demand.

More people - even prison inmates and welfare recipients - do stimulate economic activities: Newcomers need food, clothes, housing, health care and many social services, and therefore create new jobs.
But most new jobs created in recent years are low-paid service jobs
that generate insufficient tax revenue to offset the costs of social
services rendered to such low-skilled workers and their families.


U.S. Homeland will remain insecure as long as our borders remain porous:
The International Atomic Energy Agency told the London Times in September of 2006 that smugglers have been caught 300 times in the past four years trying to sneak in radioactive material, which could be used to make a dirty bomb.

Furthermore, Professor Samuel P. Huntington, chairman of Harvard University's Academy for International and Area Studies, has warned that continued large scale Mexican immigration is a threat to American societal security. That threat can be illustrated by UC-Riverside Professor Armando Navarro's quote in the L.A. Times on July 7, 2006:
A new majority is forming. Everything will change. The White House will be within our reach. We might have to change the name to the Brown House .... We are only doing what any good Jew would do for Israel.
Mexico, which does not tolerate illegal immigration on its own soil, has actively encouraged illegal migration to the United States and vigorously opposed all U.S. measures to secure our borders. Mexico has also worked in tandem with activists here of Mexican descent to lobby for many benefits for illegal Mexican aliens, such as amnesty.
Mexico is clearly using legal as well as illegal migration to strongly influence American policies and our future elections and, eventually, to extend the Mexican nation.


Mass immigration overburdens our prisons:

The federal Bureau of Prisons reported on June 24, 2006, that 27.2 percent of the total of 190,565 federal prisoners are criminal aliens. In May, 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens from 2001 through 2004 was approximately $5.8 billion. The federal cost of incarceration per inmate, the U.S. Department of Justice said in 2003, was $25,327 a year.

Read Article

A Death Knell Called "Amnesty"

Friday, 17. November 2006, 08:14:49

TCV - 11/15/06
by John Lillpop

When G.W. Bush Surrenders to Mexico

Dear America: What Will You Do When G.W. Bush Surrenders to Mexico?

Picture the ugly scene, if you have the heart and or stomach:

A breaking news bulletin interrupts regular broadcasting during prime time. Television cameras zoom in on the White House where a historic piece of legislation is being about to become law by virtue of approval by President G.W. Bush.

At the center of the stage sits President Bush, smiling broadly at the Democrats and RINOs who made amnesty for illegal aliens possible. That would include Democrat senators Reid and Kennedy, and Republicans Frist and McCain. The U.S. House would be represented by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Sanchez sisters, and other advocates for illegal aliens.

With a stroke of his presidential pen, G. W. Bush will grant legal status to the 12-20 million illegal alien criminals who have invaded America since 1986, when wholesale amnesty was last granted. Once Bush is finished, former illegal aliens will comprise anywhere from 3-8% of the total United States population.

Nearly all of the “hardworking, goodhearted” illegal aliens that Bush will legalize will vote Democrat for the remainder of their lives, thereby effectively ending the two party system in America.

Mexicans still living in Mexico, but disenchanted with life there, will see the latest amnesty as a sure sign that invading America can be accomplished with impunity. It will be abundantly clear that America’s “conservative” president is adamant in his refusal to enforce U.S. borders and immigration laws.

Thus, scores of millions of additional illegal aliens will head north with little or no concern for U.S. borders and immigration laws.
G.W. Bush will go down in history as the president who actively campaigned for the invasion of America by foreigners from a third-world nation.

He will be remembered as the president who discarded American sovereignty, rule of law, language, and culture in exchange for cheap lettuce and fruit.

He will also be remembered as the president who sent American men and women 8,000 miles from home to fight for in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who abandoned the American people at our southern border.

Finally, G.W. Bush will be remembered as the president who abandoned the Republican party and consigned it to permanent minority status.

Website: theconservativevoice.com

Who Do You Trust?

Thursday, 12. October 2006, 14:04:15

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.


Financial Times - 10/08/06
by John Lloyd in London

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down” :
We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

His 2000 book, Bowling Alone, on the increasing atomisation of contemporary society, made him an academic celebrity. Though some scholars questioned how well its findings applied outside the US, policymakers were impressed and he was invited to speak at Camp David, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the “importing” and “exporting” societies, and that trends “have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed”.

Professor Putnum is implying that unspecified material benefits are or should be the primary criteria by which to evaluate or justify (lawful) immigration to and from countries. He is also assuming that material benefits to a society will be accepted by its members as adequate compensation for non material losses regarding its institutions and historical identity -- heritage, culture, language, religion, customs, mores.

The notion of socially constructing and reconstructing trends is, to me, condescending. Who is responsibile for determining, designing, and implementing these constructions? No one has ever consulted me regarding such matters. As a matter of fact, no one I have known in my entire life has ever been consulted regarding such matters.

But then social engineering has never been within the purview of ordinary members of society.
No, in a democracy which espouses freedom, justice and equality, this activity is relegated to the elite class -- presidents, politicians, ceo's . . . college professors.

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: “What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.”

A word of advice, professor: There's nothing wrong with telling people what they should and shouldn't do. It is, however, grossly unwise to have more than little expectation that anyone will comply with your dictates. I don't know who you are referring by "we" and "us". But I do know about "me" -- I have no plans to "construct" a new one at this time.

Website: ft.com

State of Emergency

Tuesday, 5. September 2006, 22:46:29



Pat Buchanan's "State of Emergency"
by Tony Blankley - 08/16/06

On page 240 of Pat Buchanan's stunningly logical new book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America appear the following words:
One of the truly major issue with which America must deal is the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?
But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in the Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevaried, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation's most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.
Here he deepens his case against illegal immigration (and his case for a moratorium on even legal immigration) with statistic after statistic concerning, among many topics, the shockingly disproportionate degree of disease and crime that illegal Mexican and other immigrants are transmitting into the country.

For example, in Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which total 1,200-1,500, are for illegal aliens. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California now has almost 40,000 cases of tuberculosis -- a disease only recently thought to be virtually extinct in America.

He presents compelling evidence that the "Reconquista" of southwestern United States is not merely the silly conceit of a few extremists, but is widely desired by Mexicans (he cites a 2002 Zogby poll showing that by 58% to 28%, Mexicans believe the American Southwest belongs to Mexico).

New to me was his citation to the fact that all 47 Mexican consulates in the United States are mandated to provide textbooks to U.S. schools with significant Hispanic populations -- textbooks which teach history from the point of view of General Santa Ana -- in which America stole the Southwest. The Los Angeles consulate, alone, has distributed 100,000 such textbooks just this year to the L.A. Unified School District.

Mr. Buchanan recounts the observation that "every great truth begins in blasphemy." In that sense this book is one extended blasphemy against not only liberal proprieties, but even against received wisdom about the nature of America believed by many conservatives.

I have particularly in mind his chapter 9: "What Is A Nation," in which he rejects the argument that America is fundamentally defined as a "creedal nation" of democracy, equality and the institutions formed by our constitution. Rather, Mr. Buchanan argues:

"The Constitution did not create the nation; the nation adopted the Constitution."

While the founding fathers did believe in universal principles and rights, "they were loyal to a particular nation and to kinfolk with whom they shared ties of blood, soil, and memory."

In this elegantly crafted chapter, he weaves into a thought-provoking tapestry on the nature of nationhood and patriotism the writings of George Washington, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Alexander Hamilton, . . . and Israel Zangwill (Jewish author of the 1908 play, "The Melting Pot") among others.
Mr. Buchanan quotes the French poet, Charles Peguy:

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

By that standard, Mr. Buchanan, in this book, is positively fearless. He is also right. Americans, from what ever nation or ethnicity we originated, have formed a common culture worth preserving, and a common history worth continuing.

Read Article

Maywood: A Sanctuary City

Friday, 1. September 2006, 08:39:58

Illegal aliens illegally removed a U.S. flag from a pole at a U.S. post office in Maywood, California and illegally replaced it with a Mexican flag. The illegal aliens then trashed the U.S. flag.
WorldNetDaily - 08/29/06

Backers of illegal immigration at a rally near Los Angeles took
down an American flag at a U.S. post office, stamped on it and replaced it with a Mexican flag as police looked on, according to witnesses and a video of the event.

Police officers in Maywood, Calif., Saturday eventually came to the pole to remove the flag but had bottles and rocks thrown at them, a radio listener named Sandra reported to the Terry Anderson show, heard on KRLA in Los Angeles.
- - -
The radio listener, volunteering for Save our State, said that when she arrived at the rally she was rushed by counter-protesters who called out, "Death to the Minutemen."
They pushed me around and told me if I was to take one step further, they would beat the s*** out of me. I looked to the back of me and there were about four police officers leaning on their vehicle just watching, doing nothing!
As she stepped forward, Sandra said, the counter-protesters stole
her sign and ripped it up as another threw water on her.

A police officer eventually escorted her to her group.

The opposition, she said, began to get louder, and then "we watched as they took the American flag off of the flag pole and stepped on it on the ground at the United States post office and mounted a Mexican flag, and up it went."

At this point , she said, "the police did nothing."
Finally, they went over to take it down, and they had bottles and rocks thrown at them. They did not attempt to arrest anyone. They were unable to take it down because they cut the wrong line so the flag remained there for the rest of the day.
Sandra said that as police officers watched, another woman was beaten, as well as an elderly man, noting the counter-protesters "tend to pick on the weaker targets.
I believe that all Americans need to know about this and need to see that Mexican flag hanging at an American post office. We are being invaded and the American people need to wake up!
Blogger Bridget Johnson, who also was at the event, said that along with Maywood's flouting of immigration law, as a "sanctuary city," it has disbanded its police department's traffic unit so illegals without driver's licenses won't be fearful of getting their cars towed.

Referring to the supporters of open borders, she called it an "afternoon chock full of racism, 'reconquista' and riot cops, which included a sign claiming North America is a 'stolen continent.'"
Thousands of supporters of illegal aliens gathered in April to protest events in over 60 cities nationwide, but most left home the Mexican flag, because of the controversy it had stirred in previous events.

In what was being called a "campaign for immigrants' dignity," demonstrators instead carried the U.S. flag, a noticeable change from previous rallies in opposition to immigration-reform legislation pending in Congress.

Read Article
Watch Video

England: The Plague of Immigration

Thursday, 24. August 2006, 00:32:18

The battle lines of a potentially calamitous political and economical conflict in the opening decade of 21st century Britain are rapidly being drawn up as immigration becomes the key political issue.
British National Party
by News Team - 08/23/06
On one side we have professional pseudo-intellectual apologists for "multiculturalism" [and "diversity"] who make small fortunes in consultancy and advisory roles, together with researchers and trainers with otherwise useless degrees in sociology; directors of giant corporations who benefit from a global supply of cheap labour and their well paid mouth-pieces in the [Zionist owned/controlled] newspaper and broadcasting industries.

On the other side we have a much larger force composed of millions of British employees; hard working owners of small businesses; their spouses and families who are now feeling a very serious pinch in their wallets and not a few mainstream politicians and commentators who are increasingly unafraid of breaking ranks with the collapsing “Establishment” and demanding action on this one issue which affects our social and community cohesion, our survival as one of the leading economical and technological advanced nations and our existence as a civilised society.

The age of stubbornly sticking to outdated conventional party political lines is over and the age of standing for or against our collective survival as a unique people who have control over this our only homeland has begun.

The corpulent spokesman for big business, John Digby-Jones, who sits on the board of the thoroughly anti-British, anti-majority Commission for Racial Equality (sic) champions Polish migrants and condemns indigenous Britons has joyfully declared his colours by calling native born youngsters “lazy, poorly skilled and complacent”.
For rhetoric typical of those who support this plague visit The Jewish Museum - London website.

Read Article

America's Culture Wars

Saturday, 24. June 2006, 08:34:04

"America’s Culture Wars"
by Stojgniev O’Donnell
Although one could argue that an American culture did exist before the 1960s, it must be admitted today that America is divided by every imaginable belief and cultural trait (all of which, according to political correctness and multiculturalism, are of equal value and relevance).

In such a situation, it might seem logical to promote multiculti and PC, though such a policy demands deceptive propaganda, something from which no good will ever come. In truth, multiculti represents a senseless bastardization of cultures. As I’ve said, America’s diversity is no rainbow; it’s a vat of suspicious, smelly substance of the color one gets from mixing every shade of the rainbow.

Did the authors of the U.S. Constitution intend that America would someday be a showcase for diverse, even if senselessly blended, cultures? I neither know nor care. What I find more interesting is the history of American immigration policy.

For at least a century, Americans have understood that power is derived from controlling immigration policy, which changed drastically over the years. Influenced by popular works such as Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race (1916), Anglo politicians after the First World War limited “undesirable” immigration from the Mediterranean and Central and Eastern Europe. Over the decades, however, even immigration from Western Europe and Scandinavia was restricted, so that in recent time, most legal immigrants have come from Asia and other non-European parts of the globe.

Who decided to change immigration policy (and by implication, American culture)? I have to trot out a truth which has been called a “canard” so often that most people cannot see it for it really is: the Jews changed American immigration policy, through intensive lobbying and in recent years though direct participation in Congress and other government bodies. The Jews changed immigration policy because it was in the interests of their own group, even while their specific goals, strategies, and allies fluctuated with time, reflecting changes in society as whole.

The Jews changed immigration policy because it has been of greater benefit for them to admit the Vietnamese than the Irish. One benefit was Jewish success in neutralizing the traditional influences of Christianity in America.

For a detailed explanation of the Jewish role in determining American immigration policy and many other movements, I refer the reader to Kevin MacDonald’s penetrating analysis of Jewish evolutionary strategies, the trilogy A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998). One can’t discuss the subject publicly in America, but all the gritty details are found in MacDonald.

America’s immigration policies in the latter half of the twentieth century changed the face of the country and transformed its culture. As a cultural group (NOT a race or a religion), the Jews went from a marginal position of cultural influence to a central position. In the process, they undermined the stability of the old Melting Pot dominated culturally by Anglo-Saxon and Germanic cultures.

Despite today’s phony multiculti, America has no common values. The official government propaganda is as ridiculous as that of the former Soviet Union. The Soviets talked about the eternal fraternal friendship of nations; multiculti Americans talk about tolerance and the equality of bastardized cultures.

Can America be saved? I doubt it. Simply for cultural reasons. Humans don’t build their houses on sandbanks. People tend not to invest their time and effort in planning families if they are unsure about the future (as seen today in Russia).

There are, indeed, many groups in America with an interest in building and maintaining smaller communities, but their loyalties are to their own group, not to today’s meaningless concept of America.

Full Text

In Mortal Danger

Monday, 5. June 2006, 01:35:44

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo) is chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and the undisputed heavyweight champion of the border security issue in the nation's capital.

In his new book Mr. Tancredo he tells the whole story of the threats facing the nation, the solutions within its grasp and his own personal quest to awaken the political establishment to the seething discontent gripping the citizens of this country as a result of illegal immigration.

He warns that the country is on a course to the dustbin of history. Like the great and mighty empires of the past, superpowers that once stretched from horizon to horizon, the United States is heading down the road to ruin.

English historian Edward Gibbon, in penning his classic "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" theorized that Rome fell because it rotted from within. It succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue, its citizens became lazy and soft, hiring barbarian mercenaries to defend the empire because they were unwilling to defend it themselves.

Mr. Tancredo says the United States is following in the tragic footsteps of Rome.

Living up to his reputation for candor, he explains how the economic success and historical military prowess of the United States has transformed a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles of right and wrong into an overindulgent, self-deprecating, immoral cesspool of depravity.
Without strong, moral leadership, without a renewed sense of purpose, without a rededication to family and community, without shunning the race hustlers and pop-culture sham artists, without protecting borders, language and culture, the nation that once was "the land of the free and home of the brave" and the "one last best hope of mankind" will repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the past.
Read Article

Diversity Fatigue

Sunday, 4. June 2006, 07:25:59

People are willing to be tolerant, but only to a certain point. From California to the Midwest, from New York to Florida, signs of exclusionary thinking are popping up all over.

Perhaps one of the most treasured of American rights is freedom of association. This is the right to hang out with whomever we want, wherever we want. When we hang out with "people like us," others are kept out. Where and how to draw the line is a question some of us seem to be struggling with.

The city of Black Jack, Missouri is planning to evict an unmarried couple and their three children from the house they have purchased. The city decided the new home owners do not meet the legal definition of family and are thus in violation of the local zoning code which designates the building as a single family residence. Black Jack, a suburb of Saint Louis which is 70% black, is seeking to preserve the city's pro-family environment.


In New York city, at the corner of 70th & Broadway, owners of the Sherman Square condominium tower rejected the application of an unmarried couple. The co-op says it shouldn’t be forced into a legal contract with two people who are not even willing to be legally bound to each other.

In central Florida, developers have broken ground on a new township called Ave Maria, which they hope will be populated with conservative Catholics. The town will surround a colossal church with a 65-foot crucifix. If you're a parent and do not want your child to attend the Catholic elementary school, you'll have to put your child on a school bus to be educated elsewhere in the county. The township plans no public schools.

These anecdotes may make liberals uncomfortable, but isn't congregating with like-minded people a natural impulse? Lawyers like to drink at lawyer bars, and moms have their mommy groups. Cubs fans don't go to White Sox games, and while Girl Scout troops don't exclude lesbians, they do exclude boys.

Withdrawing from the multicultural melting pot is not an exclusively conservative phenomenon. In Nebraska, the only black member of the state legislature is Ernie Chambers, a liberal who recently pushed through a bill that apportions Omaha’s schools into three districts: one black, one white, and one hispanic. Mr. Chambers says this will insure black schools receiving a fair share of bond proceeds. He also says black families should decide what black children are being taught.


Even in socialist France, they now want immigrants to swear to their love of French culture. We can't do that here, because we largely protect free speech, so we're just making English our official language and leaving the rest implied.

It's clear people are tired of walking on eggshells, afraid to offend those with different beliefs, ideas, and lifestyles. It's grown exhausting, and they want their lives back.

Diversity seems to have worn out its welcome -- like a house guest who has stayed too long.

Read Article

Pat Buchanan on Immigration

Tuesday, 30. May 2006, 01:21:05

America Is Becoming Mexamerica
Half the 100 million Mexicans are still mired in poverty. Tens of millions are unemployed or underemployed. Because of devaluations, real wages are below what they were in 1993. Thus the great migration north continues. Some 1.5 million are apprehended every year on our southern border breaking into the United States. Of the perhaps 500,000 who make it, one-third head for Mexifornia, where their claims on Medicaid, schools, courts, prisons, and welfare have tipped the Golden State toward bankruptcy and induced millions of native-born Americans to flee in the great exodus to Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Colorado. Ten years after NAFTA, Mexico's leading export to America is still--Mexicans.
Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p.166 Sep 1, 2004
Immigration Tsunami Will Make Whites A Minority In US
The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 & 2050, world population will grow to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase in global population will come entirely in Asia, Africa, & Latin America, as 100 million people of European stock vanish from the Earth. But the immigration tsunami rolling over America is not coming from 'all the races of Europe.' The largest population transfer in history is coming from all the races of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and they are not 'melting and reforming.
The Death of the West, by Pat Buchanan, p.3 & 12 Oct 15, 2002
Treat Illegal Immigration As An Invasion And Repel It
We cannot continue to allow illegal immigration. A country that loses control of its borders is not a country. The Constitution of the United States obligates the government to protect the states from foreign invasion. If we can send an army halfway around the world to defend the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, why can’t we defend the borders of the United States?
United We Stand America Conference, p.321 Aug 12, 1995
Vast Majority Wants Border Controls Like Buchanan Fence
I think the vast majority of the American people want immigration reform. They want our borders under control. They would like the atrocities that are occurring stopped cold. I think the whole Congress would support that. In Douglas, Arizona, they’ve got thousands of people walking in every night, cattle are being poisoned, people’s homes are maximum security prisons. This is where all the illegal immigration has poured in now that the Buchanan fence has been built in San Diego.
National Public Radio interview, “Talk of the Nation” May 30, 2000
A Million Immigrants A Year: “We’re Gonna Lose Our Country”
All I’m saying is that our levels of immigration in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay. And you’re rapidly changing the nature of the entire country; we speak 300 languages. Unless we do something and make sure the things that unite us are elevated--like language and history and all the rest of it--we’re gonna lose our country, my friend. But anybody from any country and any continent can be a good American. We know that from our history.
National Public Radio interview, “Talk of the Nation” May 30, 2000
Secure Our Porous Borders; Teach Immigrants English
We should halt illegal immigration by securing our porous borders and strengthening internal enforcement. I support a national campaign of assimilation to teach newly adopted Americans our culture, history, traditions, and English language. To do otherwise cripples American cohesion and keeps the newest members of the American family from full participation. Legal immigration must be reduced by restoring the 20th century average of 250,000 to 300,000 immigrants per year.
www.GoPatGo.org/ “Issues: Immigration Reform” Jun 5, 1999


Australia Day

Friday, 27. January 2006, 07:06:03


The plans for various Australia Day celebrations included one which definitely was not desired -- the threat of another race riot by Australia's racist immigrants.

Sidney's police chief, Carl Scully, cut short his European vacation and returned to the troubled city. He prudently assigned extra police officers to patrol the Cronulla Beach area where the December riots took place.

For many years Australian pundit Phillip Adams spoke favorably of immigration policies designed to transform his country into a "multicultural" society. Now he is having some second thoughts about the desirability of such a transformation.

Earlier this week, on Radio National, Adams said the current state of affairs reminds him of the apocalyptic predictions of Enoch Powell, a British politician who said in 1968 that unchecked immigration would destroy national unity.

Why do you suppose Mr. Adams, who lives in Paddington, has begun to have second thoughts about the sacred cow of "multiculturalism"? Is it because he has undergone a change of heart, a re-shuffling of his social values? Or is it because Paddington is situated not very far from Cronulla Beach?

In any case, the beaches of Sidney are quiet tonight. And I, along with the law abiding residents of the city, hope they remain so -- even when Chief Scully removes the extra officers patrolling the volatile area, and assigns them elsewhere.

Related Post

Race Riots: Immigration Run Amok

Tuesday, 13. December 2005, 16:32:06

Ausrailia's prime minister, John Howard, is appealing for "ethnic and religious tolerance". Ethnic and religious tolerance? I think that phrase may be a euphemism for "shut up and suffer in silence". Gangs of youths are driving through white neighborhoods, breaking windows and damaging cars. Well at least they're not setting the cars on fire like they did in France. Not yet, anyway.

Mr. Howard says attacking people on the basis of race and ethnicity is unacceptable and should be condemned by all Austrailians. Agreed. Simple, straight forward and to the point. But are people really attacking one another solely because of their race or ethnicity or religion or whatever? I doubt it. No, I suspect there may be cultural and behavioral components associated with the rioting which the prime minister is deliberately or inadvertantly failing to address.

People's identification with a particular culture has a profound and pervasive influence on how they live their daily lives -- what they do, what they believe, what they expect, what they value. The culture from which people derive and identify is like a "secuirity blanket" whose threads are inextricably woven into the milieu of their daily living. It provides them with reassuring mores and traditions handed down from generations of people just like them. It is their heritage. It tells them they belong.

Prime Minister Howard describes Austrailia as a "pluralist society", although I'm not sure what that means. He would have the citizens of his country believe that they constitute one great melting pot, as would the leaders of France, Great Britain, Germany, the United States.

Putting people of radically disparate cultures into a melting pot? To what end? The fundamental unity and coherence of the citizens who comprise the nation is destroyed. In effect, the nation is destroyed. Again, to what end? Perhaps to rebuild it in a way that's more amenable to bringing about a one world government? In any case, the only one who benefits from tossing people into a melting pot is the person tending the stove.

Maybe that's what this diversity hoopla is all about. It's being touted by self rightious saints and all-knowing intellectuals so it must be a good thing, right? Well I don't think so, primarily because it's destroying my country. And if you live in a country with an immigration policy that has run amok, it's destroying your country as well.

Last year a race riot in the Aborigine section of Sidney lasted nine hours and resulted in injury to forty police officers. How long will it last this time? How many officers will be injued?

Yesterday, someone rammed a car through the front doors of Horst Dreizner's store in Sidney. He said, "I think this is only the beginning". So do I.