Distemper of the Times
With reports circulating of its imminent demise, the New York Times announced in January that it had found a white knight.
Sort of. For the knight in question, who already owns 6 percent of the sinking Times and was investing $250 million in notes carrying 14 percent interest, was Carlos Slim. Reputedly the richest man in the world, taking the title from Bill Gates in 2007, Carlos is not so highly regarded in his own country.
In Mexico, according to Forbes, “the media and the masses long have held a sneaking suspicion that there is something shady about Slim. He is described as a rapacious monopolist who built his empire on cozy ties to Mexican presidents … .”
For this column, however, the issue is not how Carlos bought up the Mexican telephone monopoly, but whether this Big Enchilada has bought up Andrew Rosenthal’s editorial page.
For, two weeks after Carlos’ bailout cash arrived, Rosenthal’s page launched a hysterical attack on the patriots’ movement that seeks to halt the invasion of the United States from Mexico.
Targets: my sister Bay; our American Cause foundation and its executive director, Marcus Epstein; Peter Brimelow, the author of a seminal work on U.S. immigration, “Alien Nation”; Jim Pinkerton of Fox News, a White House aide to Bush I; Fox’s Bill O’Reilly; and this writer.
In the Times‘ editorial, “Return of the Nativists,” Brimelow is said to run an “extremist Website” (VDARE.com) where he and I post “musings about racial dilution and the perils facing white people.” Pinkerton was behind the “racist Willie Horton ads.” Epstein holds “white-supremacist” views. And we all are into “racialist extremism” and “Latino-bashing,” which calls to mind “the days of the Know-Nothings and the Klan.”
Racism “is all around us,” wails the Times. And the nation has a “perpetual need for vigilance,” even in this new “age of Obama.”
What occasioned this wilding attack? A news conference at the National Press Club, where the Times reporter failed to show, and release of a dry report by Epstein that contends that GOP defeats in 2008 had nothing to do with the strong stand most Republicans took for border security.
The Times calls the report “nonsense.” But the case is open and shut. Of 26 House Republicans who lost, Epstein found only one who was a strong border-control candidate defeated by a pro-amnesty Democrat. In every other GOP defeat, either the Democrat was tough on amnesty and border security or the Republican was wimpish.
That John McCain, who led the effort to put illegal aliens on a path to citizenship, got less than a third of the Hispanic vote shows that being pro-amnesty does not necessarily win the Hispanic vote. And the 70 percent of New Yorkers who rejected Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to give driver’s licenses to illegals, forcing Hillary Clinton to abandon her own governor, should tell even the obtuse Times which way the wind is blowing.
But rather than argue with us, the Times chose to slime us as racists and white supremacists. This is of a piece with the Times’ sliming of the Californian electorate that voted against state recognition of homosexual marriage. To the Times, that 52-48 vote meant “right-wing forces, led by the Mormon Church,” had “enshrined bigotry in the state’s Constitution.”
Both diatribes reveal much about the fall of a great newspaper and the degeneration of a political philosophy that was once hegemonic in America. Liberalism has hardened into an ideology, a rabid religion that anathematizes any and all heretics.
To the Times‘ editorial writers, dissent from orthodoxy on illegal aliens or gay rights can only be explained by bigotry, hatred, racism or xenophobia in the hearts of the dissidents. To oppose the Times’ agenda on social or moral issues is ascribed to mental illness or moral sickness.
Yet, as these negative views on homosexual marriage and illegal immigration remain mainstream views, the Times comes off, as it did in Sunday’s sophomoric editorial, as loathing Middle America.
In its own mind, the Times is battling heroically the forces of hatred. Can it not, by rereading its own words, see the hatred in its own heart?
As Christ Himself said, Andrew, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Let it be said. There is nothing wrong about Americans fighting to preserve the culture and country they grew up in. That is what patriotic conservatism is all about. And if the Times can understand and support the right of native tribes like the Navajo and Apache to preserve their unique character and culture, why this viral hatred of those of us who wish to preserve the Western and Christian character of America?
Why does the Times want to see our America destroyed? From what poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
This is divide and conquer. I’m against legislating morality. It is a diversion to the real issue which is corporate socialism and empire. The illegal aliens are here and I can’t imagine them going anywhere. The xenophobia issue goes back to slavery and segregation. The sins that will forever haunt this country. I think the solution is to look at the structural problems in our society, the societies these people are coming from, and focus on our common enemies the Plutocrats.
Eep, uncontrolled Third World immigration IS a structural problem for our society and it is caused in part by the “Plutocrats” you cite, and in part by people who think as you do. If we allow ourselves to be crippled with guilt over slavery and segregation we will lose our way of life altogether.
Do you think that the people who are flooding into our country have no historical baggage of their own? Mexico is run by “Plutocrats.” Do you think adding more Mexicans, who are already adjusted to living in such conditions to the American electorate, will help your cause? Do you think Muslim immigrants will adjust to the give and take of Democracy? Or will they insist on their age old religious certitudes? How will Hindus fit in to a classless society? Do you know any Africans who understand and support a meritocracy under a rule of law?
Personally I’ve lost all patience with this endless masochistic obsession white Americans cultivate over race relations. Within the bounds of Christian conduct, we have every right to advance our own interests and traditions, period.
Pat Buchanan, attacking the messenger, typical republican response. I swear this mythical conservative party is based on nothing but shooting messengers, judging books by their covers, throwing babies out with the bathwater and cutting off your nose to spite your face and it endures because it’s followers only listen to approved speakers and leaders.
‘corporate socialism’? Newspeak much? Are we inventing new terms everyday now? If it involves a corporation it ain’t socialist, it’s capitalist. The opposite of socialism.
rawshark wrote:
“‘corporate socialism’? Newspeak much? Are we inventing new terms everyday now? If it involves a corporation it ain’t socialist….
rawshark, I don’t know who you are quoting but I suspect the term is most definitely not being used approvingly, and indeed is being employed as derisively as possible to talk about these bailouts.
And as to your comments about Buchanan’s “typical republican response’ vis a vis this immigration stuff, I don’t know that you saw anyone raking the Republicans over the coals so much as Buchanan did for their support of the last amnesty attempt. And don’t forget, that attempt failed despite it being brought up in a *Democratic* controlled Congress.
Cheers,
Thomas, here are my answers to your questions!
“Eep, uncontrolled Third World immigration IS a structural problem for our society and it is caused in part by the “Plutocrats” you cite, and in part by people who think as you do. If we allow ourselves to be crippled with guilt over slavery and segregation we will lose our way of life altogether.” Multiculturalism is accepted thought. I think ethno-nationalism is an important topic but needs to be brought up tactfully because it is avoided by the elite controlled everything. This topic alienates people when it is “my culture vs your culture” without specifics it communicates a desire for control and hegemony through the coercion of the state. I think there are good people out there and there is no reason to alienate them.
“Do you think that the people who are flooding into our country have no historical baggage of their own?” No, they have historical baggage. How much probably varies. I think it is best to try and befriend the more reasonable ones. We are stuck for the ride so I don’t think it is a good idea to make enemies of the whole population. I consider ethno-nationalism a danger in the multicultural fantasy world.
“Mexico is run by “Plutocrats.” Do you think adding more Mexicans, who are already adjusted to living in such conditions to the American electorate, will help your cause?” No but it is better to try and reason with them than have them snuggle up to the Plutocrats for protection and alienate possible political allies.
I think it is important to look at the various motivations for them coming here and what is wrong with their own societies, our own, and our dealings with their countries. An example is that I remember reading an argument that poor farmers couldn’t compete with American subsidized agriculture businesses so they come here.
“Do you think Muslim immigrants will adjust to the give and take of Democracy? Or will they insist on their age old religious certitudes?” I think most people are reasonable.
“How will Hindus fit in to a classless society?” We don’t have a classless society. There is Plutocrats, their minions, and everyone else. They have a caste system don’t they?
“Do you know any Africans who understand and support a meritocracy under a rule of law?” I’m not familiar enough with them to answer the question.
rawshark, isn’t what we are experiencing now collective ownership of corporate debt? Ralph Nader called it Corporate Socialism and I think that is a good term for it. Privatize the profit and socialize the risk. If you want you can read his thoughts on it here. He describes the difference between what he calls Corporate Socialism and Capitalism:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader0718.html
I don’t even like VDare much (though I think the story behind the name is lovely), since it does come across as rather snarky to this fellow from an immigrant background; but I think the Apache analogy is apt. If we can worry about indigenous rights of the Yanomamo in the Amazon jungle, surely it’s not such as stretch to make allowances for Mormons and Baptists.
I’m going to be honest though, I can feel a lot more fraternal knowing that they don’t have direct power over me (and I can acknowlege, in fairness, it’s not them that have really had power for the past 8 years…)
Before we all have at each other again, may I please suggest that the social structures that allow profitable exploitation of illegal, non-unionised Mexicans ought to be the issue; the unfortunates who are risking so much to work are perhaps less guilty than those at the top who have never had dirt under their fingernails.
It does bother me, for example, when conservatives go off about Mexifornia and then do their patriotic duty to the economy by shopping at the Great Walmart of China.
And a word to the wise: I believe “Corporate Socialism” refers to the State enforced socialisation of costs, and privatisation of profits, that is so often put forward as “Capitalism” by the great and the good.
Just sayin’.
Eep. I’m do not mean this to be offensive but your point of view strikes me as nieve in the extreme. You state that multi-culturalism “Is Accepted.” The point of this site in my view is to give voice precisely to those of us who do not accept Multiculturalism. We represent that portion of the American public who are loyal to our own culture. That culture is Christian and Western.
Your plea for tact in “discussing Ethno-nationalism” misses the point. The establishment in our country has rejected our heritage, defiled our culture and is replacing the American People with a polyglot, third world population. Whether they are doing this out of avarice or idiocy is irrevevant to our survival as a coherent people.
The rest of your response can be summarized as follows.
1. They’re here and we can’t do anything about it.
2. “People are reasonable.” So let’s reason with the reasonable one’s.
I’m not sure if you really believe that it’s impossible to deport the illegals or you just don’t have the stomach for it. Clearly if millions of peasants can smuggle themselves into our midst with next to no resources, We can shoo they back out with a bit of resolve.
These people are in our country to make money and to take advantage of our higher standard of living. They cannot be reasoned out of their drive to invade and settle in what they see as a better place. Simply put, it is a matter of our best interest or theirs. What is needed is a bit of backbone.
Regardless of the economic system in place or this abstraction called “the state,” the demographic situation in this country is what is most crucial. No matter how much damage is done to the economy, our people can recover and set up a better system and a free economy in time.
However, if our people are dispossessed and replaced, the game is up. There is no recovery. Furthermore, a permanent underclass of cultrually alien proletarians will insure that it will be impossible to remove socialism by democratic means. This is why Peter Brimelow calls immigration “The Viagra of the State.”
The deportation of illegals is a necessity for the American nation to survive. It’s a necessity for freedom to surive as well. These issues will continue to be of fundamental importance even if the Federal Reserve was abolished tomorrow.
Here is my response, Thomas.
“Eep. I’m do not mean this to be offensive but your point of view strikes me as nieve in the extreme. You state that multi-culturalism “Is Accepted.” The point of this site in my view is to give voice precisely to those of us who do not accept Multiculturalism. We represent that portion of the American public who are loyal to our own culture. That culture is Christian and Western.”
I was just making an observation, sharing my personal opinion, and an argument for a different strategy. I recognize both multiculturalism and ethno-nationalism. I don’t completely accept either of them. I was saying the establishment completely is in the multicultural camp. It has the power to define the debate and I think it has.
The American people did not vote select a president candidate who was going to throw the illegal aliens out of the country. It wasn’t because they didn’t have the option. They chose two candidates who were pro-amnesty. At election night they still had Chuck Baldwin but they didn’t vote for him. The laws are on the books and are not being enforced. I don’t see change unless people start going at it like the Palestinians and Israelis and ethnic group(s) are labeled the “new terrorists.” The government is unresponsive and the parties are planning on courting hispanic votes. The people seem to be mostly apathetic or complicit in hiring illegal aliens. They might leave if the opportunities dry up.
I think the establishment through the media and schools preach and pump political correctness into the American brain. I have faith in their ability to manufacture consent. I think it is important to take their abilities and power into account. The establishment socially engineers from childhood to grave. The baby boomers are different than their parents. They see things differently. There is something going on. They are far more tolerant. I think that is an improvement over the older generations obsession with scientific racism.
I agree the Establishment has rejected Christianity and individualism. It worships materialism, collectivism and power. The word “Christian” has become virtually meaningless. I sincerely believe the country is in the shape it is in over a lack of morality. The economy is built on usury. Half of marriages end up in divorce. Idol worship, abortion, lying, theft, coveting and murder are common place. The media degrades Christianity. They find the most obnoxious self promoting tv preachers and parade them around as the voice of Christians. There is crimethink associated with them. They are discrediting Christianity. Thousands of years of brilliant Christian thinkers and this is it. I think Christians are regulated to a few issues that politicians can pander to and not worry about carrying out. I was reading about herd mentality today. Our brains encourage us to be like the herd and conform. I think popular buzz terms can be dangerous. An unknown man was elected with the words “hope and change” and the herd heard what it wanted to hear. The “free market” is blamed for everything now because everyone knows that Republicans support the free market and they were ruling the country when the economy crashed. They say we need more government intervention. It must have been because Bush was too fiscally conservative. I have a question! Wouldn’t hispanics strengthen the Christian community because they are Christians themselves? It is interesting that the Catholic Church is pro-immigration. What are your thoughts on that?
“These people are in our country to make money and to take advantage of our higher standard of living. They cannot be reasoned out of their drive to invade and settle in what they see as a better place. Simply put, it is a matter of our best interest or theirs. What is needed is a bit of backbone.”
I agree that is why but someone has to hire them.
According to this article in the New York Times the Mexican government didn’t improve the infrastructure of their country when our jobs were shipped down south. Then they were shipped to China and Mexico lost market to China. Mexican businesses couldn’t compete because of the lost of their tariffs so the Mexicans come here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html
Eep, of course you’re free to make observations from the sidelines. I question the point of “not accepting” either multi-culturalism or ethno-nationalism. Fine tuning one’s own philosophical position must be satisfying, but while you’re doing it we are losing our country. I hope you don’t mind if some of us try to do something about it while you’re tuning up.
Re the establishment and Christianity, the establishment has decided to abolish the population and elect a new one. We need to abolish the establishment and forge a new one before it’s too late.
Mexicans are Christians, so are the natives of Borneo. Would you welcome them as well? Do you believe all Christians everywhere are interchangeable?
The Mexican Government has been in the business of failing to improve their infrastructure since their independence from Spain. And your point is? Knowing why Mexican nationals are intruding on our soil is academically interesting. Running them off is imperative.
We need to act within the law against those who hire illegals, period. We also need to stop all immigration now.
My thoughts on multicultural-ethno-nationalism spectrum. Different ethnic groups can live peacefully together but on the other hand they can fight for territory and ethnically cleanse each other. Before the war in Iraq the Iraqis had more mixed communities but after there was ethnic cleansing because the Bush Administration toyed with the power structure in the country. Then the US government and businesses are playing with the power structure in this country. I think they are playing with fire. Especially when economic liberty is frowned upon in this country and there is a very serious resource problem. We have a serious water problem, especially in the Southwest. It is going to get worst with continued population growth.
The New York Times was a hit piece. The message was that Conservatives hate the sinner rather than love the sinner and hate the sin. Is it wise to alienate the future majority population of this country from Conservatism and add onto the baggage that they carry? The federal government lives off fear. There are 45 million hispanics here now. I’d rather the US not turn into a big Israel and Palestine because people forget each others humanity in an “us vs them” conflict (I think it has already started).
“Re the establishment and Christianity, the establishment has decided to abolish the population and elect a new one. We need to abolish the establishment and forge a new one before it’s too late.”
I think to forge a new establishment you’d probably need elements of the left and the libertarians. They aren’t going to go for kicking the illegal aliens out of the country. I think breaking the country up into smaller ones might be a solution.
“Mexicans are Christians, so are the natives of Borneo. Would you welcome them as well? Do you believe all Christians everywhere are interchangeable?”
In moderation if they are peaceful. I don’t think Christians in the same neighborhood are interchangeable. Yet the Pope isn’t John Hagee so their religious authority has some morals and since he is the only one they maybe more consistency.
“The Mexican Government has been in the business of failing to improve their infrastructure since their independence from Spain. And your point is? Knowing why Mexican nationals are intruding on our soil is academically interesting. Running them off is imperative.”
The United States inherited Mexico’s problems when they got married (NAFTA).
“We need to act within the law against those who hire illegals, period. We also need to stop all immigration now.”
Yes immigration should happen within the law that’s why they want to change the law to reflect the immigration. There has been too much immigration too fast but no one is going to stop it. Reagan didn’t stop it. Reagan gave them amnesty. Illegal immigration should have stopped over 20 years ago.
Eep. It’s difficult to respond to what is at bottom a lack of resolve. If you really believe that Hispanics are destined to be the future majority population of this country, then learn Spanish and submit. If you happen to have some self respect you should resist.
You mention that different ethnic groups lived side by side in Iraq before we “toyed with the power structure.” Did it ever occur to you that the only thing keeping Iraqi’s from slitting each other’s throats WAS the power structure? If your ideal of ethnic equilibrium requires a Saddam Hussein, or a Tito, count me out.
You say, “Is it wise to alienate the future majority population of this country from Conservatism and add onto the baggage that they carry?” They are only going to be the majority if we let them. We do have a say in this.
You say, “I think to forge a new establishment you’d probably need elements of the left and the libertarians. They aren’t going to go for kicking the illegal aliens out of the country. I think breaking the country up into smaller ones might be a solution.” What would be the point of inserting leftists into a new establishment? A great many libertarians are coming to see that life in Mexifornia is worth rejecting, because the Mexicans have little tradition or understanding of freedom as we know it. We may indeed have to think about breaking up the country. I want to be in the part that breaks away from the part you’re in.
I see you wouldn’t mind immigration from Borneo. Can we keep them in your neighborhood exclusively?
Your statement re Hagee and the Pope is unintelligible. Please translate.
I don’t see how NAFTA negates our sovereignty to the extent that Mexicans can simply occupy our country. Maybe I didn’t read the fine print.
Your last statement seems to suggest that Third Word immigration into the US as inevitable, even in the face of rising unemployment and a possible depression. The fact that Reagan allowed himself to be duped into an amnesty, and that amnesty lead to further immigration should serve as a cautionary tale.
We already have the power structure of a powerful dictator trying to create and enforce ethnic harmony. Because of ethnic problems in this country we’ve lost state’s rights. We are going to have hate crime laws to try to enforce social harmony even more.
Reagan could have been a man and forced them out like Eisenhower. All the Presidents could have. The Republicans picked a man for a presidential candidate (John McCain) who said Americans are not as good of workers as illegal aliens and who loved to use the word “nativist” to attack immigration opponents. If it was war that they wanted there was Tom Tancredo. He was against immigration and was pro-war. He made it clear what he stood for. No one voted for him. I don’t see how any other conclusion other than inevitability can be taken from the evidence at hand.
You should check out the “North American Community” if you want to know where NAFTA is going, including the immigration issue. They have a plan that includes the US, Mexico, and Canada.
“Your statement re Hagee and the Pope is unintelligible. Please translate.” Hagee is pro-war and pro-Israel because he wants to bring about Armageddon. The Pope is against murder.
Thomas, see Eisenhower could do it! Then it couldn’t be done again. He was a rare man.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Eep. So you are in favor of rounding up and deporting illegals. As the Australians say, Good on ya.’ This did not come through to me based on your previous comments. My experience with illegals in my region is that they are quite sensitive to the treat of police action and tend to move on when the heat is applied. A real crackdown would flush the system in little time. There will always be some hard cases but these can be dealt with.
Perhaps my view is a bit radical but I think we should also start revoking the citizenships of obvious troublemakers. Certainly, naturalized citizens who violate our laws or work to undermine our sovereignty should be stripped of their citizenship and sent packing. We have deported Italian Gangsters and Russian revolutionaries in the past, why not the new breed of interlopers?
I agree about States Rights as well. Of course given more power, some states like California, New York and New Jersey would become alien havens. So sovereignty should be primarily a federal responsibility, especially where States fail their duty in this regard.
Re inevitability. Tancredo got the message out and it stuck in the minds of some media and most Republicans. Americans just don’t vote for third party candidates in great numbers. They never have. In our present climate of unemployment and depression a Republican candidate running on an economic nationalist platform would win.
I’m aware that NAFTA enthusiasts are in favor of turning the whole of North America and Mexico into a common market/country. We just have to beat these people by electing patriots who respond to our insistence on America First.