JORGE RAMOS GUILTY OF TREASON

Jorge Ramos and the Meaning of Treason

 American Renaissance

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 15, 2018

When treason prospers, none dare care it treason, to summarize the old saying. But even to speak of “treason” raises a more fundamental question—treason against what? Under that old English law that some say it is now “racist” to evoke, it was once treason to “imagine” the death of the king, queen, or heir. For a wife to murder her husband was “petty treason.” Under almost every system, treason is punishable by death because it endangers not just citizens, but the very principles of authority and responsibility on which society rests. Thus, what a society considers “treason” tells us what that society values.

It’s therefore interesting that Jorge Ramos, the Mexican-born Spanish-language news anchor, is accusing Republicans of wanting the so-called “Dreamers” to commit something like treason.

What Republicans are asking from the Dreamers is like treason. When they say they want to end “chain migration”, they are telling them: we’ll legalize you but I’ll deport your parents and siblings. When someone mistreats your parents, you’ll remember it all your life.

Of course, what Republicans are asking of the “Dreamers” is to put their loyalty to this country—the country we are constantly (and inaccurately) told is the “only country they have ever known”—over the interests of foreigners. This is, after all, what any country would ask of those who want to immigrate. And yet Mr. Ramos’s reaction is an implicit admission that the propaganda line being used to argue for amnesty—that “Dreamers” are simply undocumented Americans—is false. To accuse Mr. Ramos and his ideological allies of “dual loyalty” would be to understate the case; he appears to have little loyalty to the United States at all.

“I finally recognized that I cannot be defined by one country. I am from both countries,” Mr. Ramos said of his decision not to return to Mexico despite dual citizenship. But this does not make him American. His continued attachment to Mexico means he has broken the oath he took to become a U.S. citizen, in which he swore, “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore have been a subject or citizen” and will “bear true faith and allegiance” to the United States.

The blue-eyed Mr. Ramos could easily be considered white—what Steve Sailer calls a “Conquistador-American.” However, he prefers to serve as a tribune for Hispanics, including the millions of non-white indigenous Latin Americans who are clumsily characterized as his fellow Hispanics. Mr. Ramos describes his television network as “pro-immigrant,” and speaks openly of his goal of increasing the power of his ethnic community in all aspects of American life. He is suspicious of the whites who built the society he credits with giving him “complete freedom of expression.” In his documentary, “Hate Rising,” he is incensed when those of us who are not dual citizens oppose the transformation of our country through mass immigration. He has also said that no journalist should maintain neutrality when reporting on Donald Trump.

Yet Mr. Ramos is fundamentally right when he complains that the United States is asking Hispanics to declare loyalty to law rather than to their blood and kin. Law is an abstraction, just like American citizenship, as Mr. Ramos’s indifferent attitude towards this country shows. Mr. Ramos puts ethnic identity above country, or, more accurately, above thiscountry. This is natural—but it is hypocritical for him to be outraged by European-Americans who see so-called “Dreamers” as alien occupiers.

Mr. Ramos’s own, stated position justifies that outrage. He says that no self-respecting Hispanic can permit immigration restrictions that could keep relatives out of this country.

A key to understand the Dreamers is that they don’t want to be legalized if that means that their parents and siblings could be deported. That’s why they want a clean Dream act. Yes, they’re generous and they’ll fight until the end.

This is a strong argument for a stopping immigration completely. Under Mr. Ramos’s logic, letting in one foreigner obligates us to let in his entire extended family. If blood loyalty requires that Hispanics put family immigration over respect for American law, each new Hispanic immigrant is essentially a traitor in waiting. If loyalty to La Raza is treason to America, we should not let in even one more Hispanic.

Mr. Ramos’s conception of blood loyalty is an interesting counterpoint to recent comments of the prospective Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Recently, she said she was proud that her six-year-old had wished on his birthday that he had brown skin and brown eyes like his best friend who is Guatemalan. She is clearly not concerned about an influx of Third Worlders.

At the same time, we get accusations of “treason” against President Trump and his family for supposed “collusion” with Russia. No evidence of such collusion has yet been produced, and as President Trump is increasing the size of the military, killing Russians in Syria, and generally continuing the anti-Russian position of American foreign policy, our Commander-in-Chief is hardly a Putin “puppet.” The vastly larger subversive efforts of China, whose entire society was recently described as a “threat” by the director of the FBI, pass all but unnoticed by the American media, as are Mexico’s clear efforts to influence American policy.

The Left and La Raza activists like Mr. Ramos seem to have no concern for the founding stock of the United States. The country appears to be nothing more than a vehicle for realizing their ambitions. Nancy Pelosi and her like do not seem to care whether people who look like them become a minority. As for Mr. Ramos, there is a frank element of conquest involved, as Mr. Ramos anticipates the United States becoming a Hispanic nation. In both cases, the core European-American population appears to be either an afterthought or an obstacle.

It’s only American conservatives who want to pretend there is no link between race and nation. For example, one Ken Oliver at Newsbusters faulted Jorge Ramos and Jared Taylor for “identity politics gone mad” which “only serves to divide Americans.” “In Jared Taylor’s America, as a white man he evidently cannot be adequately represented by a non-white,” he wrote, “nor in Jorge Ramos’s America can Ramos be adequately politically represented by a non-Hispanic.”

Yet these “Americans” Mr. Oliver posits are largely a fiction. Most Americans throughout this country’s history would have taken the link between American and white identity for granted. The American conservatives able to imagine a deracinated American identity are, like Mr. Oliver, almost all white. But many of the non-whites who are rapidly forming the new American majority prize their racial identity above any “American” identity, and it is hard to fault them for doing so.

In a real nation, there is no distinction between “my country” and “my people.” What remains of authentic American patriotism trades on the nostalgia from the time in American history when this was true. Leftists instinctively know this, which is why many denounce expressions of civic nationalism as “white nationalism.” Mr. Ramos also appears to feel that loyalty to America is treason to his fellow Hispanics.

For European-Americans—at least for those who can see what is at stake—the calculation is different. Loyalty to America means loyalty to whites. As the Founding Fathers understood, it means loyalty “to ourselves and to our posterity.” And it means calling advocacy for open borders what it is: a deliberate sacrifice of this country for the benefit of foreigners. As Peter Brimelow has said, the response to the accusation of racism is the charge of treason. Mr. Ramos’s own comments show this charge is accurate. He can be loyal to his fellow Hispanics or loyal to his citizenship oath, but not both. If he wants to be a champion of what he regards as his people, he can do it as an honest man in his own country, instead of subverting ours.

PREVIOUS POST:

HISTORY OF MEXICO – THE SPANISH CONQUEST – A KILLING MACHINE

READ BELOW THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT NEED  TO BE LECTURED ABOUT MORALS BY ANY MEXICAN OFFICIAL, NOT TODAY, NOT TOMORROW, NOT EVER.

Prior to the Spanish Conquistadors conquering Mexico the country was under the hegemony of the Aztec empire. The Aztec of Central Mexico built a tributary empire covering most of central Mexico. The Aztec were noted for practicing human sacrifice on a large scale. Along with this practice, they avoided killing enemies on the battlefield. Their warring casualty rate was far lower than that of their Spanish counterparts, whose principal objective was immediate slaughter during battle. This distinct Mesoamerican cultural tradition of human sacrifice ended with the Spanish conquest in the 16th century. Over the next centuries Mexican indigenous cultures were gradually subjected to Spanish colonial rule. One could say that the Spanish were ruthless killas. 

The Spanish first learned of Mexico during the Juan de Grijalva expedition of 1518.  The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire began in February 1519 when Hernán Cortés arrived at the port in Veracruz with 500 conquistadores. After taking control of that city, he moved on to the Aztec capital. In his search for gold and other riches, Cortés decided to invade and conquer the Aztec empire.

Storming of the Teocalli by Cortez and his troops. Emanuel Leutze. Painting, 1848

When the Spaniards arrived, the ruler of the Aztec empire was Moctezuma II, who was later killed. His successor and brother Cuitláhuac took control of the Aztec empire, but was among the first to fall from the first smallpox epidemic in the area a short time later. Unintentionally introduced by Spanish conquerors, among whom smallpox was endemic, the infectious disease ravaged Mesoamerica in the 1520s. It killed more than 3 million natives as they had no immunity. Other sources, however, mentioned that the death toll of the Aztecs might have reached 15 million (out of a population of less than 30 million) although such a high number conflicts with the 350,000 Aztecs who ruled an empire of 5 million or 10 million. Severely weakened, the Aztec empire was easily defeated by Cortés and his forces on his second return with the help of state of Tlaxcala whose population estimate was 300,000. The native population declined 80–90% by 1600 to 1–2.5 million. Any population estimate of pre-Columbian Mexico is bound to be a guess but 8–12 million is often suggested for the area encompassed by the modern nation.

The deaths caused by smallpox are believed to have triggered a rapid growth of Christianity in Mexico and the Americas. At first, the Aztecs believed the epidemic was a punishment from an angry god, but they later accepted their fate and no longer resisted the Spanish rule. Many of the surviving Aztecs believed that smallpox could be credited to the superiority of the Christian god, which resulted in their acceptance of Catholicism and yielding to the Spanish rule throughout Mexico.

The territory became part of the Spanish Empire under the name of New SpainMexico City was systematically rebuilt by Cortés following the Fall of Tenochtitlan in 1521. Much of the identity, traditions and architecture of Mexico developed during the 300-year colonial period. The capture of Tenochtitlan and refounding of Mexico City in 1521, marked the beginning of a 300-year-long colonial era during which Mexico was known as Nueva España (New Spain). The Kingdom of New Spain was created from the remnants of the Aztec hegemonic empire. Subsequent enlargements, such as the conquest of the Tarascan state, resulted in the creation of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in 1535. The Viceroyalty at its greatest extent included the territories of modern Mexico, Central America as far south as Costa Rica, and the western United States. The territorial evolution of Mexico after independence, noting the secession of Central America (purple), Chiapas annexed from Guatemala (blue), losses to the US (red, white and orange) and the reannexation of the Republic of Yucatan (red).

The indigenous population stabilized around one to one and a half million individuals in the 17th century from the most commonly accepted five to ten million pre-contact population. The population decline was primarily the result of communicable diseases (particularly small pox) introduced during the Columbian Exchange. During the three hundred years of the colonial era, Mexico received some 400,000 to half a million Europeans, 200,000 to 250,000 Africans and 40,000 to 120,000 Asians. The 18th century saw a great increase in the percentage of mestizos (The Penguin Atlas of World Population History.

Agustín de Iturbide became constitutional emperor of the First Mexican Empire in 1822. A revolt against him in 1823 established the United Mexican States. In 1824, a Republican Constitution was drafted and Guadalupe Victoria became the first president of the newly born country. In 1829 president Guerrero abolished slavery. The first decades of the post-independence period were marked by economic instability, which led to the Pastry War in 1836. There was constant strife between liberales, supporters of a federal form of government, and conservadores, who proposed a hierarchical form of government.

During this period, the frontier borderlands to the north became quite isolated from the government in Mexico City, and its monopolistic economic policies caused suffering. With limited trade, the people had difficulty meeting tax payments and resented the central government’s actions in collecting customs. Resentment built up from California to Texas. Both the mission system and the presidios had collapsed after the Spanish withdrew from the colony, causing great disruption especially in Alta California and New Mexico. The people in the borderlands had to raise local militias to protect themselves from hostile Native Americans. These areas developed in different directions from the center of the country.

Wanting to stabilize and develop the frontier, Mexico encouraged immigration into present-day Texas, as they were unable to persuade people from central Mexico to move into those areas.They allowed for religious freedom for the new settlers, who were primarily Protestant English speakers from the United States. Within several years, the Anglos far outnumbered the Tejano in the area. Itinerant traders traveled through the area, working by free market principles. The Tejano grew more separate from the government and due to its neglect, many supported the idea of independence and joined movements to that end, collaborating with the English-speaking Americans.

General Antonio López de Santa Anna, a centralist and two-time dictator, approved the Siete Leyes in 1836, a radical amendment that institutionalized the centralized form of government. When he suspended the 1824 Constitution, civil war spread across the country. Three new governments declared independence: the Republic of Texas, the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatán.

Second Republic and Second Empire (1846–1867)

Benito Juárez, 26th President of Mexico

The 1846 United States annexation of the Republic of Texas and subsequent American military incursion into territory that was part of Coahuila (also claimed by Texas) instigated the Mexican–American War. The war was settled in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico was forced to give up more than one-third of its land to the U.S., including Alta CaliforniaSanta Fe de Nuevo México and the territory claimed by Texas. A much smaller transfer of territory in what is today southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico—known as the Gadsden Purchase—occurred in 1854.

The Caste War of Yucatán, the Maya uprising that began in 1847, was one of the most successful modern Native American revolts. Maya rebels, or Cruzob, maintained relatively independent enclaves in the peninsula until the 1930s.

So it be that the HISTORY OF MEXICO is one of conquest and revolt. The Spanish were red blooded killers, guilty today of mass murder and plunder. Their philosophy of conquest seeks no end. They are intent on  Spanishizing the Estados Unidos. Until they conquer America their appetite will not be satisfied.

When Mexican President’s lectures us it is necessary to turn the tables on their Spanish Ancestor killing machine. Americans must and will stand up to this Spanish onslaught. The Latino/Hispanic mind knows no end, seeking to monopolize public opinion and blame White Americans for their lot in life. The European Caucasian is in no way responsible for their misery. Time to stand up and throw their violent colonial history back in their face.   

BUILD THE WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT. STOP THE ILLEGAL FROM ENTERING OUR GREAT COUNTRY

TRUMP RE-TWEETS MUSLIM ATTACK VIDEOS

 

British PM rips Trump for re-tweeting Muslim attack videos from UK account

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP, HAS RETWEETED THREE OF DEPUTY LEADER JAYDA FRANSEN’S TWITTER VIDEOS! DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS RETWEETED THESE VIDEOS AND HAS AROUND 44 MILLION FOLLOWERS! GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP! GOD BLESS AMERICA! OCS @JaydaBF@realDonaldTrump

Once Great Britain Under Occupation

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December 1, 2017

Will President Trump help liberate it?

The Roman Republic was born when a Roman woman, Lucretia, was raped by the Etruscan king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Humiliated, Lucretia killed herself. The outraged noble families of the city avenged their ravaged daughter and drove out their foreign overlords, establishing a new state that would endured for centuries and built an empire that would define Western Civilization.

“Lucretia” (Rembrandt, 1664)

The reverse is occurring in the United Kingdom. Once the seat of an empire on which the sun never set, the United Kingdom hosts an insular, hostile, foreign population that is colonizing the home islands. The “grooming,” assault, and rape of English girls in Rotherham and elsewhere, explicitly motivated by racial contempt, occurred for over a decade. More than one victim committed suicide. Yet the aristocrats of once-Great Britain, those with titles and those who simply enjoy wealth and power, did not rise in anger and revulsion to avenge their daughters. The public officials who looked the other way were not even punished.

What did rouse the guardians of British virtue to fury was President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. President Trump, as he often does, retweeted some videos he found interesting. They had been posted by Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of a small British political group called Britain First.

The result was outrage from the entire British political class. In one of the mildest reactions, Prime Minister Theresa May simply called President Trump wrong. Scotland’s First Minister argued a state visit planned by President Trump should be halted, explaining that the presidential retweet “risks legitimizing those who want to spread fear and hatred.”

Some politicians went further, with Chris Bryant of the Labour Party demanding Donald Trump be arrested if the President of the United States ever visits our ally. It should be noted that Mr. Bryant is a former vicar of the Church of England. The archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Communion, is demanding Donald Trump delete his tweets.

Other members of Parliament claimed the presidential retweets constituted a crime.

I asked the Home Secretary this morning if the US President or indeed Twitter have committed a crime for inciting racial religious hatred. The Home Sec says she will not comment on individual cases. I think he has committed a crime.

One of the strongest condemnations came from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who also wants the state visit cancelled. This is ironic considering a highlight of Mayor Khan’s career as a lawyer was trying to get the United Kingdom to lift a travel ban on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Khan described Minister Farrakhan as a “the leader of a vast section of the black community” and denied that Mr. Farrakhan was anti-Semitic or preached a message of “racial hatred or antagonism.”

What Mr. Khan evidently does consider a message of “racial hatred” include three videos of:

  • A “Muslim migrant” attacking a Dutch boy on crutches
  • Someone smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary while making pro-Muslim declarations
  • A man being pushed off a roof in Egypt

The mainstream media have declared the videos “discredited,” especially the first. The Dutch Embassy noted proudly in a tweet that the lout attacking the boy on crutches had been “born and raised in the Netherlands.” That would certainly not stop him from being a Muslim. A Dutch source did deny the dusky attacker was Muslim, but offered no evidence or identification.

The other two videos show what they appear to show, with one probably taken in Syria, and the other during a time of political turmoil in Egypt. Those responsible for the killing in Egypt were punished years later.

But the real outrage seemed to be less about the videos and more about the signal boost President Trump provided to Britain First, universally described as a “far-right” group. Needless to say, Britain First goes out of its way to deny “racism.” Indeed, the first thing you will find at its website is a lengthy explanation of why the group is not racist, and a rather embarrassing collection of blacks supposedly attending the group’s rallies.

However, Britain First does insist on the “maintenance of the indigenous British people as the demographic majority within our own homeland” and the support of “Christianity as the foundation of our society and culture.” These views were self-evident until the recent past; today, they are virtually illegal.

Indeed, Miss Fransen is facing charges because of speeches she made during a rally opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland. The terse announcement by the police did not identify what Miss Fransen did that they claim is illegal. She had said: “The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obligated to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She also condemned the violence of Irish republicans, whom she described as “not Christian.”

Miss Fransen has been in legal trouble for other speeches. As Vice gleefully reported, she was convicted of a “hate crime” for saying Muslim men force women to cover up to avoid being raped because “they cannot control their sexual urges.” This, she added, was “why they are coming into my country, raping women across the continent.” She was also charged with “religiously aggravated harassment” because of “the distribution of leaflets and the posting of online videos during the trial of Muslim men who were subsequently found guilty of rape.”

Such rhetoric may sound uncouth to some, but it is hardly criminal in a free country. Even her most confrontational statements and tactics pale in comparison to the antics of groups such as FEMEN, which are celebrated by the same Western media that professes such outrage today.

Miss Fransen asked President Trump for help:

And she is right to do so. For Britain can in no sense be called a free country. Policing online social networking sites for “hate speech” is now a routine job for British law enforcement. As English author David Webb notes, such “hate speech” restrictions are far more strictly enforced against white men than against non-white minorities. These campaigns are cheered on by the mainstream and non-white volunteer commissars, who urge the police to become involved if they read things they don’t like online. More than 3,000 people were arrested for online speech in 2016. A determination of whether a “hate crime” took place depends on the feelings of the “victim,” meaning that even “unfriendliness” can justify charges.

Such speech laws are especially chilling because British police were recently given unprecedented powers to spy on the electronic communications of the Queen’s subjects. The number, variety, and reach of “equality laws” has also vastly increased since Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government opened Britain to mass Third World immigration. These laws are now being used to prohibit white people from applying for jobs within their own country.

Yet even as the traditional liberties of the English people have dwindled, security cameras are ubiquitous, police are trying to enforce “knife control,” and crime is increasing nationwide, with London now more dangerous than New York City. Police, unable to cope, are simply releasing suspects and “hoping for the best,” according to Police Federation chairman Steve White.

The threat of terrorism has also grown so dramatically that the security state is practically useless. The British press has reported tens of thousands of jihadists in Britain, and those are only the ones known to the authorities. Hundreds of “British” fought for the Islamic State while actual British soldiers were cursed and jeered by Muslims upon their return. Terrorism, of course, is the excuse for even further crackdowns on freedom of speech, which, naturally, can be directed against the “far right.”

Indeed, even as Islamic radicalism goes unchecked, attempts by the indigenous British to organize have been met with persecution, as people such as former English Defense League leader Tommy Robinson can testify. The British police also used what has been termed “exemplary sentencing” to break white working class resistance to Muslim immigration, with the British government imposing harsh punishments against any crimes perceived to be directed against immigrants. At the same time, the violent activists known as antifa enjoy all but unanimous support from the political establishment; former Conservative Party leader David Cameron signed the founding statement of Unite Against Fascism.

Given this repressive atmosphere, it’s not surprising that the only people in the country who can draw attention to serious problems are those like Miss Fransen who are called “far right” and who aren’t afraid of legal sanctions or media scorn. For example, it was the British National Party that first drew attention to the Muslim grooming gangs in Rotherham. Then-party head Nick Griffin denounced what was happening in a 2004 speech that was recorded by an undercover reporter. Not only did the reporter not appear concerned about the truth of Mr. Griffin’s words, he used his surreptitiously obtained evidence to have Mr. Griffin prosecuted.

Today, Muslim grooming gangs are still raping people in Rotherham as well as throughout the country. Yet anyone who speaks up about this or any other ethnic/racial problem has much to fear. A whistleblower could be attacked by Muslims themselves. He could be attacked by antifa. Or he could simply be arrested by a government that seems far more hostile to the indigenous population than those being imported to replace it. It’s hard to imagine even a Soviet government not only allowing such crimes against its people, but arresting those who complain about it.

As John Derbyshire pointed out:

At all points from the 1968 defenestration of Enoch Powell onwards, and still today, the attitude among the European governing and intellectual classes has been that everything will work out just fine so long as native Europeans stop complaining. If they won’t stop, they must be stopped, so that . . . everything will work out just fine.

Great Britain is at least as repressive as an Eastern Bloc country during the 1980s. In actively concealing crime, promoting disorder, and deconstructing the indigenous culture, it may be worse. Even Orwell’s subjects of Big Brother were never angrily told that it was an offense against equality to complain when their children were raped by foreigners. The hysteria of British politicians about President Trump should be treated with no more respect than Soviet boilerplate at a Party Congress.

The likes of Mayor Khan and Prime Minister May are infinitely more contemptible than General Secretaries Brezhnev or Andropov. The British government has long since shirked its duty to ensure the liberty and security of the British people, and it should not be regarded as any more legitimate than the government of East Germany or of the “Polish People’s Republic.”

The priority for the United States should not be to repair the “special relationship.” It should be to explore strategies to liberate our Anglo-Saxon cousins from what is a de facto occupation government. And as leftists are looking enviously at how British politicians have their political opponents arrested for dissident speech, this occupation government is more ideologically dangerous to American liberties than the Warsaw Pact states we faced a generation ago.

TOPICS: 

A GREAT MAN TOOK HIS LIFE RATHER THAN SEE THE DESTRUCTION OF CIVILIZATION

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, December 11, 2015

Venner
Oh is he so right.

Dominique Venner, The Shock of History: Religion, Memory, Identity, Arktos Media, 2015, 160 pp., $21.00.

On May 21, 2013, a Frenchman virtually unknown outside of Europe suddenly burst into the consciousness of racially aware Americans. That day, Dominique Venner walked into the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris and shot himself in the head. As he explained in his suicide note, he took his own life as an act of sovereignty–of control over his own destiny–and in protest against what his beloved France had become: a husk of a once-great nation, whose rulers submitted to American dominance, celebrated a decades-long invasion by unassimilable foreigners, and had legalized homosexual marriage.

Venner probed Europe’s past because he loved Europe and its people. He believed that no one could understand any people or culture unless he completely rejected universalism:

Men exist only by what distinguishes them: clan, lineage, history, culture, tradition. There are no universal answers to the questions of existence and behavior. Every civilization has its truths and its gods . . . . Every civilization creates its own answers, without which the individual, man or woman, lacking identity and archetypes, is thrown into a world of chaos. Like plants, men cannot exist without roots. Every individual must discover his own.

Universalism is a dangerous illusion because “it stunts our ability to comprehend that other men do not feel, think, or live the same way we do . . . .” He writes that “higher civilizations are not simply regions of the planet, they are different planets entirely.” He urges Europeans to search for their own, unique “spiritual morphology,” because “a human group is not a people unless it shares like origins, in a specific location, commanding a space, giving it direction and a border between the inside and the outside. This location, this space, is not only geographic but spiritual.”

A people’s spirit is embedded in tradition, which comes from the past, but gives life and meaning to the present: “If a tradition survives over time, it is because it rests upon the hereditary dispositions of related people.” Europeans must steep themselves in their traditions because they:

make us who we are, unlike any other. They constitute our perennial tradition, our unique way of being men and women in the face of life, death, love, history, and fate. Without them we are fated to become nothing; to disappear into the chaos of a world dominated by others.

THE WELFARE STATE EXPLAINED – GROWING NUMBER OF PARASITES

Welfare: Who’s on It, Who’s Not?

F. Roger Devlin and Henry Wolff, American Renaissance, October 14, 2015

FoodStamps
The numbers are even worse than we thought.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has published a new report called “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households.” The report’s principle finding is that fully 51 percent of immigrant households receive some form of welfare, compared to an already worrisomely high 30 percent of American native households. The new study is based on the most accurate data available, the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). It also reports stark racial differences in the use of welfare programs.

Previous studies of welfare use have been based on the less accurate but more easily accessible data available from the Current Population Survey; this led to less alarming figures of 39 percent of immigrant households using welfare and 24 percent of native households. CIS’s Steve Camarota took the trouble to work with the SIPP data, which cover a larger number of welfare programs. His results have been independently verified by Decision Demographics, a company specializing in analysis of Census Bureau data.

The programs covered in Mr. Camarota’s study include Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (what used to be most commonly called “welfare”), the Women, Infants and Children food program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“food stamps”), free and subsidized school lunches, Medicaid, and public housing and rent subsidies.

Needless to say, the percentage of immigrants using some form of welfare varies enormously according to the part of the world from which they come. Rates are highest for households from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent). Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest rates.

An appendix to the report includes some startling information on welfare use by race and ethnicity. In 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, the percentages of each group that used at least one welfare program were as follow:

WelfareUseNativeHouseholds

A majority of native black and Hispanic households are on some form of means-tested welfare, compared to just 23 percent of native white households.

A disproportionate share of welfare is directed to households with children. For this group, the corresponding numbers for 2012 are even higher:

WelfareUseHouseholdsWithChildren

A striking 82 percent of black households with children receive welfare–double the white rate. Hispanic families are not far behind blacks.

Of course, different welfare programs are used at different rates. What follow are sets of charts showing, first, the welfare rates for all US households, and second, welfare rates only for households with children. The percentages for Hispanic and black immigrants include both legal and illegal immigrants.

CashAssistanceAllHouseholds

CashAssistanceHouseholdsChildren

Among natives, blacks receive cash handouts at more than three times the white rate; Hispanics at more than twice the white rate. Rates for black and Hispanic immigrants are relatively lower due to often-ignored restrictions on immigrant use of these programs.

FoodAidAllHouseholds

FoodAidHouseholdsChildren

Among all households, native blacks and Hispanics receive food handouts at three times the white rate; for Hispanic immigrants, the figure is four times the white rate. Among households with children, nearly all immigrant Hispanics–86 percent–get food aid. Native blacks and Hispanics aren’t far behind, with rates of 75 and 72 percent, respectively.

MedicaidAllHouseholds

MedicaidHouseholdsChildren

It’s clear, too, that non-whites benefit disproportionately from Medicaid, which helps explain why red states have opted out of Medicaid expansion.

HousingAllHouseholds

HousingHouseholdsChildren

Native Hispanics and blacks, especially, are also heavy users of housing assistance. Among households with children, native Hispanics use these programs at nearly four times the white rate and blacks at seven times the white rate. Some effort is made to limit the access of illegal immigrants to subsidized housing, which helps explain why Hispanic immigrants get housing handouts at less than half the rate for native Hispanics. Amnesty for illegals would mean a sharp rise in the percentage of Hispanics in public or subsidized housing.

Spreading the wealth around

For each of the four welfare categories presented above, the black and Hispanic rates are at least double the white rates. Native Asians appear to use welfare at slightly lower rates than whites, but their SIPP sample size is too small to be certain. Asian immigrants, who are not included in the charts above, exceed native white welfare rates by about 25 percent (see table A3 in the CIS report). The US has three times as many immigrant Asian households as native Asian households.

What little public discussion there is of disproportionate welfare use by blacks and Hispanics is inevitably muddied by the claim that the majority of those receiving welfare are white. This ignores the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks and four times as many whites as Hispanics in the United States; what matter are differences in the rates at which each group uses welfare. Furthermore, at least in terms of households, this claim is no longer be true.

According to data in the CIS report, there are 39.88 million households in the US receiving some sort of means-tested welfare. Of those households, just 19.66 million–or 49 percent–are either native or immigrant whites (Middle Eastern immigrants are classified as “whites”). That means the majority of US households on welfare are now non-white.

As mass Third-World immigration continues, the US will have an ever-burgeoning dependent class of non-whites. Black voters will be joined by increasing number of Hispanic voters in their support for more handouts. When they vote in 2016, a majority of black and Hispanic households are likely to be on welfare–just as they were in 2012. Arguments about freedom and limited government will mean nothing to them. Obamacare is just the beginning.

Whites must decide if this is the future they want for their children and grandchildren. If they don’t take action soon, blacks and Hispanics will decide for them.

TOPICS: , , , ,

About F. Roger Devlin

VIEW ALL POSTS BY F. ROGER DEVLIN

F. Roger Devlin

Dr. Devlin is a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly and the author of Sexual Utopia in Power.

WHY AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP

Is Trump Our Last Chance?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 20, 2015

TrumpInSC
Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.

Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.

But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.

But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.

Mr. Trump’s positions on immigration are built on three principles: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. It’s startling to hear a politician even talk about what defines “a nation,” much less get it more or less right. The idea that immigration should benefit Americans rather than foreigners is revolutionary by today’s standards.

Many of Mr. Trump’s specific proposals could be implemented without much fuss. He would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers, which would make it impossible for illegals to work for anything but under-the-table cash. Anybody caught hiring illegals would be punished. He would end the Earned Income Tax Credit for illegals, and would stop granting visas to any country that refuses to take back citizens we want to deport. He would kick out every criminal alien who has served his sentence, unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to like keeping them here.

Mr. Trump would triple the number of ICE officials and end the policy of catch-and-release, under which ICE often tells local authorities who have caught an illegal to let him go. He would make H1-B visas harder to get, and would enforce a policy of hiring Americans first. He would set up a tracking system to catch and deport anyone who overstays his visa. He would deport any illegal alien who is a gang member, and would stop all federal payments to so-called sanctuary cities. All immigrants would have to prove they have the means to support themselves. Although this is not included in his policy paper, Mr. Trump has also said ininterviews that he would scrap all of Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties. All these things could probably be done just by enforcing laws on the books or by changing regulations.

ICE

Some of Mr. Trump’s other ideas would take more work: his call for an end to birth-right citizenship, for example. Arguably, he could simply order agencies to issue passports and social security numbers only to children born of citizens and permanent residents. Or he could get Congress to pass legislation to this effect. In either case, the tangled  interpretations of the 14th Amendment would guarantee a legal challenge. Courts would probably find that the children of illegals are not citizens. Ideally, they would find that the 14th Amendment, which was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves, gives no child born of foreigners automatic citizenship.

Mr. Trump has also suggested in interviews that he wants to deport all illegals, not just criminals. This is by no means “impossible,” as critics claim. With E-Verify and employer sanctions, plenty of illegals would “self-deport,” just as Mitt Romney said they would.

The key, however, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. The vast majority of illegals would quickly decide to get their affairs in order and choose their own day of departure rather than wait for ICE to choose it for them. The main thing would be to convince illegals that ICE was serious about kicking them out. Ironically, the more ICE was prepared to do, the less it would have to do.

Deportation

But those same images of Mexican families would raise a world-wide stink. They would send the libs and legals into a gibbering frenzy, so a Trump administration would have to have backbone. Deporting illegals–even tearful families with “deep roots in the community”–is entirely consistent with current law, so there could be no court challenge. It would be a simple matter of ignoring the gibbering, and getting on with the job. If churches harbored illegals, ICE teams would have to haul them out. Getting serious about deportation would set a marvelous example for the Europeans and would bring illegal immigration to a dead stop.

We might not even need the wall Mr. Trump plans to build, though it’s certainly a good thing to have. The trick would be getting the Mexicans to pay for it, as Mr. Trump promises they will. The position paper says a Trump administration would divert remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants, but it would be hard to verify which payments were from illegals, and plenty of them would love an excuse to stop sending money home anyway. The paper also says we could increase fees on visas issued to CEOs and diplomats, charge more for border-crossing cards, levy an entry fee at the Mexican border, and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. Making every Mexican who crossed the border pay a stiff fee until the wall was built sounds like a fine idea, but the others probably would not raise much money or would violate treaties.

One way Mr. Trump says he would make Mexico pay for the wall is to cut off foreign aid. Depending on how it’s calculated, handouts to Mexico runs to as much as $900 million a year. It’s hard to understand why Mexicans deserve even a dime of our taxes. Turning off the tap would be instant savings, whether to pay for a wall or not.

BorderWall

 

Finally, Mr. Trump’s “pause” in issuing green cards would be a wonderful thing, but it would probably require legislation. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual number of visas passed out each year from 290,000 to 675,000 (not including refugee or H1-B visas and all kinds of other dubious waivers and exemptions) and set up the diversity-visa lottery that lets in another 55,000 a year. Every year there are about one million people who become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or “green card holders.”

Of course, Mr. Trump could take a leaf out of Mr. Obama’s book and legislate by executive order. If President Obama can simply decide not to enforce the law against minors who were smuggled into the country–and then decide also to exempt the parents who smuggled them–President Trump could probably shut down the lottery and cut way back on family reunification.

There is no end to the good a president could do if he were really convinced that immigration should benefit us rather than foreigners. Today the executive branch is thick with people who make no secret of wanting “diversity” of every kind, and think immigration is the best way to get it. Imagine an executive run by people who were as sick of immigration–legal and illegal–as real Americans are. Imagine regular executive briefings on crimes committed by foreigners, on monthly deportation figures, on new miles of border wall completed, on frauds and criminals turned back at the border. Imagine an executive branch that cuts off funding to La Raza and MALDEF and all the “refugee” resettlement groups. Imagine a government that laughs at editorials in the New York Times, and that actually cares about the welfare of Americans.

USA/

A change in tone would be as dramatic as a change in policy because a president and his cabinet have tremendous influence that goes well beyond policy. They can put a subject on the national agenda just by talking about it. They can make it respectable just by continuing to talk about it. Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high-IQ, English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so. A Trump presidency could completely change what is said about the difference between a crowd and a nation, and what it means to be an American.

So far, Mr. Trump has said little about race, but President Trump would certainly be no pushover for blacks. Al Sharpton–whom Mr. Trump has called a “professional conman”–would never darken the White House door again, and the Black Lives Matter frauds would get the cold shoulder.

And a Donald Trump presidency is no longer pure fantasy. He continues to widen his lead over Republican competitors. He is the first choice of 24 percent of registered Republicans—11 points ahead of his closest rival, Jeb Bush. He also comes in first as a second choice: 14 percent to Jeb Bush’s 10 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Mr. Trump, which is eight points more than the 61 percent who view Mr. Bush favorably. A majority of Republicans who are likely to vote–57 percent–now think Mr. Trump will be the Republican candidate.

TrumpRally

Just as important, according to a CNN/ORC poll of potential voters, Mr. Trump has pulled to within 6 percentage points (51 to 45) in a theoretical contest with Hillary Clinton. Just last month he was 16 points behind. Mr. Trump would get 55 percent of the white vote and 53 percent of the male vote; only women and non-whites continue to be strong Hillary backers.

The coming election is a combination of circumstances that will never repeat itself. Mr. Trump is a brand new face in politics, at a time when public trust in the federal government is close to a record low. His Republican opponents are nonentities. The most likely Democratic candidate is a shopworn harridan even her supporters don’t entirely trust.

Mr. Trump is also prepared to spend up to $1 billion of his own money to win the election. He says he turned down $5 million from a lobbyist, because he doesn’t want to owe favors to anyone. As the campaign continues, more and more voters will be impressed by his complete independence from special interests. Finally, when the time comes for street-level canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives, Mr. Trump will have armies of committed volunteers instead of the party hacks who are pushing his rivals.

There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and for their country.

TOPICS: ,

About Jared Taylor

VIEW ALL POSTS BY JARED TAYLOR

Jared Taylor

Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.