Dissenting on the Mandela Myth

What are people celebrating about the ‘New South Africa’ Mandela and the ANC have wrought, exactly?

That one in five whites left the country due to crime and the state of the economy? Half a million Europeans immigrated to South Africa in the 50s and 60s.

That about 10% of Boer farmers have been murdered, while 90% of land seized so far by the state the government admits is unproductive?

Unemployment is twice as high in South Africa as it was at the end of apartheid. Black life expectancy has actually fallen. The Johannesberg Stock Exchange, once the tenth largest in the world, has actually left the Central Business District for the safer suburb of Sandtown. The country’s main synagogue once sat proudly in the centre of Johannesberg. Now its in a gated suburb for safety.

White South Africa had its problems, but widespread misconceptions about it, spread with the help of communist regimes and left-wing activists, led to a takeover by the brutal ANC who are running the country into the ground and making life worse for blacks and whites.

While it was not an ideal situation for blacks back in the day, things were getting better gradually, and the National Party’s relatively conservative economic policies led to increased economic growth and standards of living for everybody. For instance, blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more private cars than the entire population of the USSR at the time.

The black school population grew by 250 percent in the first twenty-five years of apartheid. The black share of total personal income nearly doubled in twenty years, from twenty percent in the mid-1970s to thirty seven percent in 1995, while that of whites declined from seventy one to forty nine percent.

It also saved South Africa from the communist menace. If the ANC had come to power in the 1960s, Zimbabwe today would look enviable from the other side.

The gains were wrecked as a result of the revolutionary democratic-utopian fervour. Evolution, not revolution, was the way to black empowerment. The vote doesn’t mean much if you have no job and can’t get about your business safely.

Today, interest groups in South Africa are fighting viciously and desperately for a bigger slice of a constantly shrinking pie. This is what leads to tragic events such as the killings at the Lonmin mine strike.

The ANC has done in South Africa what Mrs. Thatcher said the socialists are always happy to do: make the poor even poorer, provided the rich get less rich.

If conservatives and libertarians are too afraid to address these things head on, we will always lose.

Mass Immigration and its Discontents

Is there an economic case against open borders, and not just a cultural one? Certainly, warnings about labor shortages from open-borders advocates like Paul Ryan strike me as rather hollow at a time of increasingly advanced automation and robotics. The collision course that is the welfare state and affirmative action on one hand, and mass immigration on the other, has been explored quite extensively.

But there is plenty of room for reservation about open borders if you just believe in something called supply and demand.

That’s what the always interesting Ron Unz argued recently in a debate against libertarian economist and pundit Brian Caplan. I was surprised to hear a few days ago that an Intelligence Squared audience, predictably very much in favor of mass immigration according to polls taken at the beginning of the debate, subsequently swung massively to Unz’s restrictionist side.

Now, my view is that the wants and needs of western countries, even with their aging populations, are vastly outnumbered by the wants and needs of the pools of potential migrants in poor countries. Eight out of the ten most fertile countries in the world are in the dysfunctional region that is sub-Saharan Africa. Conceivably, we may need some of their labor, even if the unemployment rate in Spain and Greece remains in the mid to high twenties. But the fact that 44% of Somalians are under the age of 15, for instance, should be giving us pause for thought before we even consider throwing the borders open. The supply and demand situation here is incredibly skewed. Greece, certainly an economic basket-case at present, still looks tempting enough from the perspective of a young person from Eritrea, where per capita GDP stands at $600.  My money would be on major economic and social upheaval if unfettered movement of people were actually adopted as it stands.

Back to Ron Unz, who calmly advanced a common-sense argument against a typically smarmy Brian Caplan. Unz simply states that allowing an unlimited number of additional workers from everywhere in the world to come to America, as Caplan advocates, would massively increase the supply of labor. This would tremendously disadvantage labor, to the tremendous advantage of capital. Ordinary workers would not benefit at all. True, there would be a huge increase in economic production, productivity, and GNP on paper. All of it, however, would be captured by capital. America’s minimum wage would quickly become the maximum wage.

This would exacerbate the bifurcation of American that has taken place over the past 40 years. While technology has increased living standards, real earnings for most have been stagnant during this time. Yet the wealthy have gotten much wealthier. The top 1 percent of American society has reached the point where it has as much wealth as the bottom 95 percent. Mass immigration and mismanagement of the currency have been the main culprits here. Female entry to the workforce has payed its part, though the wage sectors that have experienced the sharpest declines are not the ones that have seen massive influxes of women.

A recent cover piece at The Spectator described the American and British middle classes as “shrinking and sinking”. This may constitute the single most disturbing social trend of our age, and a true tragedy for the adults of tomorrow, who will not be able to enjoy the trappings of life their parents and grandparents did. Not to mention it is potentially destabilizing politically.

If libertarians like Caplan and mainstream conservatives (or more accurately, perhaps, Wall Street conservatives) are not helping to stop and reverse this trend, they are on the wrong side of history. Recent talk of a ‘libertarian populism‘ or ‘labor Republicanism‘ may indicate a growing awareness that conservatives and libertarians must speak the language of exurban Ohio rather than midtown Manhattan.

The policies of previous decades, focusing on tax cuts and privatization, will no longer cut it. We now have huge numbers of working poor and people earning under £1500 a month in Britain. They may pay no direct tax apart  from an £85 National Insurance contribution. They gain significantly more from government services than what they pay in. They have no incentive to vote for the Mitt Romneys of this world.

So we are going to have to find ways to genuinely improve the average man’s standard of living, economic mobility, and purchasing power. My first step would be an end to all immigration unless of a highly skilled, specific variety. Its not the only step that could be taken, but I am willing to say it is the most important one.

I have said to a colleague on Facebook that open-borders libertarians, and the editorial writers at outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the FT, are because of their adherence to this idea now as dangerous to the middle class and prosperity as any Bolshevik. I stand by it.

The Halawa incident, and the Muslim Brotherhood plays the victim

In the past few days, the Irish media has been saturated with coverage of those members of the Halawa family who got trapped in a mosque in Cairo, surrounded by police. This happened on the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Day of Rage’ last Friday. They are now being held in an Egyptian prison.

The family have marketed themselves as unlucky tourists, and the media are dutifully parroting this line. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One of these ladies, called Fatima, was being interviewed on Radio One claiming to be innocently trapped in Fateh Mosque on Ramses Square. There was no mention of the Islamist mob that had attacked the police station on the corner of that same square from that same mosque; a mob they were very likely there to support. There was no mention of the fact that the army, police and residents provided safe passage for women to leave Al-Fatah Mosque. Here’s a picture from Egypt Daily News:

1-1-2

Were the Halawas really “trapped” in this mosque?

Fatima’s father is Imam Hussein Halawa, a very prominent Islamist figure operating out of the Clonskeagh mosque. Clonskeagh is a Gulf-state operation and a haven of Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

This young lady was saying her phone battery was so low that she could not call the Irish Embassy, yet she could do several interviews over the same phone with RTE in one day.

Aside from presenting the story from an angle the media wont, I want to offer some thoughts on what just happened here.

Firstly, the ‘plight’ of the Halawas, who arrived in Egypt to agitate, received many times more attention than the 40 churches burned to the ground and looted in the last few days in Egypt. This crime was committed by people the Halawas came to assist. This disparity in the media coverage is in itself obscene.

Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood had called for a ‘Day of Rage’ that led to dozens of policemen being killed, and the violence is still ongoing. Just two day ago, 25 soldiers were lined up and shot by Islamists in the Sinai. Several were beheaded. The Halawa girls were with the Muslim Brotherhood in one of its mosques that same day, by their own volition. Over three weeks ago, Omaima Halawa posted a message on Facebook pledging to stay in Egypt and saying “we only fear Allah not bullets”. Papa Hussein Halawa ‘likes’ this post. Here is a link.

I believe these people, the Halawas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are incredibly talented liars and propagandists, good at portraying themselves as victims. The image below shows them using a tactic the Palestinians have been employing for years: professional “corpses” wheeled out for the cameras.

There is a reflex tendency to see Arab Muslims as innocent victims; of western powers, the Israelis, and so on. Islamic persecution of Copts has no place in the narrative, so it’s simply ignored. Here, for instance, is a report of Muslim Brotherhood supporters capturing nuns and parading them down the streets of Cairo as ‘prisoners of war’.

Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood may be good at PR, but the media won’t ask hard questions because they fear being seen as ‘Islamophobic’. Some westerners are as much to blame as them.

1209105_398512993583892_1431954010_n

P.S. – I feel I should give you a very short summary of my views on the Egyptian military’s actions against the Brotherhood.

It is commonly said the military are opposing the democratic will of the Egyptians. This is true; but it’s also a very good thing. The Egyptian elections saw the Muslim Brotherhood coming out on top, with over half the vote, and the even more extreme Salafists landing in second, getting about a quarter of the vote. Both groups came out far ahead of the nearest liberal faction. The democratic will of the Egyptian people, much like that of the Arab people in Syria and Palestine, is expressed in fanaticism, supremacism, and hatred. Its far from a minority of Muslims that are Islamists, a lie we have been told for many years.

I do not accept the legitimacy of Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist ideology, and I would not even if 51%+ of my fellow citizens did. Thus, I wish General Sisi the best of luck mowing down every last one of these swine.

Zimmerman case demonstrates how real heroes are not welcome in America

What is the meaning of the George Zimmerman affair? I have a few ideas. I could write about various aspects at length right now, but I have been so drained by arguing this topic in the past week I feel I just can’t go on anymore.

Zimmerman could be seen as the kind of ritual sacrifice America seems to periodically require in order to assuage the guilt of Jim Crow and slavery. The gun-control crowd tried their damnedest to make it about Stand Your Ground laws that were completely irrelevant to the case (laws that disproportionately benefit blacks, by the way). Perhaps this is a problem of ambitious prosecutors, products of the overwhelmingly liberal law schools – and perhaps embarrassed by the fact they spend their lives sending black and Hispanic kids to jail – hoping to nail, like Captain Ahab, that elusive Great White Defendant.

I want to focus on one aspect, and that is the inversion of the image of heroes and villains in modern America, or at least what it takes to be seen as the good guy or the bad guy.

George Zimmerman is a man of the lower middle class. He had dreams and aspirations. He looked out for his community. Aside from giving up his time to voluntarily police a neighborhood frequently targeted by hoodlums, he fought his local police force to achieve justice for a mistreated black homeless man, Sherman Ware, in 2010. Zimmerman helped to ensure the son of a police officer was arrested for beating Mr. Ware. The local black community was silent throughout.

What does a man like this do just after being acquitted of a murder charge, after being hounded for over a year, and having to live in hiding for fear of a modern-day lynch mob? Why, he rescues a family of four from an overturned vehicle, that’s what.

Yet Zimmerman, trying to do the right thing, ended up being portrayed as a villain. Perhaps not too long ago, his active citizenship would have been seen as admirable. But America changed for the worse.

Trayvon Martin chose the life of a dropout and a thug, and ended up being portrayed as an angel. We saw a picture of his angelic twelve year old self, free from gold grills, or a hoodie, or a wife-beater vest. We saw Zimmerman’s mugshot.

Would Trayvon Martin have done what Zimmerman did with that imperilled family only today?

Unlikely.  This is the young man who had a Twitter account under the name of ‘No Limit Nigga’, where he expressed such gems as: “2 glock 40’s…. bitch u got 80 problems”. This is the young man with a drug habit and who was suspended from school after being found with a bag full of stolen jewelry and a screwdriver.

Today, America’s justice and welfare systems screw over the lower middle classes, struggling to better themselves in a perilous economy. It favors those dropouts who glorify thuggery yet portray themselves as victims. The people on the front-line in Zimmerman’s community realize what he was up against. That’s why they have not supplied any useful witnesses for the prosecution. Most journalists and academics will not grasp this point. They are too detached from the reality of ordinary people in Sanford, weathering multiple break-ins, crippling mortgages, and a decline in property values.

George Zimmerman is a bit like the State of Israel: he’s got one of the only houses where you would really want to live in a tough neighborhood, but he always happens to be on trial for using force to keep the savages from his door. And the savages? They are glorified. Young people in Europe wear keffiyehs as a fashion statement. Martin’s family attempted to trademark the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon”, following in the noble tradition of the King family, who managed to squeeze $800,000 out of the folks who built a memorial to their father in Washington D.C.

One of the few real heroes to emerge from this story, by the way, is former Sanford police chief Bill Lee. He refused to arrest Zimmerman last year on the grounds that there was absolutely no legal basis to do so. Racial activists eventually changed all that, despite the experts who predicted what would happen, and Lee was fired. This I see as an example of mob rule, from which it seems nobody in America is safe. Will this man get his job back now?

Will Zimmerman just be seen for the decent man that he is, and not a monster?

America’s Immigration Policy as a Global Welfare Scheme

Here’s a very telling insight into how immigration policy is decided in America today. A group of 13 female Senators are criticizing the current immigration overhaul plan precisely because of its emphasis on a merit system. Their argument? Because many foreign women are less educated and less skilled than men, it would amount to discrimination against them.

Well, I suppose it is no more nonsensical than the New York Times recent suggestion that the illegitimate children of US servicemen and bar-girls abroad should be fast-tracked to US citizenship. Because one thing America has a crippling shortage of right now is illegitimate children.

This is only the natural conclusion to Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which placed considerations like family reunification and being extra nice to colored people ahead of America’s economic interests. It has prevented the country from maintaining a national character, as had been done previously by the National Origins Formula, to preference the nationalities of people already in the United States. That’s why 80-90 percent of immigrants are now from the Third World, whereas previously 97 percent of immigrants came from Europe.

America’s emphasis on family reunification has been grossly unfair. It squeezes out many talented young people from developed nations like Britain who would be a real credit to the country and would love to be there. As the interesting Stephen Steinlight has pointed out, a single immigrant can end up getting citizenship for most of a village in Mexico, or even half the population of an entire town in the West Bank.

Is America importing the best? No. Immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, places that supply the vast majority of newcomers, are less entrepreneurial than natives and immigrants from countries like Canada and Korea. Current Hispanic immigrants and their descendants are not advancing economically and entering the middle class, as did immigrants of old. Instead, America has been importing an underclass of people with an illegitimacy rate of 53%, who are crime-prone, and have test scores that are not reaching the level of whites even after two and three generations.

Yet nobody cares. When it comes to handing out visas, it is simply each according to her need.

See also:

Randmesty?

Preserving Freedom Can Mean Restricting Immigration

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Must Be Proscribed By The UK and EU

Last month, you may remember, a drone flying in Israeli airspace was shot down by an F-16. The same thing happened in October last year. These drones, launched from Lebanon, have been pinned to Hezbollah. Yet placing the blame on Hezbollah alone would only be partly accurate.

Bibi Netanyahu once claimed on Bill Maher’s show that there is no war between Israel and Hezbollah; the fight is really between Israel and Iran. As a force, Hezbollah could easily be described as a forward unit of the Iranian army. It receives between $100-200 million dollars a year from Iran, it uses Iranian weapons, it receives training from Iranians, and in many respects is subject to Iranian control. Any drones used by Hezbollah are certainly Iranian in origin and may very well be launched by Iranians operating on Lebanese soil.

The so-called Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or the Revolutionary Guards, are at the heart of this effort.  The Guards are notorious not only for their role in Iran’s military. They are an elite class and a powerful commercial conglomerate that may very well control one-third of the Iranian economy. According to Emanuele Ottolenghi, part of their mandate is to export the Islamist revolution of 1979 abroad. For this, they have a 12,000 strong ‘Quds Force’. These fighters have operated not only in the Middle East against Israel and America. They assisted Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs during the Balkans conflict in the 1990’s. The notorious 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85, has been attributed to Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyeh, taking orders from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Ghassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force. Delhi has accused the Iranian Revolutionary Guards of involvement in an attack on an Israeli diplomat in that city last year. I could go on.

Islamist groups like Hamas have been proscribed by the EU and the UK for the same reasons the Revolutionary Guards should. The fact that they are not classed as such now seems like a glaring oversight. The Quds Force, specifically, was declared a terrorist organization by Canada last year, and by the United States before that. This is a positive, but to really cripple this army of international terrorism, the funding and accounts of all Revolutionary Guard members and businesses inside the EU ought to be frozen. Weakening the Revolutionary Guards would benefit the safety of people all over the world. However, standing up to Iran in this way would also mean that the country will find it much harder to ignore international efforts to stop their nuclear program.

And wouldn’t you know it, there is a petition calling on the EU and the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards right here. This is an initiative of the Zionist Federation, who have produced a handy six page brief on the matter, highlighting the group’s terrorist activities and extreme ideology.  

Useful Links:

Petition: Proscribe Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards: Brief

Facebook:  List The Iranian Revolutionary Guards As A Terrorist Group

Randmesty? Why Rand Paul Is Wrong About Immigration.

The Republican Party’s capacity for self-delusion sometimes surpasses even that of the Irish in a housing bubble. Nowhere is this more evident than the constant party refrains about Hispanics being such “natural Republicans“, they’re ready to hop on the bandwagon if you just cool the rhetoric about immigration. The latest piece of outrageous Hispandering comes courtesy of – it pains me to say – Kentucky’s Rand Paul.

Now, about Rand Paul. I like him. I support his agenda. I would vote for him in 2016. But he’s potentially very weak on the immigration issue. Like Peter Brimelow, I don’t think he’s thought about or appreciates the consequences of mass immigration all that much, something he has in common with a lot of cloistered libertarians. Paul went so far as to call illegal aliens “undocumented citizens” in a recent Washington Times op-ed. Uh-oh.

Recently, Rand gave a speech addressing the topics of amnesty and border security in front of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. It was truly pathetic. At some points, it was unintentionally quite funny. To establish a bond of victimhood and ethnic grievance, Paul actually piped: “It was not always easy to be German American in the face of two world wars started by Germans. Intolerance is not new, and it is not limited to one language or skin color”. Oh, Rand, really?

Other choice lines:

“Growing up in Texas I never met a Latino who wasn’t working”.

“Republicans have been losing both the respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with our belief in family, faith, and conservative values. Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base”.

Lies, lies, lies.

Hispanics are far from conservative or libertarian

Well, the first line may not be a lie per se, but your childhood experience seeing Hispanics in construction crews or cleaning your yard aren’t the best guide to policy-making. As it happens, 65.4 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics and 68.4 percent of Hispanic immigrants are working,  compared with 69.3 percent for the country as a whole. Its not a marked difference, but its important to get past the myth of the hard-working Hispanic who actually wants to be here, unlike many supposedly shiftless, unappreciative natives.  57.4% of Mexican immigrants are on some form of welfare, which is significantly high.

The second point is so hackneyed, and so blatantly untrue, I wonder if the Republicans mouths obliged to utter such platitudes seriously believe it anymore. All it takes is a walk through East Los Angeles to observe that the Latino community is no bastion of social conservatism. Salt Lake City most Latino neighborhoods are not, and its not just confined to the female dress code. Hispanics have largely converged with the general public on social issues, and have possibly gone even further to the left. Pew Research’s Hispanic Center says that younger Hispanics support legal abortion in all or most cases, and close to 60 percent of Latinos overall support gay marriage.

What should be most worrying to a free-marketeer like Rand Paul is the Hispanic attitude to capitalism and socialism. Again, Pew Research indicates that Hispanics are twice as likely to have a positive view of socialism than whites. Amazingly, the average Hispanic is more likely to have a positive view of socialism than a self-described supporter of the Occupy Movement (so is the average black, it must be said). Fox News Latino claims that 62% of Hispanics support ObamaCare. This shouldn’t really surprise. We are talking about a people with roots in a continent that brought us Hugo Chavez, and famed for its economic populist strongmen. My view is that you wouldn’t have to change a single letter in the Constitution for the United States to become a socialist regime or Latin American style basket case republic, if the character of the people was that way inclined. And what better way to accomplish that than import tens of millions of Latin Americans? The implications of inviting millions of people rooted in a highly socialistic and collectivist culture into the United States really ought to attract more scrutiny. Unfortunately, libertarians today don’t have the guts. Even Lew Rockwell’s site, which once emphasized these matters,  seems to have completely sold out to La Raza and the Treason Lobby. What I call Official Conservatism may be even worse.

If Republican Party positions on economic and social matters are an anathema to most Hispanics, what makes anybody believe they will change allegiance if the party concedes ground on immigration? They already have the Democrats. That’s why polls show Hispanics vastly prefer Hilary Clinton to one of their own who happens to be sympathetic to amnesty, Marco Rubio.

Problems in today’s US immigration policy 

In fairness to Paul, he’s not all lost, in that he argues that the path to a green card and eventual citizenship for illegals currently in the country has to be contingent upon improvements in border security. The problem is the inevitable wrangling in the legislature as to what constitutes a secure border. My own vision of an ideal border policy involves bringing home the 10,000 troops currently stationed in Italy (Italy, for crying out loud!), the more than 50,000 troops in Germany, 36,000 in Japan, 28,000 in Korea, and stringing them along the southern border. John Derbyshire, a greater math whiz than I, says that on a three-shift basis this would equate to about one soldier per 50 yards of border, perfectly adequate for deterring intruders.

Alas, this is not going to happen.

And what about assimilating those that are already here? This is usually considered the long-term measure of success in immigration policy. We skeptics are often asked why the current wave of Latino immigration is different from earlier waves of Irish, Italian, or Jewish immigration. The process of Americanization in these cases was indeed a painful one, but ultimately very successful. Irish Americans proved capable of developing a particularly visceral patriotism (case in point: Joe McCarthy), and a number of Irish upstarts proved capable of being more WASP-y than the WASPs themselves (case in point: Buckley). American Jews, perhaps a little too eager to assimilate, ended up perpetrating a self-inflicted cultural holocaust. “God Bless America“? That was Irving Berlin. Christmas songs? The best ones were written by Jews.

The problem nowadays is that the America that placed enormous emphasis on assimilating immigrants no longer exists. As Friedrich Hayek says in the Constitution of Liberty: “That the United States would not have become such an effective ‘melting pot’ and would probably have faced extremely difficult problems if it had not been for a deliberate policy of ‘Americanization’ through the public school system seems fairly certain”. Hayek’s view is being tested today in the United States and he is being proved right.

Its helpful, at times, to think of Americanness as a religion. Lincoln said that when an immigrant feels that the Declaration of Independence “is the father of all moral principle in them”, then “they have a right to claim it is as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration”. This American model may very well be inspired by the Bible, where Ruth the Moabite woman tells her Israelite mother-in-law: “Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried”.

Two trends combine to make this whole process more difficult. The first has to do with technology and increasingly lower travel costs. These enable border-hoppers to maintain contact and ties with the old country to a far greater extent than immigrants from the Elllis Island era. Its much more difficult for Hispanic immigrants to become deeply rooted in America.  Almost 80% watch Spanish-language television, half of them as their main source of TV. Most interestingly, more than half of Dominicans and Mexicans who died in New York City were buried in their countries of origin in the year 1996 (so much for Ruth’s approach).

The second trend harks back to Hayek’s point above. A cultural and political shift has occurred in the United States, and other countries, that recoils at the idea that immigrants need to be brought into harmony with the existing culture. It is a combination of a lack of national self-confidence and a pathetic non-judgmentalism. This non-judgmentalism primarily affects the elite class, a class that once saw themselves as bearing a special responsibility for the well-being of America, but is now caught up in the ideals of multiculturalism. No longer can political leaders talk like Alexander Hamilton, when he said that the success of the American republic requires “the preservation of a national spirit and national character”. No longer can a politician talk to a potential immigrant in the manner of John Quincy Adams, who told a German contemplating immigrating that immigrants “must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors”. Such attitudes, which guided the policy of the Ford Motor Company in the absorption classes they ran for immigrant workers, would now be deemed insensitive or racist.

Not surprisingly, surveys show there is an enormous gulf between the opinions of the economic and cultural elite – including executives of Fortune 1000 companies, heads of large trade unions, newspaper editors and TV news directors – and the average American. 70 percent of the public regard reducing illegal immigration as a “very important” policy goal, compared with 22 percent of the aforementioned elite. 55 percent of the public want legal immigration to be reduced, compared t only 18 percent of the elite.

Once, the approach of American schools was to accept that a Mexican could maintain pride in his former nation’s culture – expressed in music, art, cuisine, and religion – but they encouraged the political, economic, and social values of that country be quickly abandoned. Given the Pew Research findings on Latino political values mentioned above, this was wise.

Today’s schools actually aim to de-Americanize children and actively promote minority identity politics and culture. Bizarrely, surveys carried out by the sociologists Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbaut in Florida have found that children of immigrants are less likely to identify as American after leaving school than when they came in. The most dramatic change was among Cubans. One-third of a particular group surveyed simply referred to themselves as ‘American’ at the beginning of high-school. By the end of high school, only two percent did, the rest preferring to identify as ‘Cuban’ or ‘Cuban-American’.

The Existential Threat 

It may not be politically correct to say this, but this trend is most worrying when we are talking about the importation of millions of Mexicans into US territory previously won from Mexico. No immigrant group in U.S. history could potentially assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans can and do make this claim. A 2002 Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico”. 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren’t sure. Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano Studies at the University of New Mexico, said, “I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students’ kids will live in it, sovereign and free”. That’s what happens in a country where you have professors of ‘Chicano Studies’.

Occasionally, I’ve met folks in the US military, particularly those with roots in the Southwest, worried about about the region becoming America’s Kosovo. Yet it seems this kind of sensible strategic thinking cannot be discussed. Were not even meant to think about it. When Obama and Romney engaged in foreign policy debates last year, there were over 30 mentions each of Israel and Iran in a single session. Of Mexico, whose problems are America’s problems (look at the kind of carnage that happens around the border linked to the drug trade), there was nothing. At the same time, friends of Israel in the United States will unequivocally stand by the right of the Israeli people to retain a Jewish majority in their state, and reject the so-called right of return by millions of self-styled refugees.

Nobody cares that whites are no longer a majority in California. Nobody cares that Texas will become a swing state in a very short time. Nobody cares that Bill Clinton triumphantly claimed at Portland State University in 1998 that there would be no majority race in the United States in fifty years time, to the cheers of students and faculty. This should have been classed as a declaration of civil war, but nobody cares – yet.

Balkanisation may seem like a remote possibility now. But anything can happen in a time of economic tumult. The worst here is certainly yet to come. Just take a look at America’s unfunded liabilities.

Going Forward

With all the focus Rand Paul got at CPAC, I thought I’d highlight the brilliant points of Ann Coulter on amnesty (from 11:40 on this clip). She says the issue is now her first priority, for good reason.

If amnesty goes ahead, all of America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election. Libertarians would be shooting themselves in the foot, too. Get real, free-marketeers: these people will never vote for you.

About 80% of immigrants are from the Third World. In the 1890’s, 97 percent of immigrants came from Europe. In the meantime, its difficult for a European, far less likely to slip into dependency, to get US citizenship. The traitor Ted Kennedy designed this system and abolished the National Origins Formula in 1965, almost certainly with the aim of securing votes for Democrats. Since 1965, US immigration policy has been designed to attract the worst sort of immigrant. That policy places considerations like family reunification ahead of America’s economic, cultural, and even security interests.

I like Coulter’s approach. While I don’t see myself being a single-issue activist until 2016, we must insist that the amnesty and border issues are seriously addressed by all candidates in a principled,  conservative way. That means freed from the influence of political correctness, the most un-conservative and powerful Hispanic immigration lobby, or flawed notions about attracting Hispanic voters. Rand Paul is a sensible person, and I am sure he can be made compromise on the matter, whatever his natural inclinations.

After all, if Rand Paul is going to save America, there needs to be an America to save.

Anti-Semitism in the Kerry School: Yes, it was Trócaire

News of the appearance of anti-Semitism among the schoolchildren of Cahirciveen has spread like a prairie fire. Coláiste na Sceilge have now released an official response, which denies the journalist Sarah Honig’s allegations:  

As Principal of this school I was shocked when I read the contents of the blog by Ms Honig. The students and teacher vehemently deny the remarks attributed to them.

Part of our mission statement states that ‘we are committed to developing people who are fair, caring assertive…’ and we are .

Colaiste na Sceilige has worked with the Trocaire Pamoja –together for human rights – Project for the last number of years.

Last year our students looked at Uganda and raised money for Trocaire for two mobile HIV clinics by singing Christmas carols.The year before it was Honduras and they raised money for Trocaire to build a house for a family.This year it was Palestine and they raised money for Trocaire to buy olive trees for displaced Palestinian families.

The lesson content provided by Trocaire states clearly that ‘Trocaire is neither pro Palestinian nor pro Israeli’ and having spoken to the teacher and students it is clear that the material was delivered in an unbiased manner. Anything else would be entirely unacceptable.

Students read newspapers ,watch the news and are in touch with the world around them. Ms Honig has referred to the plethora of anti Israeli feeling in the media.

We try to teach our students to be critical thinkers to examine both sides of an issue. We may not always be satisfied with the conclusions students draw and can only try to set them right when they go wrong.

By making such allegations, and indeed publishing photographs of children on a website without parental consent, the writer has been irresponsible and has done our school and the people of Kerry a great disservice.

John O’Connor

School Principal

It is not certain from the Principal’s statement whether the school received the controversial Trócaire education pack, which Justin Kilcullen told Richard Humphreys, who raised a stink about them, had not been sent to schools. It could be earlier Trócaire propaganda. It wouldn’t surprise me if Kilcullen lied about not sending out the material. Kilcullen is Ireland’s pious fraud, a proven liar who is noticeably overpaid in comparison with other Irish charity chiefs. I certainly don’t believe Trócaire uses the money it raises to plant olive trees in Palestine. Its far more likely that it uses the money, or at least the majority of it,  to fund far-left NGOs that bash Israel. That, however, is not the way Trócaire is marketed.

Articles from The Kerryman newspaper on the matter here and here.

NOTE: It has been put to me that Trócaire’s involvement is really a minor matter in all this. The central point is that schoolchildren and a teacher have been accused by a journalist of anti-Semitism and are contesting that allegation.

I do not quite agree that Trócaire is a tangential issue. It is very likely that Trócaire whipped up the climate of hate in the first place by providing the schoolchildren with a biased, misleading, simplistic, good vs. evil account of the Israel-Arab conflict.

Anti-Semitism in Irish Schools: Is Trócaire Responsible?

Some of you have already heard of the Israeli columnist Sarah Honig’s ill-fated trip to the little town of Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry. In the course of her visit, she was solicited by children from a local secondary school raising funds to ‘Free Palestine’. When she questioned who they were freeing Palestine from, the children replied with “the Jews” and then explained to her that “Jews are evil” and “crucified our Lord”. Honig recounted what she heard to a nearby teacher organizing the affair, who nodded in agreement with the words of the children.

Having gone to a school in Ireland where one teacher (of Christian Doctrine, God help us) referred to Arial Sharon as a “monster” and others expressed fierce support for Palestinian national aspirations, the attitude on display in Kerry is not surprising.

Yet I must say it upsets me to no end that Honig had this experience in the South of Kerry, in a town not far from Sneem. In Sneem the founding Patron of the Ireland-Israel Friendship League is interred; the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and later 5th President of Ireland, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh. His grave was visited in 1978 by his good friend, the 6th President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, who was born in Belfast to the Chief Rabbi of Ireland. Herzog also unveiled a monument to Ó Dálaigh in Sneem Culture Park in 1985.

The pernicious influence of Trócaire may be at work here. Officially the overseas development agency of the Catholic Church, Trócaire has direct access to Ireland’s Catholic schools, and it has in recent years gotten heavily behind causes like anti-Zionism, gender equality, and climate change. I have previously written about the absurdity of a former National Coordinator of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign being the Israel/Palestine Officer at Trócaire. Last October, Trócaire earned the scorn of the very sound Catholic philosopher, Mark Dooley, for their trendy left-wing ideological battles. A week ago the Dublin Labour Councillor Richard Humphreys criticized Trócaire’s highly biased education packs on the Middle East that they planned for distribution in schools.

The school in question would appear to be Coláiste na Sceilge secondary school, Cahirciveen.

Email them here: info@colaistenasceilge.ie

Here are the email addresses for all local TDs:

brendan.griffin@oir.ie.
michael.healy-rae@oireachtas.ie
tom.fleming@oireachtas.ie

together-we-will-get-rights-for-palestine

Some of the children in question, Cahirciveen

Does Irish Aid fund IPSC lectures?

Irish Aid is Ireland’s official overseas development programme, part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Since  December 6th last year the Irish Aid center (a government office) has been hosting various anti-Israel lectures, set to continue until February. Most of these lectures are given by members of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Trócaire. This includes Garry Walsh, Israel/Palestine Officer at Trócaire, who is also the former National Coordinator of the IPSC. Not one speaker could be described as friendly to Israel. Indeed, some of the lectures would seem to promote its destruction.

The Irish Aid webpage links directly to this Facebook page promoting the events. What is the extent of Irish Aid’s cooperation here? Are they just letting them use the venue? Irish Aid has given €116 million to the highly compromised charity Trócaire between 2007 and 2011. What else are they doing?