Pro-illegal alien march in Chicago

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 11, 2006, 10:11 PM | #

Matra,

Didn’t you listen to the Mayor? We are all the same, don’t let the skin color fool you.

Look, just ignore the Mexican flags, the greasy black hair, and the crime rates. Tommorow the Swiss or Bretons might be out in force demanding their fair share, equal treatment, and early release for rape, mayhem, and murder.

Posted by Al Ross on March 11, 2006, 10:29 PM | #

‘An Aztec dancing group’? Well maybe Alma Montez will tell White Americans the origin of her ethnic group’s terpsichorean activities, viz the successful removal of that vital organ, the heart , from a live sacrificial victim captured solely for that purpose. I believe the Aztec savages were only persuaded to desist from this practice, not because of Spanish missionary zeal but by Cortez’s steel.

Posted by John S Bolton on March 12, 2006, 06:50 AM | #

There aren’t any facts of history, Indian or otherwise, which can justify current aggression. They can pretend that no one has the right to defend their country, and that America has no citizenry; but they’re lying in support of foreign aggression here.
The hostile immigrant is accessory to the treason which supports his net public subsidy. He is guilty of what can be given capital punishment.
Officials owe loyalty to the victims of immigrant aggression here, the net taxpayers; not to the foreign aggressors.
‘All immigrants’ is nonsense; it treats lineages as being all alive at the same time, a deception. It treats the sovereignty as having never come into existence, which is traitorous. It is warlike for foreigners here to say that America doesn’t exist; that there is just an agglommeration of immigrants.
They may find that if they push further towards war; that more than 50 million Mexicans can be wiped out in less than fifty minutes.

Posted by Matra on March 12, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

In popular culture Ellis Island looms larger than Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. The Statue of Liberty and Emma Lazarus matter more than Yorktown and George Washington. I’m afraid an awful lot of Americans (Canadians too) buy into “we’re a nation of immigrants”.  Once you accept that line it becomes more difficult to argue against letting in the most recent would-be immigrants. The descendants of those who actually made America what it is become no more important than someone who just crossed the Rio grande last night. As Clyde Wilson has suggested at the Chronicles website Americans need to stress the difference between settlers and immigrants. America was built by settlers not immigrants.

Posted by Søren Renner on March 12, 2006, 02:33 PM | #

Fred, as a Chicago resident myself I doubt that Mayor Daley is responding to armtwisting from George Soros. In this case it is unnecessary to look beyond Chicago electoral politics to explain the quislingization of Chicago discourse. The Illinois Minutemen rallied earlier in the day, on the opposite side of the issue, but not in such force.

Posted by Matra on March 12, 2006, 03:17 PM | #

Irish could play role in fight for immigrants’ rights

So what else is new?

Lawless tells me he’s just come from a meeting on the Northwest Side with a Polish-American group, and he needs to hurry downtown for another meeting as soon as we finish.

The topic for both is the same: an immigration reform march that is expected to draw at least 10,000 demonstrators to Chicago on Friday afternoon. Lawless is trying to recruit as many marchers as possible, hoping to put a multi-ethnic face on an issue that is too often seen as only a Hispanic problem.

Lawless, 55, came here eight years ago from Galway, bringing with him not only his family but all the aged oak woodwork and fixtures for the interior of his bar, the Irish Oak. He’s had enough success that his son will soon open another bar on Michigan Avenue.

But even though Lawless is here legally with a valid visa, he feels the urgency of those who aren’t.

“There’s so many people I know who are undocumented,” he says, citing estimates of between 5,000 and 7,000 undocumented Irish in Chicago alone.

This awareness has made Lawless sensitive not only to the plight of his Irish countrymen but also to the millions of other illegal immigrants in the U.S. whose fate rests on the outcome of legislation now coming to a head in Congress.

“It’s not just a Mexican or Hispanic thing, Mark. We’re all in the same boat,” says Lawless, chairman of Chicago Celts for Immigration Reform.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 12, 2006, 09:59 PM | #

Matra,

Emma Lazarus was a Jew, did you know that? Did you know that the turgid little poem that was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, years the statue was installed, and which she wrote, was not well received at the time.

Of course that little story is itself typical of the re-writing of America that has taken place in the recent decades. Just one episode in the ‘culture of critique.’

But of course, now, all the little school kids know that poem, oh not Edgar Allen Poe,  T.S. Eliot, Chaucer, Keats, or Shakespeare… but sweet little Emma Lazarus.

Well, what did Truman Capote say…  Jews were a

“clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of…Jewish dominated” publications and who “make or break” careers in letters by bestowing or rewarding attention.

Posted by Al Ross on March 12, 2006, 10:31 PM | #

Geoff Beck is, of course, correct in his comment about the Statue of Liberty, a gift which the French intended as a celebration of freedom not immigration. Emma Lazarus, like so many enemy aliens of her tribe, corrupted the message in that uniquely hateful Jewish way.

Posted by JRM on March 12, 2006, 11:07 PM | #

In popular culture Ellis Island looms larger than Jamestown and Plymouth Rock

Ellis Island is named after Samuel Ellis.  He was a New York City merchant during the Revolutionary War.  Before the war, the British owned the island.  After the war, Ellis owned the island.  It is unclear how Ellis came into possess of it.  He did, however, get the government to buy the island from him at a high price.

If the culture war were going the other war, one could propose that Ellis Island be renamed because the loyalties of its owner during the Revolutionary War are unclear.  The screams and hysteria such a proposal would produce would be music to my ears.

Posted by Matra on March 13, 2006, 12:15 AM | #

Geoff:

Emma Lazarus was a Jew, did you know that? Did you know that the turgid little poem that was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, years the statue was installed, and which she wrote, was not well received at the time.

Of course that little story is itself typical of the re-writing of America that has taken place in the recent decades. Just one episode in the ‘culture of critique.’

I’m aware of Lazarus being a Jew and I agree that Jews played and still play a major role in turning the US from a European Christian nation to a multicultural wasteland. But don’t just stop at the Jews. Virtually every minority group (non-British Protestant) in American history seems to have advocated more immigration. One of the links above refers to Polish and Irish involvement in the Chicago demonstration.

Back in the 50s JFK wrote A Nation of Immigrants. It was first published by the ADL but JFK’s ideas seemed to be all his own and typical of many Catholics who felt they were discriminated against by the evil WASPs. His portrayal of Protestant America wasn’t exactly positive and like Jews he advocated not just immigration for his own ethnic group but for as much diversity as possible. His brothers Robert and Edward played a considerable role in getting the immigration laws of the US changed in 1965. It was a tribute of sorts to their fallen brother who cared so much about the issue. 

Ever since Pope Pius XII issued “Exsul Familia” in the early 50s the Catholic Church has preached and lobbied for the rights of immigrants and downplayed the importance of nations and borders. It has thrown its substantial weight behind every fight from the 1965 Immigration Reform Act to the battle over HR4437. Indeed Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, recently called on Catholic priests and organisations to defy any law requiring them to determine the legal status of immigrants needing their services.

I should probably start a thread on the Catholic role in opening America’s borders as I’d be curious to read the views of other posters on this topic. Maybe later in the week.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 13, 2006, 01:20 AM | #

Matra,

JFK never wrote anything. Mostly, it was written by Sorenson and Schlessigner. Really, that is a fundamental. error.

Posted by Matra on March 13, 2006, 02:23 PM | #

Geoff:

JFK never wrote anything. Mostly, it was written by Sorenson and Schlessigner. Really, that is a fundamental. error.

Are you implying JFK had a book published in his name full of ideas he did not believe in? I know that Profiles in Courage or whatever it was called was mostly written by Sorensen but I’m unaware of any such ghostwriter for A Nation of Immigrants. It would not surprise me if there were a ghostwriter (let’s see evidence) but JFK expressed the ideas in the book long before it was published.

Throughout the 1950s he worked hard in the Senate to end immigration restrictions against non-Europeans. KMac writes about Jewish opposition to such restrictions, which was substantial, but many others also opposed it and worked to change it. No doubt JFK also saw political advantage in his position as the restrictions were opposed by many ethnic Europeans, such as Italians.

Posted by Matra on March 13, 2006, 02:26 PM | #

but many others also opposed it and worked to change it.

I’m referring to the MCarran-Walter Immigration Act of 1952.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 13, 2006, 05:43 PM | #

Matra,

This is largely correct. I would change non-British Protestant to non-Northern European Protestant. The 1924 Act in America was totally pro-Northern Europe. I think you would struggle to find much pro-immigration sentiment even among German immigrants for example because they already had it quite good under the 1924 Act.

In fact, from my experience, the Irish in America still have a very strong pro-immigrant faction. One Irish American bloke I once met said that he favoured open borders in America because it allowed the illegal Irish immigrants to work in the US hassle free.

In fact, I wonder if you ever saw Remington Steele the detective series featuring a very young Pierce Brosnan (and the very charming Stephanie Zimbalist). There is a whole series of episodes in it about Brosnan’s character having trouble with his immigration status because he’s an illegal Irish immigrant.

The simple fact is that the Lazarus routine strikes a chord with many white Americans even now because they have living memories of their families moving to America just a few generations ago.

I would imagine anti-immigration sentiment to be the strongest among the settler groups that arrived from Northern Europe and who have no recent memeory of dangerous sea voyages and the entire statue of liberty mythology.

Obviously Geoff belongs to the old stock Americans who were always seen (until recently) as the people who colonized and built the country (which is true). And so not surprisingly, Geoff’s family probably has little of the pro-immigrant sentiment that one is more likely to encounter in places like the North East.

There is no doubt about the Jewish role. But there are other factors too that should not be forgotten in a hurry.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 13, 2006, 06:30 PM | #

There is an interesting story about the Kennedy family. In a plush party in Boston (probably 1960s/1970s), some WASPs were indulging in idle chatter about great Boston families.

Someone mentioned the Kennedies. An old WASP lady who was within an earshot of the conversation interrupted looking a bit angry and said, “They are NOT a Boston family!”. (chuckle)

Posted by Al Ross on March 13, 2006, 08:54 PM | #

JP Kennedy was not an entirely self-made man - although he allowed that impression. He was the son of a successful businessman and Irish community leader in Boston. Joe attended the prestigious Boston Latin School (soon,no doubt, to be renamed Boston Latino School) and graduated from Harvard - hardly the educational hallmarks of “poor immigrant shanty Irish”.
He was right about the suicidal folly of WW2 although his undying atavistic animus towards Britain skewed his assessment of the country’s victory prospects.

Posted by Al Ross on March 13, 2006, 09:43 PM | #

Fred, your views on the Kennedys are also mine and it is worth noting that a spot of insider trading enabled Joe Kennedy to get his toe on the ladder of finance. He was a state-employed bank examiner and it came to his notice that a small local bank was to be the subject of a takeover. He quickly arranged to purchase it himself,  a transaction which, if it wasnt an illegal, certainly should have been.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 13, 2006, 10:53 PM | #

Never have I heard such panty waist hand wringing. Good lord, can’t you figure it out. Its not the damn Catholics for Christ sake, that stuff is an in-house fight. Sure, it is nasty, or was nasty. But that fight is largely over.

I suppose its just not respectable to talk about… “oh the conspiratorial view of history.” I suppose its just too difficult to accept that somebody wants to kill us. Somebody wants to ruin us forever: and they are succeeding.

The damn Jews sit atop our security apparati, money system, and media… and all you hand wringers want to do is look at your feet and say “it must be us.”

You want to engage in word play, what did KMAC call this type of behaviour exemplified… “Jewified non-Jews”

Posted by Matra on March 14, 2006, 12:02 AM | #

Fred mentioned “HoneyFitz” Kennedy, JFK’s grandfather on his mother’s side.

“HoneyFitz” was a Congressman during Grover Cleveland’s presidency. One of the stories he used to tell the Kennedy boys was about the role he claimed to have played in convincing Cleveland to veto a bill requiring literacy tests for immigrants. For the Kennedy boys enthusiasm for immigration was a part of their Irish Catholic background. Back then Catholics were seen as a minority group so it shouldn’t be surprising if they and other minorities, such as Jews, tried to weaken the majority.

Today things are different in the US and obviously Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox European-Americans should work together to keep America a European nation. But the history has to be looked at honestly.

Posted by Matra on March 14, 2006, 02:04 AM | #

Newsday on A Nation of Immigrants and JFK:

“A Nation of Immigrants” had very personal roots…His sense of history made him see a universal quality to America’s immigration.

“I know of no cause which my brother championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies,” observed Robert Kennedy, who later said the book was “deliberately designed to provide those who were unfamiliar with this aspect of our history with an appreciation of the enormous contributions to American life made by immigrants.”

Years later, Edward Kennedy would agree that the book had sprung from some of his brother’s most deeply held values. “It was very important to him,” Edward Kennedy recalls. “He was very proud of his Irish heritage… He came to see that immigrants from many other nations enhanced America and helped the nation to move forward into the future. He knew that there were misconceptions about immigration and immigrants. ... So he wrote that book to show how much immigration helped America and how much it was needed and should be appreciated.”

In the white-bread atmosphere of the 1950s, Kennedy offered a remarkably different perspective… “A Nation of Immigrants” celebrated a broad mosaic of American immigration - Poles, Chinese, Italians, Czechs, Germans, Armenians, Danes and Laplanders. But it also contained examples of America’s less than glorious past, including pictures of a Ku Klux Klan rally with two burning crosses.

Nice of him to include some Anglo-Protestants!

The book seemed to find common ground in the experiences of all minorities in America. Kennedy reminded readers that as minorities increased, so did nativism and the level of hostility “against the Irish, who, as Catholics, were regarded as members of an alien conspiracy.”

Of course politics was also involved too:

“A Nation of Immigrants” was created in response to Joseph Kennedy’s tactical advice that immigrants and their descendants could hold the key to electoral success in the 1960 race for the White House. “Just remember, this country is not a private preserve for Protestants,” he said… “There’s a whole new generation out there, and it’s filled with the sons and daughters of immigrants from all over the world, and those people are going to be mighty proud that one of their own is running for president…”

Surely the book would curry favor with many minority groups Kennedy needed desperately in a winning coalition. But it went further in scope than could ever be expected from a mere campaign pamphlet.

So JFK being an ethnic Irish Catholic (not an immigrant himself) would galvanise the non (anti?) white Anglo-Protestant voters. In what was a close election I think he got 70% of the Catholic and over 90% of the Jewish vote.

Above all, Kennedy emphasized their place in American history: “The Irish were the first to endure the scorn and the discrimination ... inflicted ... by already settled ‘Americans.’ In speech and dress they seemed foreign; they were poor and unskilled; and they were arriving in overwhelming numbers.

Certainly Jack’s version of American history, recounting as it did instances of hatred and bigotry, was not flattering to a Protestant nation he would soon ask to vote for him

As the article says (and I mentioned in the previous post) his grandfather also took a keen interest in immigration matters in the late 19th century. Sounds to me like the Jews had little to do with his feelings towards the American majority and his enthusiasm for immigration - though the ADL were the original publishers of the book. It would have been the same for other Catholics and so-called ethnic Europeans.

But remember the Irish had little trouble getting into the US during the restrictionist years (1924-65) so the Kennedys were not just advocating immigration for their own group. Like the Jews they were calling for more diversity all round, presumably because that would weaken white Anglo-Protestant America.

Final quote to Ted Kennedy:

“As with the early Irish immigrants, the undocumented community has been blamed for all sorts of societal ills, such as high crime and high unemployment. In many ways, it is not fairer today than it was when my great-grandparents arrived.”

Posted by Matra on March 14, 2006, 02:14 AM | #

Geoff:

Never have I heard such panty waist hand wringing. Good lord, can’t you figure it out. Its not the damn Catholics for Christ sake…I suppose its just not respectable to talk about…

Interesting that those who say Jews and only Jews got the West into this situation never believe that those of us who disagree may do so for analytical reasons.

You want to engage in word play, what did KMAC call this type of behaviour exemplified… “Jewified non-Jews”

The term comes from Albert Lindemann, not KMD.

Posted by Matra on March 15, 2006, 02:32 PM | #

Fred Scrooby:

The fact that the ADL was the publisher means they solicited it in advance—no?  I would not think JFK simply wrote a book, then hawked it around to publishers hoping to find one, and the ADL were the only takers.  Certainly the ADL told him in advance what kind of book they wanted from him, and they and he worked together on it from the start.

Here is an interesting article on the subject by Otis L Graham:

Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate. The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.

The author claims ADL “convinced” JFK to write it. Of course earlier in the thread I quoted a Newsday article on this:

Undoubtedly, “A Nation of Immigrants” was created in response to Joseph Kennedy’s tactical advice that immigrants and their descendants could hold the key to electoral success in the 1960 race for the White House.

That was followed by a Joseph Kennedy quote about how the sons and daughters of immigrants, no matter what their ethnicity, would embrace JFK as one of their own - presumably because he wasn’t an old stock Anglo-Protestant. Obviously they had something against the majority ethnic and religious community.

(The article goes on to mention that some of JFK’s and later LBJ’s advisers on immigration were Jewish.) 

There’s also a great quote from one Robert C Alexander writing in the American Legion Magazine:

“What do the opponents of the national origins quota system want when they glibly advocate action which would result in a change in the ethnological composition of our people . . . perhaps they should tell us, what is wrong with our national origins?”

Posted by JFK Lincoln on March 15, 2006, 05:48 PM | #

Come on now. You people made a Jew President long before a Catholic became one. Now what kind of message is that? Let’s face it, there were plenty of French Catholics around and German ones.

Besides, you didn’t need Irish Catholics to fuck up “your” country, the whisky swilling Caledonian “Scotch-Irish” are happy to do that wherever they land. Then they piss off to the next place complaining about how hard done by they were in their former bolt-hole.

Posted by Phil on March 15, 2006, 06:11 PM | #

Come on now. You people made a Jew President long before a Catholic became one.

What a moronic comment. Which Jew ever became President of America?

Every single one of America’s Presidents to date has been a White Anglo Saxon Protestant with the exception of John F Kennedy who was Irish Catholic.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 15, 2006, 06:45 PM | #

Besides, you didn’t need Irish Catholics to fuck up “your” country

If you are referring to my comment, it was about England, not about America. I never said the Irish Americans don’t consider America their country.

Posted by Matra on March 15, 2006, 09:25 PM | #

I see VDARE’s Brenda Walker has a blog entry today about the Irish and the ongoing battle over immigration in the US which she ends by saying she appreciates the Irish “contribution to the whiskey part of Western civilization” and provides a link to Bushmills.

OT The so-called “Protestant whiskey” Bushmills was the subject of an Irish-American boycott a few years ago due to the lack of Catholics employed by the company (the town the whiskey is named after is staunchly Protestant loyalist). Black leftist San Francisco mayor Willie Brown took part in the boycott and was photographed pouring a bottle of Bushmills down a drain. I believe they won that campaign and the company initiated some kind of “fair” employment policy.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 16, 2006, 04:33 AM | #

But they also inflict genocide on others.  They just do it more quietly, cunningly, and gradually.

Not always.......

Posted by Matra on March 17, 2006, 05:36 PM | #

Fred Scrooby:

The local Catholic Church hierarchy deliberately played a role in flooding this small Pennsylvania town with Hispanic legal and illegal immigrants so that life there is now less and less pleasant for whites.

I just looked up this town, Hazleton. Here’s some demographic information:

White Non-Hispanic (93.2%)
Hispanic (4.9%)
Other race (2.8%)
Two or more races (0.9%)
Black (0.8%)
Ancestries: Italian (32.1%), Polish (14.0%), German (13.8%), Irish (13.1%), Slovak (11.4%), Dutch (5.4%).

It appears to have been settled originally by Connecticut Yankees.

Meanwhile Hazleton’s Hispanics demand more policing:

Hispanic leaders in Hazleton say they don’t feel safe. They want more police officers on the beat who can speak Spanish and break down barriers.

That comes one day after Mayor Lou Barletta pleaded with all citizens, including Hispanics, to get involved in the fight against crime.

Over the last two weeks there has been a robbery, a shooting and a stabbing in Hazleton.

“The concern of the owners of the businesses is that we don’t have safety here. We need police patrolling the downtown of Hazleton,” said Hispanic leader Amilcar Arroyo.

There is a police substation in the heart of the Hispanic community but it isn’t staffed full time. Hispanic leaders say the substation is not used enough and they want to know why.

“When you’re proactive you have policemen walking and manning the sub- station 24 hours a day. That’s not possible right now with the number of policemen we have however the sub-station is open when we can,” said Mayor Lou Barletta.

The police department has only one officer who can speak Spanish.

The mayor Barletta vowed he will hire two more officers, bringing the force to 32. He added he’s had a hard time finding officers who can speak Spanish to break the language barrier.

“I can only hire off a civil service list so if there’s nobody on that list that doesn’t speak Spanish I cannot just arbitrarily select someone,” the mayor said.

Barletta wants more Hispanics to get involved with Crime Watch. He said some Hispanics are new to Hazleton and they seem to be reluctant to report crime.

Posted by carlos on March 26, 2006, 05:44 AM | #

were all descindants of immigrants, they come fr the dream of a better future like our ancestors did…live and let live understand, they jus want good job and life to. an white ppl not native you fuckers enlsaved negros’ an steal land from indians.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 26, 2006, 06:45 AM | #

an white ppl not native you fuckers enlsaved negros’ an steal land from indians.

Good point Carlos. Why come to live in countries populated with such evil people? Go back to wherever you’re from and enjoy the company of nice people.

Posted by Lurker on March 26, 2006, 09:38 AM | #

Carlos, you may have a point about taking land from the indians. However by coming to the US you and other immigrants are reaping the benefits of that land theft, in fact you have become an accessory after the fact. I suspect though you feel no guilt over that, unlike that white folks are supposed to feel, so to recap, you get the benfits but are free of the baggage. Hypocrite.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 26, 2006, 10:46 AM | #

Am I forgetting anyone?

Arabs who often captured blacks to sell them into slavery and still do. Jewish traders who profited from the slave trade. And of course whites who were also slaves in the US. In addition, elsewhere more than a million European Christians were enslaved by Arab pirates before the 19th century. Etc.

Posted by Matra on March 26, 2006, 04:28 PM | #

As goes California, so goes the nation. Isn’t that what they say in the US?

Yesterday LA saw its largest ever demonstration when 500,000 mostly Hispanic protesters showed up to condemn HR4437. Most Americans support this bill but what will the Senate do with it? Judging by some recent remarks from senators it doesn’t look good.

Today Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter said (VDARE blog) he supports more immigration because his Russian/Ukrainian Jewish parents were also immigrants. Similarly, a few weeks back Senator Pete Domenici said he liked open borders because his Italian mother (like many Italians) was questioned for a few hours so during WW2!

http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/060224_domenici.htm

No doubt the grandchildren of those protesting in LA yesterday will some day make similar arguments. Unless, of course, the reconquista has already occurred by then.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 26, 2006, 04:34 PM | #

Today Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter said (VDARE blog) he supports more immigration because his Russian/Ukrainian Jewish parents were also immigrants.

Nice “conservative” that. Typical of Jewish Republicans.

Posted by Matra on March 26, 2006, 05:24 PM | #

Today Instapundit says:

I’VE GENERALLY FAVORED OPEN IMMIGRATION, but I find myself feeling less and less that way in the face of mass rallies by illegal immigrants like this one.

Illegal immigrants as individuals just trying to make a better life are sympathetic. Illegal immigrants as a mass movement making demands on the polity are considerably less so.

What an insight that is! You mean, human beings will form political groupings based on things they have in common like ethnicity, nationality, or even immigration status!? Wow! And here I thought people naturally eschewed collectivism in favour of autonomous individualism. Who could’ve possibly imagined that one day Mexicans in the US would from a mass movement that put their own interests ahead of everybody else’s? I guess that’s why Instapundit is #1 in the blogging world. That’s why he’s a star with a book on Amazon’s bestseller list. Thank God he’s warning us now of the dangers of open immigration.

Posted by Al Ross on March 26, 2006, 08:15 PM | #

There is no sensible argument for giving land back to the Indians. Their inability to develop the vast resources of the land they have occupied since leaving Siberia made it morally imperative that a more advanced civilization shoulder the task and in doing so brush aside the ‘dog-in-the-manger’ attitude of the Indians.
 
When Whites are race-replaced in the US, it wont be for that morally sound reason. Instead this ruinous event will instead constitute racial suicide.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 02, 2006, 05:09 PM | #

I was looking for a couple of posts I read some time back about how jews dominated the transatlantic slave trade, a reference to a jewish scholar who admits as much.

I couldn’t find it, but I saw Scroob’s comment above and I have to reply.

As I understand the matter, Europeans did very little “enslaving” Africans.  The word “enslave” means to “make a slave” of, not “buy or own a slave.”

Africans and Levantines did the enslaving.  We emancipated them, big difference.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 02, 2006, 05:12 PM | #

And we only “stole” Amerind land insofar as every state on Earth is located on stolen land.