The NY Times reports that:

“Senate leaders announced an agreement this evening to put a comprehensive immigration bill back on track for further debate and possible passage.”

“Senators Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader from Nevada, and Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader from Kentucky, agreed on a timetable for the bill and for a limited number of amendments to be offered.”

I suspect they wouldn’t have tried this without having actor/senator Fred Thompson to wave around at the Republican base to distract them from Ron Paul.  But this ain’t 1980, umpteen-channel cable TV ain’t 3-network broadcast TV, Thompson ain’t Reagan and the Internet is here.  Just look at what happened to Fred’s website traffic after the initial push by Mossad plant, Jim Robinson over at Freerepublic.com and compare to Ron Paul (whose sportsbook.com odds have gone from 200:1 to 7:1 during the last month):

What are they going to try next?  They’re getting desperate. 

PS: Perhaps this is unrelated but Google has stopped updating their Google trends statistics which means you can’t compare how the various candidates are faring in search engine queries.  That they stopped updating at the point where Mossad candidate Rudy Giuliani started falling behind Ron Paul even as LDS candidate Mitt Romney showed strength is circumstantially suspicious.

Warfare as waged by Sub-Saharan Africans is significantly more chaotic and excessively brutal than that which was known historically in Europe. In order to get a taste for what African warfare entails, I catalogued some passages from a 1999 Human Rights Watch report  on the RUF’s massacre in Sierra Leone.

Some of the readership will wonder what connection this has to political theory or our situation in the West.  Well, there are several, but let me suggest just one. We have to cultivate a more coarse, and less squeemish sensibility for all things. We have to be able to look every truth in the face, regardless of whether it’s aesthetically pleasing. This is a lesson in itself, to halt the recoil of aesthetic reflexes and digest the ugliness of the world without flinching and without conceptual cushioning. Don’t draw back into your Victorian or Edwardian citadel - these people now live amongst us. Let us, instead, look at them in an unflattering but not uncharacteristic moment, as they slay each other in their natural habitat.

READ MORE...

John Derbyshire is a smooth operator. A mathematician who gained fame writing for National Review, he married a Chinese and emigrated to the United States. Who better to inform us about internationalism, and the right way and wrong way of thinking about it? In 2001 he wrote an article for National Review Online where he condemned nations who held greivances over pieces of land formerly in their possession. The piece opens up with a quote from Osama Bin Laden:

Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish.

Osama bin Laden, October 7th

He then explains how the tragedy of Andalusia’ refers to the loss of Andalusia to the Reconquista, and marvels that this fact should remain in the memory of the Ummah. What follows are his listing the greivances of the Irish and Chinese against the English, recounted as personal anecdotes. And in each case, he minimizes the claims on the basis of time passed and the supposedly impotent stance of countries who would need to nourish such greivances. Reflecting on his Irish friends discussing Ulster in a bar with some sense of passion, he writes: “An awful long time to be nursing a grievance, I thought quietly to myself.” The grievance-thief, the stealer of long-cherished bile, continued:

“And of course, thoughtful Moslems surveying the complete failure of the House of Islam to come to terms with the modern world, are likewise humiliated, and salve their hurt pride by picking at 500-year-old wounds.”

READ MORE...

A poem by Xenia Sunic

In the temple of silence
We shall meet one day,
When winter starts fading away,
And the weary stars
Fall on the grass,
And turn into yellow primroses—
Heavy with cold spring silver dew,
Imbued, with the pale mystery
Of the moon that moves
Into the remotest corners
Of the living roots—in the dark earth;
That blooms with the early spring flowers
Whose strange sweet scent,
Reminiscent of winter’s death,
Springs into new life’s creation
In the unusual morning twilight,
When the pregnant, pink moon starts waning,
Under her white lace covered face.

Intoxicated with night’s love,
She vibrates her passionate flow of tenderness,
Through gleaming river of stars;
And discloses her naked beauty
To the rousing sun
In the temple of silence;
Where the new spring is being born,
In magic sun cycles-
And Mnemosyne enters,
With wreath of wild flowers
On the wings of Northern wind,
And plays the music,
Of the lone wolf howling in the wilderness—
That echoes through the ancient memory
Of blood consciousness, and wild yearnings.

Today, the 14th June 2007, should go down in

English

history as the day the Establishment began to speak “Integration”.  It is a language based on the ancient liberal root of Coercion.  All the presumptive nouns are Coercive, especially the one used to re-classify those unfortunates who

are

were inconveniently English.  You can learn that and many other new Integration words here (PDF).

It’s the final report of the The Commission on Integration and Cohesion, a fine body of superdiversity-loving, glocalists who have been meditating upon Our Shared Future.

For that’s the title of their 168-page opus published today.  It is a tour de farce of inclusion-speak, informed as it is by such One-Guardian-Buying-Man-Bands as multikulti.org, Clever Ted Cantle’s Institute of Community Cohesion, Big Wide Talk, One London, Clever Ted Cantle’s IDeA, and such luminaries as our old friends, Sir Keith Ajegbo and Clever Ted Cantle, and the altogether more formidable and dangerous Steve Vertovec.

Now, it isn’t fair to ask you to wade through 168-pages of the direst, most self-deceiving drivel ever written by a man named Singh.  So I’ve sort of speed-read it for you ... well, bits of it anyway.  And here’s what I have learned.  Whether we are black, white or Singh-coloured we are all British together and we going to stay that way - got it?  And we all need to be helped by skilled mediators (that’s Integrationist for The Clever One) to understand our shared humanity and completely unexpected interest in chapati-baking.  La la la.  Dah doo ron ron.

I also did a bit of searching through the pdf to see how my perpetually house-moving but, of course, integration-mad “group” can be described, should one ever wish to do so for some utterly unimaginable reason:-

Indigenous - 0 results

Native - 0 results

English - 51 results, 50 of them about the learning of the English language.  Generously, the other one says:-

Our interim statement clearly set out the importance of speaking English – with 60% of respondents in our MORI polling identifying language as the main ingredient of “being English” – and we have been heartened that much of the feedback we have received since has strongly agreed with this principle.

So, no acknowledgement that an ancient people actually own these islands.  Our “main ingredient” is that we speak a language everybody else can learn.  And that’s all there is, really.  Except for the “w” word ...

White - 29 results, 16 of them referring to skin-colour.

Yay ... in Integration-speak I am white.  White I am.  White.  And white are we.  As white as a white person who arrived in Southampton yesterday from Poland, or in London from Turkey, or in Slough from charming, gypsyless Slovakia.  White, white, white.  Yes, England was always a country of immigrants.  Some of them as white as The Seven Sisters and old as the Henge.

But so what?  There is obviously nothing to stop us mutually-respecting, Pidgin English-speaking, glocalist, vibrant rainbow-Brits from doing just as the smiling Mr Singh and his cohesive friends desire.  Tolerance here I come.

Well, not quite.  Because at 1 hour 40 minutes into today’s BBC Radio Five Live Matthew Bannister Show a 21-year old, hijab-wearing economic migrant and Respect member named Rania announced that the BNP must be banned from public life.  Something to do with hate, apparently.  Possibly because a remarkably tolerant Nick Griffin had just negotiated an hour-long interview by Bannister beforehand without a snag.

You will enjoy listening to that more than wading through the Cohesion crap.  Look out for Bannister’s friendly telephone interview with the frightful Prof Sally Tomlinson, a fluent speaker of the Integrationist tongue.

READ MORE...

Steven Landsburg is an economist who brags about the quality of the department in which he teaches, and who was savaged a couple of years ago by Pat Buchanan in The American Conservative:-

... wrote the professor from the University of Rochester, “Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travellers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant—and it is—then so is xenophobia…”

Declares Landsburg: “I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. ... Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans’ well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.”

... To be more concerned about the well-being of one’s fellow Americans is not “xenophobia,” which means a fear or hatred or foreigners. It is patriotism, which entails a special love for one’s own country and countrymen, not a hatred of any other country or people. Preferring Americans no more means hating other peoples than preferring one’s family means hating all other families. An icy indifference as to whether one’s countrymen are winning—be it in a competition for jobs or Olympic medals—is moral treason and the mark of a dead soul.

The allegedly soulless Landsburg - who, of course, has a Jewish soul - has now written an absurdly comical piece titled One Fifth of an American.  It appeared in Slate Magazine yesterday:-

READ MORE...

I know this is kind of off topic, but sometimes we need just a little comic relief and this parody of FOXY News Concubines got me rolling on the floor with laughter:

With comedic support like that, its no wonder Ron Paul’s website hits are vastly outpacing his rivals:

READ MORE...

Let’s look at this article by Thomas F. Schaller, particularly the first page.

Before I get to the main point, two “diversions”, one lengthy and one brief.

First, I’d like to address Mr. Rosenberg, of whom we read:

“The Republican strategy on immigration has been one of the great failures of modern politics,” says Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, which has organized a systematic outreach campaign to Hispanic voters. “What’s going on in the Republican Party is a debate between the strategists who want to win and a part of their base that is extremely xenophobic.”

I’m not surprised that someone with the surname “Rosenberg” has an agenda to promote Hispanic interests in what used to be the United States of America, but his comments are absurd on their face.  If the GOP cannot “win” without Hispanic voters, then they certainly cannot win without their base, which, by definition, constitutes the foundation of their electoral support.  One supposes that Rosenberg assumes that the base should remain passive and allow itself to be taken for granted – “automatic” votes for the GOP because “they have nowhere else to go.”  Thus, the base should support policies they loathe and believe are destructive, just so “their party” can “win.”  Again, it is not surprising that a “Rosenberg” would like to promote to white gentiles a “football game, rah-rah” version of “politics”, where “winning elections” is an end to itself.  However, to any triple-digit IQ individual, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of “winning an election” is not as an end to itself, not as a way of saying “nyah, nyah…my boys won and your boys lost”, but instead as a tool to promote particular policies.  What price “victory” if the cost of “winning” is to have “your party” adopt the very policies you oppose and which have traditionally characterized “the opposition?”

In essence, Rosenberg and the GOP seem to want the Republican base to “reason “ as follows: “I support the GOP because that party promotes traditional American values, will preserve the traditional America, will oppose illegal immigration and cut down unassimilable legal immigration, and will oppose the pandering to minorities.  It is therefore important that the GOP win elections.  In order to win elections, the GOP needs more votes, and, hey, those Hispanics are good candidates!  Therefore, in order to win, the GOP should support illegal immigrant amnesty, support flooding America with more Third Worlders, pander to all sorts of minorities, and tear down the traditional America!  That’ll teach ‘dem Democrats a thing or two!”

What stupidity.  The problem is that this is exactly how the “base” has been “reasoning” for decades.  In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has essentially allowed “their party” to become a carbon copy of the opposition.  Is that “smart politics?”  And comments about a “20th century vs. 21st century party” are particularly offensive to the GOP base.  In other words, says Rosenberg, the GOP’s white base is “in the past” and “outdated” while all the growing and vibrant Hispanics are “the future” and representative of the “21st century.”

Hmmm….I don’t know.  Perhaps the base would not like to be contemptuously disregarded as “in the past” and, essentially, dead and buried?  Perhaps the base, which are the voters who actually contribute the most to the GOP’s “victories”, do not want to be taken for granted, and then have their interests disregarded as soon as the Republican candidate is elected?  Perhaps, just perhaps, the base has interests just as legitimate – or more so? – than all the hip and modernistic 21st century Hispanics?  Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should give similar advice to Israel: the idea of a “Jewish state” is an outdated 2oth century idea, while those dynamic Palestinians and their high birth rate are the harbingers of Israel’s bright, 21st century Arabic future.  How about that?

READ MORE...