The following letter was submitted to VDARE and published there in edited form today:

As one of the builders of the computer industry who saw his 35 year career destroyed by H-1b visas, I appreciate the irony of the fact that I just got back from the Ron Paul rally in Seattle, making this the first chance I’ve had to comment on on Peter Brimelow’s important interview with Ron Paul.  I’m a firm, if skeptical, supporter of Ron Paul for the simple reason that he really is the best hope for peaceful solutions to our fundamental problems.  As harsh as the loss of my career has been, on me and all those like me who built the information industry to see its fruits reaped by foreigners with arranged marriages and intact clan support structures, the public choice rent seekers Paul opposes, create greater problems for all of us.

It’s good that Brimelow got Paul to answer some tough questions; particularly regarding H-1b visas, but the bigger problem is illustrated by what I experienced during my trip to Seattle, in its suburbs where I spent 2 days.  I spent the weekend touring the coast of Puget Sound south of Seattle, through Tacoma.  At one point I was having trouble believing what I was seeing, so I started counting cars as they went by.  Out of the 20 cars, NOT ONE had a white male in it and white females were no more frequent than one would expect in east LA:  Not exactly the original intent of what the preamble of the United States Constitution referred to as “our posterity”.

So you see, I’ve got bigger concerns than the loss of my livelihood to some hundreds of thousands of H-1b visa holders wielding questionable diplomas from Indian paper mills in jobs frequently handed to them out of ethnic nepotism.  That is small potatoes compared to what has happened to places like the suburbs of Seattle.  As much as I appreciate Brimelow’s accurate emphasis on the impact of H-1b visas on people like me, his failure to talk about Randall Burns’ idea of auctioning off citizenship and/or visas to discover the value of residence was the most glaring omission of the interview—particularly to the more faithful and thoughtful readers of VDARE.

Ron Paul is, after all, a market ideologue.  Paul’s failure to understand that the value of residence, from whatever source—be it the welfare state, as Paul contends, or liquidation of more general social capital as seems to be the case, can be determined by the market (at least within some reasonable approximations given widely held assumptions that Paul shares) is Paul’s most glaring intellectual failure but it isn’t his worst intellectual failure.  Paul’s worst intellectual failure is his failure to recognize that public choice rent seeking has a private counterpart.  Specifically, property rights beyond subsistence property rights, are made possible by government.  Hence use fees for property rights beyond subsistence should be under a use fee for that governmental service.  Note, this use fee is not a “tax” in the normal sense due to the reciprocal nature.  We can argue over the amount exempted as “subsistence” and the rate of the fee, but we should have the correct argument!  If such use fees were paid, incompetents like Bill Gates would not simply hire tens of thousands of ever cheaper programmers to write more software that doesn’t work in ever more convoluted ways.  He would simply go out of business due to a more level playing field created by the removal of subsidy of Microsoft’s monopoly property rights.

But as I said, this is small potatoes compared to what the government is doing by collecting taxes to create a huge political football for special interest rent streams.  As “the least of evils” goes, Ron Paul is the closest thing many of us have seen to a “good” candidate in our lifetimes—even if he further damages some of us.

James Bowery fixes computers for his neighbors and does odd jobs in the rural Pacific Northwest.  Until the H-1b invasion, he was a leader in computer networking starting in 1974 at the PLATO network where he developed many firsts.  During that time he also provided the first iterative solution to the Tower of Hanoi problem when in 1977, helping his then friend, Ray Ozzie, with his homework assignment.  Ray had thought the professor said “iterative” rather than “recursive”.  Ray’s professor was rather surprised at Ray’s presentation of an iterative solution.  Mr. Bowery’s father, Robert W. Bowery, won first place in the National Clean Plowing Championships 2 years running in the late 1940s.

Every day now a clutch of immigration stories appear in the mainstream UK press.  The silence is slowly, irrevocably breaking.  Loyal feeling, where it exists, is making itself heard and will not be silenced again.

Over the last two or three days we have, starting with the Daily Mail, heard that:-

If the BBC’s worried about immigration, can we have an honest debate about it?

Ever since New Labour won the election in 1997, there has been a lively debate about immigration in this country, and it has not made a blind bit of difference.

Poles, other East Europeans and illegal immigrants have made a bee-line for our shores in increasing numbers.

Some newspapers, such as this one, have pointed out what is happening, but the tide has flowed on. The think-tank MigrationWatch has ably made its case without any obvious effect.

A few politicians have spoken up, but their warnings have not been heeded - or, if they have, nothing has changed. The Tories have picked up the issue and then dropped it. At the moment they are wondering whether to pick it up again.

We are told that 25 per cent of babies born in this country have at least one foreign-born parent. Within a few years, several cities will have a nonwhite majority.

And here, from the Telegraph:-

One fifth of schoolchildren from ethnic minorities

One in five children educated in English schools are now from ethnic minorities, official figures show.

The number of Asian, black African, black Caribbean, eastern European and Chinese pupils is thought to have doubled in the last decade.

In some parts of the country they outnumber white British pupils. Growing numbers of schoolchildren also speak languages other than English at home, it emerged.

One in eight school children do not speak English as their first language, rising to one in seven for primary school pupils.

According to statistics by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, almost 22 per cent of primary school pupils are from ethnic minority families, compared to 20.6 per cent last year.

Numbers have also grown in secondary schools where almost 18 per cent of the student body is now non-white British. In at least five areas - London, Birmingham, Leicester, Luton and Slough - white British children are now outnumbered by those from other ethnic groups.

And again from the Daily Mail:-

200,000 immigrants to enter Britain EVERY year as numbers soar by 30%

The number of people migrating to the UK will increase by 45,000 a year, according to new official figures published today.

Experts at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said their estimates had increased to 190,000 a year compared with 145,000 in calculations issued two years ago.

Changes to the way migration is estimated would also lead to earlier migration totals being “revised” later this year, it added.

READ MORE...

Radio talk show host suggests his cohost means to hunt down Ron Paul supporters and kill them like mad dogs.

Bring it on!

When folks who advocate the importation of an Asian “cognitive elite” make their case, they usually do it in opposition to the importation of a third world underclass.  It is interesting, therefore, that when Senator Durbin “justifies” the attachment of the DREAM Act mini-amnesty to the Defense Authorization Bill, he does so by pointing to supporters within the Defense Department—two of them actually—one of whom is so obscure he doesn’t even rate a Wikipedia entry, and the other of whom is a Chinese American:

whose Wikipedia entry says of him:

Chu is one of the least publicly recognized of the civilians appointed to The Pentagon under President George W. Bush.

You have to wonder if these guys really think that by recruiting the children of illegals into the military they can create a military that is more loyal to the military than to the people of the US the US military will be killing when the people of the US finally take up arms against the traitors?

UPDATE: This most recent reanimation of the DREAM Act is dead again after Congressmen got enough calls like the one I placed to my Congressman telling his staff that I hadn’t participated in “the process” in 15 years after I had led a grassroots effort to successfully change Federal Law and became alienated from “the process”, but that if my representative voted for the DREAM Act I would do everything in my power to make sure he wasn’t reelected.  In my case, the staffer didn’t sound like a foreigner but he was none too happy with my call.  Traitors, you see, really like giving away our land to foreigners.  Its what makes them who they are.

I was not entirely surprised to see that Mr Cool of the equality game, the diversity gang-banger Trevor Phillips, has been making those smooth, smooth moves again.  He is reported in the Telegraph telling us that we must rewrite the history of Britain to reflect the roles of other cultures.

Parts of British history need to be rewritten to emphasise the roles played by other races and religions like Muslims, a prominent race relations campaigner has said.

Trevor Philips, the chairman of the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, said the history of Britain did not properly reflect the contribution of other cultures.

Rewriting the country’s history would demonstrate to Britons in the 21st century how other groups part from Anglo Saxons shaped the nation.

He told a fringe meeting at the Labour conference: “We may need to revisit our national story – we want to rewrite that story to tell the whole story.”

The rewriting should start with the story of how the English fleet led by Sir Francis Drake fought off the Spanish Armada in 1588, he said.

The important role played by the Muslim Turks, who delayed the sailing of the Spanish fleet so that the English ships were better prepared, had been airbrushed out of the story however.

Mr Phillips said: “When we talk about the Armada, it was the Turks who saved us because they held up the Armada after a request from Elizabeth I.

“Let’s rewrite that, so we have an ideal that brings us together so that it can bind us together in stormy times ahead in the next century.”

Mr Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, declined to offer any other examples of parts of British history that should be rewritten.

So it wuz the wogs wot done it.  Well I never!

READ MORE...

Yesterday, a foreigner, working as a US Congressional aid, said “So what?” and hung up on a constituent who pointed out that his Congressman was acting against the US Constitution.

In response to the latest “mini amnesty”, called The DREAM Act, launched against the American people by their corrupt “representatives”, a colleague of mine called his so-called “representative”, Jim McDermott, to object to this violation of The Posterity of the Founders of the US:

US Congressional Switchboard Toll-free Numbers (02-07-07)

1-866-340-9281
1-877-762-8762
1-866-808-0065
1-866-220-0044

White House Phone: 202-456-1111
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 866-340-9281

During the phone conversation he pointed out that the US Constitution forbids US officials to accept titles of nobility, as was recently granted Rep. McDermott by an African king:

That’s when McDermott’s Congressional aid responded in his foreign accent, “So what?” and hung up.

The SPLC, which has been trying to get Kevin MacDonald’s academic tenure revoked, with some minor victories, is now trumpeting a paper by David Isadore Lieberman titled “Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century” as “Academic Paper Rebuts Cal State Professor’s Anti-Semitic ‘Scholarship’”.

I started reading the paper despite the fact that it was being trumpeted by a disreputable source—hoping to find some real scholarly criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship.  Here is a representative passage:

So there is little common ground between MacDonald?s warm embrace of authoritarian values and Altemeyer?s urgent warnings against them. In the end, of course, these are really matters of data interpretation; MacDonald can certainly make use of Altemeyer?s statistical findings concerning authoritarian personalities without finding them the cause for alarm Altemeyer himself does. The problem, however, is that MacDonald?s transparent desire to render tendencies toward authoritarianism among members of his own ethnicity palatable requires him to do some fancy rhetorical dancing around Altemeyer?s terms as well as his data. Ultimately, this will lead us to the real issue of interest here: yet another example of MacDonald suppressing information that does not conform to his theory.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but much of it seems to boil down to such arguments:

“Those who MacDonald cites on particulars would object to his use of their data for his thesis.”

In the above too-typical paragraph, Lieberman goes so far as to admit that this isn’t really a valid criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship but then turns right around and calls MacDonald’s omissions of, what Lieberman admits are, irrelevancies as “suppressing information that does not conform to his theory”.

It is hard to get motivated to read such a paper.  If someone grinds their way through the lefty-blogger type rheotoric to find some nuggets of real scholarship within Lieberman’s paper, let me know.

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system. In many instances, the language in the liberal West is reminiscent of the communist language of the old Soviet Union, although liberal media and politicians use words and phrases that are less abrasive and less value-loaded than words used by the old communist officials and their state-run media. In Western academe, media, and public places, a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and which resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning. Generally speaking, the liberal system shuns negative hyperbolas and skirts around heavy-headed qualifiers that the state-run media of the Soviet Union once used in fostering its brand of conformity and its version of political correctness. By contrast, the media in the liberal system, very much in line with its ideology of historical optimism and progress, are enamored with the overkill of morally uplifting adjectives and adverbs, often displaying words and expressions such as “free speech,” “human rights,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” There is a wide spread assumption among modern citizens of the West that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken as something self-evident.

There appears to be a contradiction. If free speech is something “self- evident” in liberal democracies, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most. The very adjective “self-evident,” so frequent in the parlance of liberal politicians may in fact hide some uncertainties and even some self-doubt on the part of those who employ it. With constant hammering of these words and expressions, particularly words such as “human rights,” and “tolerance”, the liberal system may be hiding something; hiding, probably, the absence of genuine free speech. To illustrate this point more clearly it may be advisable for an average citizen living in the liberal system to look at the examples of the communist rhetoric which was once saturated with similar freedom-loving terms while, in reality, there was little of freedom and even less free-speech

READ MORE...