RSS
Californians of European ancestry—“whites”—became a minority near the end of the 1980s, and this unprecedented ethnic transformation is probably responsible for the rise of a series of ethnically-charged political issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education, as seen in Propositions 187, 209, and 227. Since America as a whole is undergoing the same ethnic transformation delayed by a few decades, the experience of these controversial campaigns tells us much about the future of our country on these ethnic issues.
Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”
=================================================
At some unknown date during the late 1980’s, and with no attention paid whatsoever, whites became a minority in California.
The silence surrounding this momentous event, without precedent in American history, is quite understandable. It was the late Reagan era, a time of economic boom and the approaching end of the cold war, and racial issues had temporarily receded from visibility. Then, too, California enjoyed a reputation as being among our most cosmopolitan, open, and optimistic states, better known for its flourishing economy and hippies and beaches than for racial conflict; this reputation had been confirmed in 1982 when the nation’s largest state came within a hair’s-breadth of electing Tom Bradley as America’s first black governor.
Besides, on the historic transition date in question, official statistics would have indicated a shrinking but still substantial white majority. The bizarre framework of federal racial classification–which divides all mankind into Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and “other” whites–places blond, blue-eyed, third-generation Argentinian-Americans who speak not a word of Spanish in the category of minorities, while dark-skinned Muslim immigrants from Egypt, speaking not a word of English, are labeled members of the white majority. In this Alice-in-Wonderland perspective, the huge inflow into California of hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Armenians and Egyptians had acted to “whiten” the state, partially balancing the huge simultaneous inflow of Vietnamese and Mexicans and Somalis.
But the irrationality of official statistics did not prevent Californians of European ancestry from recognizing that they were fast becoming a minority within their own state–and their unease about this situation would soon be reflected in the political landscape. During the 1994, 1996, and 1998 election cycles, three ballot measures with strong racial and ethnic overtones–Propositions 187 (illegal immigration), 209 (affirmative action), and 227 (bilingual education)–explosively probed the delicate fault lines of California’s new multiethnic society. Each of these widely popular initiatives drew far more media coverage and generated far greater emotion than did the candidates for statewide or national office who shared their same ballot. Taken as a whole, they are certain to loom large in any political history of late-20th-century America, long after those candidates have been forgotten.
Because the three measures dealt with questions inevitable in an ethnically diverse society, examining the very different campaigns surrounding them can tell us much not only about California today but, since national demographic trends lag behind those of California by only a generation or two, about how our larger political world is likely to evolve as Americans of European ancestry fall increasingly into minority status during the first half of the new century. Two alternate futures present themselves–which might be labeled the new American melting pot and the coming of white nationalism–and the recent politics of California lends some plausibility to each. America’s continued viability as a nation may well depend upon which of these two paths we choose.
UNTIL THE late 1960’s, California had probably had less experience with racial politics than most of America’s other large states. Its Asian community, although the nation’s largest, was still negligible in size and power, amounting to just 2 or 3 percent of the general population and lacking significant political influence. Hispanics had not yet been invented as an American racial group by federal bureaucrats, and so were perceived much like Italians, Arabs, or other darker Caucasians of marginal social status; in any case, their numbers were probably well under 10 percent of the state, with an economic profile ranging from the most prestigious landowning families to poor migrant farmworkers who crossed national borders without notice or concern. And as for blacks, America’s prototypical minority, few lived in California prior to World War II, and even afterward their numbers never rose above 7 percent, by far the lowest such proportion of any major state in the union. Thus, in 1970, government statistics would have described California as 90-percent white, and most Californians, on the basis of their own experience, probably would have concurred.
Then, over the next decade and a half, some two million documented foreign immigrants–over a quarter of America’s total–entered the state, further augmented by a continuous flow of illegals and additional millions of foreign immigrants relocating from other states. By 1990, California’s Latino population had more than tripled; Asians had increased almost fivefold.
Most of these immigrants were young, and often they came from societies where seven or eight children to a family were not uncommon. Although the cultural influence of their new American environment quickly reduced their typical family size to three or four children, the immigrant birthrate still far outpaced that of affluent whites, many of whom had anyway already passed their child-bearing years. This large difference in natural increase meant that, by 1991, California was recording more Hispanic than white births, despite an official white population more than twice as large; if immigrants officially classified as white were excluded from the total, the white/nonwhite ratio would have been more lopsided still.
It was, inevitably, in the public schools that the earliest signs of ethnic transformation became visible to California’s middle class. Within just a few years, large urban school districts had shifted from overwhelmingly white to overwhelmingly minority, with many of the remaining “whites” actually being immigrants or their children. As early as the 1980’s, some 140 different languages were spoken in California schools.
This made for a potentially dangerous situation, ripe for scapegoating. For even as the Latino and Asian populations were growing exponentially, California’s electorate remained overwhelmingly white. Immigrants, being younger and less affluent, with low rates of naturalization and few ties to public issues, mostly ignored the political process: although, by 1990, Latinos and Asians constituted some 40 percent of the state’s population, they were just 10 percent of its voters. This political vacuum permitted a small number of Left-liberal ethnic activists to stake an uncontested claim to represent the views of ordinary Asians and Latinos. Despite the fact that these activists, generally second- or third-generation Americans, had no real ties to the immigrant population, their shrill cultural and linguistic demands–often modeled on those of their black allies–regularly served to annoy and unnerve California’s white political majority.
AND YET, until the early 1990’s, California’s rapidly transforming and potentially combustible society seemed to be leading a charmed life. Elderly whites might grumble at the vast number of “foreigners” everywhere; communities undergoing especially rapid ethnic succession might exhibit bouts of “English Only”-ism; white students at UCLA might jokingly refer to themselves as attending the “University of Caucasians Lost among Asians.” But all in all, ethnic tensions seemed surprisingly minimal.
One helpful factor here was California’s ongoing economic boom, fueled by the massive Reagan defense buildup, which provided jobs for everyone from white aerospace engineers to Mexican construction laborers. The powerful agribusiness lobby, heavily dependent on undocumented farm labor, also exerted enormous influence in state politics, ensuring that moderate pro-business leaders like then-Senator Pete Wilson hewed to a position of de-facto support for high levels of illegal immigration.
And it was not just moderate Republicans like Wilson who held pro-immigrant views; so, too, contrary to stereotype, did many prominent conservatives. The entrepreneurship and economic dynamism of most immigrants, the strong family values and Catholic faith of Latinos, the fierce anti-Communism of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees–these did not go unnoticed during the Reagan era. In 1984, during the heated debate over the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act, none other than right-winger Patrick J. Buchanan had denounced the proposed legislation as mean-spirited toward hard-working illegal immigrants, and as late as the 1990 publication of his conservative call-to-arms, Right from the Beginning, Buchanan was still casually referring to illegal immigrants (let alone to legal ones) as stalwarts of American optimism and economic advancement. Fiery Bob Dornan had originally unseated a Democratic incumbent in his Orange County congressional district thanks to a local influx of anti-Communist Vietnamese refugees, and his unbending anti-abortionism regularly won him many Latino votes; in his appearances on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Dornan scathingly denounced anti-immigrant activists.
If the Right could find little fault with immigrants during this period, liberals and the Left often showed greater hostility. Environmentalists pushing for slow-growth economic measures often locked horns with Latino (and black) elected officials from working-class districts where the paramount issue was jobs rather than “quality of life”; the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), America’s premier anti-immigration lobby, had been founded in 1978 by radical environmentalists. In another sector of the liberal universe, unionized white workers found themselves being priced out of the market by increasingly skilled immigrants. Even Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers urged a crackdown on Latino illegal immigrants.
But the main source of conflict, especially in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, was friction between immigrants and blacks. During the 1980’s, as large numbers of Mexicans and Central Americans began displacing blacks from their traditional neighborhoods, the competition for housing, jobs, and political power became fierce. At the same time, Asian shopkeepers, primarily Koreans, had begun to dominate small-scale commerce in black neighborhoods, replacing previous (usually nonblack) owners or reopening abandoned properties. Such changes were natural, even beneficial; but, at a moment when high unemployment and the growing impact of the crack epidemic had produced considerable racial xenophobia among blacks, they generated severe resentments.
All this formed a background to the huge, spontaneous riot in Los Angeles that followed the 1992 acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case and that inspired similar, smaller riots elsewhere. With the breakdown of public order, large numbers of poor Central American immigrants near downtown Los Angeles joined in the looting, allowing the politically-correct media to portray the riots–falsely–as a united, multicultural uprising against the white power structure. In fact, the rioters were overwhelmingly black, and their primary targets were immigrant Hispanics and Asians, particularly Korean shopkeepers, who lost some $400 million in destroyed property. (The freeing of a Korean shopkeeper convicted of killing a black teen had been a strong contributing factor in the riot.)
THE EFFECT of the 1992 riots on California’s ethnic politics cannot be exaggerated. Although few white neighborhoods were directly threatened and fewer whites were killed or injured, the plumes of smoke from burning buildings and the gruesome television footage almost completely shattered the sense of security of middle-class Southern Californians. Suddenly, the happy “multicultural California” so beloved of local boosters had been unmasked as a harsh, dangerous third-world dystopia. Scenes of Uzi-toting Korean shopkeepers exchanging fire with shadowy rioters made even California’s so-called “model minority” seem alien and threatening. And the large numbers of Latinos arrested (and often summarily deported) for looting caused whites to cast a newly wary eye on gardeners and nannies who just weeks earlier had seemed so pleasant and reliable. If multicultural Los Angeles had exploded into sudden chaos, what security could whites expect as a minority in an increasingly nonwhite California? The often divisive rhetoric of self-appointed ethnic activists hardly provided comfort.
Other factors, too, contributed to the tension. The end of the cold war and the resulting defense build-down had led to a deep recession in early-1990’s California, and the shrinking economic pie produced a sense of statewide despair. For many whites, this economic decline came to be symbolized by the images of unemployed Latino laborers–large numbers of them undocumented–who gathered in small knots each morning at suburban street corners, hoping for contractors to give them a day’s work. A twenty-year real-estate bubble had also burst, and aging suburbanites, now thinking of relocating elsewhere, were suddenly faced with the reality that their homes–their principal financial asset–were worth only a fraction of what they had been a few years earlier. Orange County, just south of Los Angeles, had originally grown to maturity as a leading receptacle of earlier white flight; now several of its own larger cities like Santa Ana and Anaheim had suddenly become heavily populated by immigrant Latinos and were increasingly poor.
Terrified of social decay and violence, and trapped by collapsed property values, many whites felt they could neither run nor hide. Under these circumstances, attention inevitably began to focus on the tidal force of foreign immigration.
THE FIRST California political figure to raise the immigration issue was Tom Houston, a liberal Democrat from Los Angeles who had served as deputy mayor under Tom Bradley and was now attempting to succeed his ex-boss. From late 1992 through the primary election in the spring of 1993, Houston focused relentlessly on the fiscal and social threat posed by illegal aliens, ranging from the increased burden on the city’s social-welfare system to crime and gang violence.
Although Houston lost, his positions generated strong populist support and attracted major media coverage. Moreover, his ideological credentials as a liberal Democrat provided cover for others eager to raise the same issue but fearful of being branded “racist.” Within months of the mayoral race, a whole raft of immigration-related measures had been introduced into the state legislature, and top-ranking politicians, presumably driven by polls and focus groups, were eagerly presenting their sound-bites on the local evening news. Senator Barbara Boxer, a Left-liberal Democrat, urged the construction of a border fence with Mexico, to be manned by California’s National Guard; Senator Dianne Feinstein, a moderate Democrat, advocated a huge increase in the border patrol; and Pete Wilson, California’s moderate Republican governor, proposed denying U.S. citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants.
Wilson’s main innovation was to frame the issue as one of fiscal responsibility: he argued that the cost of providing government services to illegal immigrants was prohibitive. This had some plausibility, since most such immigrants were poor and the taxes they paid probably did not cover the cost of the education their children received in the public schools–though the same could be said of all lower-income residents, immigrant and nonimmigrant alike. But other claims advanced by Wilson–that, for instance, California’s generous welfare arrangements served as a magnet to impoverished foreigners–were false and demagogic: nearly all immigrants came for jobs, not welfare.
Plausible or not, the governor’s charges resonated widely among California’s recession-plagued white electorate. Despite clear visual and personal evidence that Latinos and other immigrants were enormously hard-working and filled every available job niche of the California economy, the common white stereotype of darker-skinned peoples as especially prone to government dependency proved irresistible. “Stopping welfare for illegal immigrants” became a powerful slogan.
The results were immediate. Wilson, whose popularity during the recession had plumbed all-time lows, saw his approval rating shoot up almost overnight. Because his initial targets were illegal immigrants, pro-immigrant politicians such as members of the state’s Latino caucus were trapped between the difficulty of defending illegality and the embarrassment of falling silent before Wilson’s attacks upon portions of their own community. By late 1993, illegal immigration seemed to have established itself, alongside crime and education, as a major potential issue in the 1994 statewide elections.
The sharp distinction between illegal and legal immigrants would become a standard tag line of nearly all political rhetoric during the immigration wars of the next two or three years, both in California and around the nation. Wilson’s own exceptionally effective campaign ads featured gritty black-and-white footage of illegal aliens scurrying across the Mexican border like an army of subhuman invaders, but then balanced this harsh image with reverent shots of the Statue of Liberty and of legal Latino residents taking the oath of U.S. citizenship. Pro-immigrant groups merely provided different body language for the same basic message: legal immigrants good, illegal immigrants bad.
Yet, despite strong rhetorical consensus on this distinction, both perceptions of reality and reality itself suggested something quite different. For one thing, activist anti-immigration groups like FAIR or Voices of Citizens Together (VCT) saw no difference between the two categories, and merely used illegals as an effective stalking horse for an attack on immigration in general. Then, too, public sentiment in California was quite confused on the matter, with polls showing that most voters believed the overwhelming majority of immigrants were illegal even though illegals probably comprised no more than 20 percent of the total. To most people, “illegal immigrant” was simply a synonym for “poor immigrant” or “bad immigrant” or perhaps even “Mexican immigrant.”
The history of immigration policy added another layer of complication, not to say irony. Legislation championed by then-Senator Wilson in 1986 had granted amnesty to some three million illegal immigrants, the bulk of them residents of California. Thus, by 1994, a significant fraction of California’s “good” legal immigrants had only recently been “bad” illegal immigrants, having been transformed by a stroke of the pen. And this amnesty led to still further complications, since many newly legalized Mexican workers had subsequently brought their wives and children to live with them, generating a maze of intermingled relationships: in a typical immigrant household the husband might be an amnestied legal resident, the wife and older children illegals, and the younger children native-born American citizens.
BUT ALL such details and nuances were to be submerged completely as California’s 1994 election campaign eventually became a massive referendum on the single subject of illegal immigration. In the spring of that year, a fringe group of anti-immigrant activists led by a failed accountant named Ron Prince had quietly begun to gather signatures to qualify the “Save Our State” (SOS) voter initiative for the November ballot. Under its later, official designation as Proposition 187, the measure became a watershed event in the national politics of race.
The initiative banned all nonemergency government services for illegal immigrants and their children–a simple and reasonable-sounding proposal until one realized that it would force the immediate expulsion of hundreds of thousands of immigrant children from public schools throughout California. In one draconian clause, the measure stipulated that mothers who attempted to use false documents to keep their children in school would receive mandatory five-year prison sentences; in another, it required teachers and doctors to report immediately to the INS any individuals they “suspected” of being illegal immigrants, thus raising the specter of a wave of ethnic witch-hunts. Reflecting its grassroots origins, the measure was poorly drafted and highly ambiguous, and was written in explicit defiance of a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, requiring public education for all children, documented or otherwise.
None of these seemingly fatal flaws lessened the overwhelming popularity of Proposition 187, which represented to most voters a revolt against a governing elite whose economic and social policies had brought the Golden State to its knees. Although initially skeptical, Wilson gradually embraced the proposal, ultimately making it the centerpiece of his own reelection campaign–so much so that by election day, according to some polls, more voters were aware that Wilson supported 187 than that he was the state’s incumbent governor or much of anything else about him.
The campaign itself was exceptionally divisive, among the most bitter in the state’s history. With even California’s “moderate” governor calling for the expulsion of 300,000 children from California schools, implicit sanction was given to far more extreme words and deeds. At one point, Proposition 187 chairman Ron Prince told an audience of conservative activists that “you are the posse and SOS is the rope,” while others regularly declared that the measure would finally drive the encroaching hordes of illegal aliens back to Mexico. Among immigrant families ignorant of American law, frightening rumors spread that the initiative authorized physical attacks on the undocumented, a perception reinforced by the unfortunate coincidence that “187” was also American police code for “homicide.” The suggestion of a popular conservative talk-show host that the state offer a cash bounty for each “illegal immigrant” shot proved that such anxieties were not entirely unfounded.
Unwise or provocative behavior by anti-187 groups fed in turn both fear and backlash among whites. In October 1994, a coalition of grassroots pro-immigrant groups led a protest march and rally of 70,000 mostly immigrant Latinos through Los Angeles, perhaps the largest political demonstration in California history. Although the event was entirely peaceful, many of the marchers carried flags from their various Latin American countries of origin, and the images of that sea of foreign flags in downtown Los Angeles, endlessly reprinted and retelevised, seemed to confirm the worst suspicions of white Californians that they were losing control of their state to unassimilable aliens. Coming just three weeks before the election, the heavily covered march guaranteed the initiative’s passage.
THE SWEEPING 59-percent victory of Proposition 187 in November 1994 represented a political earthquake. Not only did its coattails carry Governor Wilson–who before he embraced the measure had been the most unpopular incumbent in California history–to a lesser landslide of his own, but Republicans gained a majority in the state assembly for the first time in three decades and picked up four seats in California’s congressional delegation. The very fact that the highly flawed initiative had triumphed in the face of universal opposition by the state’s editorial boards–and condemnation by many prominent national conservatives like Jack Kemp and William J. Bennett–only heightened the impact. Success succeeds, and California Republicans believed that they had found a magic formula for long-term political realignment.
To some concerned observers, the active ingredient in that formula seemed, rather, an incipient form of white nationalism. But heady Republicans ignored such concerns, just as they discounted fears of a minority backlash. Since implementation of the blatantly unconstitutional measure was quickly blocked by federal court challenges, they reasoned that the vote would remain essentially symbolic, and that immigrant anger would surely fade. They also pointed out that, although Wilson’s Latino vote had been cut in half from 1990, his black support had risen to a full 20 percent, remarkable for a GOP candidate. At least in California, Republicans saw the immigration issue as attractive not just to whites but to some minorities as well.[1]. The fault line between native-born and immigrants in California paralleled almost precisely the line separating whites and blacks on the one hand from Asians and Latinos on the other, thus heightening the racial character of the immigration issue. This was not (and is not) the case elsewhere. New York, for example, was second only to California in its concentration of legal and illegal immigrants, and suffered from even greater economic and welfare problems. But for a number of reasons, including the much more variegated makeup of New York’s illegal immigrant population, which numbered multitudes of Irish, Italians, and Africans in addition to Asians and Latinos, attacks there even on illegal immigrants never much entered the portfolio of Republican-party leaders. Even at the height of the immigration wars, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani defied national party leaders by publicly defending his city’s population of undocumented residents. A measure like Proposition 187 was a complete nonstarter in New York from day one.
Nor were Republicans alone in drawing such conclusions. Senator Dianne Feinstein, California’s most prominent Democrat, had herself effectively used the immigration issue to survive a surprisingly strong challenge by her opponent Michael Huffington; in content and style, her campaign’s television barrage of immigration ads had been almost indistinguishable from Pete Wilson’s. Although Feinstein did ultimately declare herself against Proposition 187, her opposition was grudging and late, and following the measure’s triumph she immediately repositioned herself as the national champion of massive cuts in legal immigration, hoping to outflank Wilson and the Republicans on that emerging front. Against illegals, she also proposed the immediate introduction of a mandatory National Identity Card, together with the annual fingerprinting of every man, woman, and child in America. As for Bill Clinton, who read the same election returns and the same polls, he soon declared his support for sweeping “immigration-reform” legislation in Congress, featuring the most drastic cuts in entry numbers since 1924.
EVEN AS national political leaders were digesting the sudden prominence of the immigration issue, a second ethnically-charged initiative entered upon the California stage.
For several years, two obscure academics had been trying to attract interest in their proposed measure banning governmental affirmative action, but without success or visibility. Now, in the wake of Proposition 187 and its national impact, the me dia had begun to recognize the political potential of proposals from such unlikely sources, and by the early months of 1995, the so-called “California Civil Rights Initiative,” targeted for the 1996 ballot, was being widely hailed as the next big thing in California and the hottest of national hot-button issues. According to early media accounts, fearful and angry whites, the driving force behind Proposition 187 and the national Republican sweep in 1994, had found a new and hardly surprising goal: ending the entrenched system of racial discrimination against white people known as affirmative action.
Initial polling figures on the proposed measure, later designated Proposition 209, indicated the expected high levels of support among white Californians. More startlingly, they also revealed almost equally strong support among both Asians and Hispanics, and a near-even split among blacks, historically the group that benefited the most from affirmative action. Gun-shy Democratic leaders, previously unshakable in their support of these controversial programs, now viewed the initiative as an unstoppable political freight train, to be avoided rather than directly opposed.
Even Willie Brown, California’s long-time Democratic Speaker of the Assembly and perhaps America’s most powerful black elected official, began to consider support for an effort to place the measure on the June 1996 primary ballot so as to prevent it from being used as a November general-election issue against Democrats. Senator Feinstein’s campaign chairman endorsed the initiative and began negotiating with its backers over the prominence of Feinstein’s role in the eventual campaign. And on the national stage, President Clinton announced the formation of a commission to review affirmative action, a move widely seen as providing him with the necessary political cover to reverse his longstanding position and abandon the now-controversial policy. After 30 years of apparent inviolability, America’s system of affirmative action appeared–like Communism–on the verge of collapsing without even a fight.
In California, as elsewhere, governmental affirmative-action programs were seen as being of little interest to nonblack minorities like Latinos or Asians, few of whom worked in the public sector. Indeed, as the attack on these programs began, some Latino leaders, expressing their anger at the scanty black support they had received during the Proposition 187 campaign, indicated that they might return the favor by sitting on their hands during the fight to come. As for Asians, they–even more than whites–had been denied opportunities by ethnic-preference programs; the explicitly restrictive quota on Chinese students at San Francisco’s elite Lowell High School had been an Asian-American cause célèbre for several years. Thus, at first glance, the alignment of interest groups reinforced the polls in suggesting that no clear white-versus-nonwhite divide would be found on this issue.
Little wonder, then, that at this stage, Proposition 209 struck some observers as a potential counterweight to Proposition 187. Perhaps–the reasoning went–if the anti-immigrant elements behind Proposition 187 could be kept at a distance, it would be possible to win a strong mandate across all ethnic lines for the elimination of ethnic favoritism. Even where immigration was concerned, extensive private polling had indicated that the primary factor in white hostility was less the fact of immigration itself than balkanizing policies such as affirmative action, bilingual education, and multiculturalism, all of which were (rightly) seen as blocking traditional patterns of assimilation; remove the policies, and the hostility evaporated. And now, one of the most pernicious of those policies appeared about to fall before an amazingly broad ethnic coalition. Its demise could defuse white anger, allay nonwhite fears, and reaffirm the tradition of American pluralism.
BUT IT was not to be. Governor Wilson, triumphant from his reelection sweep and now exploring a presidential race, decided to add opposition to affirmative action to his portfolio of national issues, where it would help balance his otherwise “liberal” positions on abortion, gun control, and gay rights. Although, as recently as December 1994, Wilson had reaffirmed his decades-long support for minority preferences, by February 1995 he was promising a national crusade to reestablish equality of opportunity under the law. With the encouragement of Ward Connerly, a black supporter whom he had appointed to the governing board of the University of California, Wilson began a lobbying campaign to persuade the university’s regents to end ethnic preferences in admissions immediately.
Wilson’s entrance into the battle provided a tactical boost, but it led to a strategic calamity. Because of 187, immigrants, Latinos in particular, viewed him as a demonic force, and 209, instead of being perceived as an antidote to 187, quickly became transformed in their eyes into its anointed successor. In addition, what had looked at first like a nonpartisan movement to abolish an unfair system was now taking on the appearance of a cog in a poll-driven presidential campaign, with Wilson’s own about-face being seen as an exceptionally cynical move.
When the Wilson presidential bid collapsed, as it rapidly did, foes of the initiative took heart, the more so since its supporters were showing an obvious lack of unity, competence, or significant financial resources. Any hope of enlisting prominent Democrats in the campaign evaporated. The Republican party now stepped in, rescuing the campaign financially while assuming complete control, and installed Connerly as its public face. Despite the latter’s efforts to prevent the measure from appearing narrowly partisan, the Proposition 209 effort soon became largely a get-out-the-vote adjunct to the 1996 campaigns of Bob Dole and other GOP candidates.
This proved disastrous. Blue-collar Reagan Democrats, among the strongest foes of racial preferences, abandoned the measure in droves. With extraordinary obtuseness, Republican television spots directly linked Proposition 209 with Proposition 187, leading to a precipitous drop in Latino and even Asian backing. For nearly two years, polls had shown Latino support matching that of whites; in the wake of the Republican media campaign, Latinos ultimately voted against the measure even more strongly than did blacks. Proposition 209 failed even to carry a majority of Asians, the group with the most to gain from ending quotas in university admissions.
In the end, 209 did win, but by a mere eight-point margin, just a quarter of what earlier polls had predicted. Moreover, from a narrowly Republican perspective, the measure failed in its primary duty of pulling party candidates to victory. On the contrary, from Dole on down, the GOP suffered a series of crushing defeats throughout California. Chagrined Republicans now concluded that the whole idea of ending affirmative action had energized the opposing base of minority voters much more than the supporting base of white conservatives. Instead of blaming their own tactics, they instead began to backtrack on the issue itself as much and as far as was quietly possible, figuring that so racially-charged a topic was just too risky to exploit effectively. Since most Republicans had never been comfortable dealing with these matters in the first place, the decision came easily enough.
But the most unfortunate consequence of the final vote was precisely the impression it conveyed of ethnic polarization. California’s whites had overwhel mingly voted one way, its nonwhites overwhelmingly the other. Many opponents of immigration now cited this fact as proof that the interests of minorities inevitably diverged from those of whites, with no common ground possible. To more extreme voices, the victory of numerous Latino candidates in the 1996 elections signaled that California had been lost to America, and that a Latino secessionist movement–foreshadowing the eventual splintering of the country at large–was already visible on the horizon.
INTO THIS heated landscape now entered the last of the three ballot measures, Proposition 227, aimed at dismantling bilingual education but propelled from an unexpected quarter.
During 1996, as political attention focused on the presidential contest and Proposition 209, a small group of Latino immigrant parents in downtown Los Angeles, frustrated that their children were not being taught English–in practice, “bilingual education” in California meant Spanish-only instruction–began a public boycott of their local elementary school. With the help of a media-savvy Episcopal priest and longtime immigrant-rights activist named Alice Callaghan, the boycott attracted considerable coverage, gaining the support of Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and eventually forcing the school district to capitulate and move the students to English classes. The matter seemed closed, but it was not.
At this point, the story of Proposition 227 merges with my own, and thus requires a brief digression. My political activities in California had extended back a few years, beginning with a decision to challenge Pete Wilson for renomination in the Republican gubernatorial primary of 1994; running on a pro-immigrant and anti-affirmative-action platform, I won 34 percent of the vote. In that same year, I played a prominent role in the (unsuccessful) campaign to defeat Proposition 187 and, after that, in the (more successful) effort to block anti-immigration legislation in Congress. I had also hoped to involve myself heavily in Proposition 209, but was understandably rejected once Wilson’s operatives gained influence in the effort.
As a strong believer in American assimilationism, I had long had an interest in bilingual education. Inspired in part by the example of my own mother, who was born in Los Angeles into a Yiddish-speaking immigrant home but had quickly and easily learned English as a young child, I had never understood why children were being kept for years–sometimes many years–in native-language classes, or why such programs had continued to exist and even expand after decades of obvious failure.
The miserable record of bilingual education was evident from official statistics: a full quarter of all children in California public schools were classified as not knowing English, and 95 percent of these children failed to learn English in any given year. In fact, schools were paid extra for each child who did not know or had not learned English–a clear incentive for retaining them in a native-language program against all logic and against their parents’ wishes. The law authorizing this system had actually expired a decade earlier, but since the state government was deadlocked on the matter, bilingual education remained mandatory almost everywhere.
Ending this failed and legally dubious program, which was now even forcing some parents to picket their own children’s schools, seemed the ideal target of a voter initiative, and I decided to make such an effort. In broad terms, my goal was to provide for the assimilationist approach to American ethnic diversity the same opportunity to demonstrate its appeal and popular support that Proposition 187 had provided, disastrously, for ethnic nationalists on all sides.
Nothing could be more obvious than that immigrants themselves assigned enormous importance to learning English and to ensuring that their children learned English. Yet because of bilingual education, the completely opposite impression had been created, namely, that immigrants were ardently demanding that America’s public schools help maintain their family’s native language and culture. If executed properly, I believed, a campaign to eliminate these programs could attract substantial, perhaps overwhelming, support from immigrants themselves, thereby helping to puncture the mistaken anxieties of California’s white middle class.
But I also recognized that in many respects the political climate was extraordinarily inopportune for such an effort. The ethnic wounds inflicted by 187 had been reopened by the destructive handling of 209, and for a Republican like myself to jump in with a proposal to dismantle the bilingual cornerstone of Latino public education was to risk a terrible explosion. In order to mitigate the risk, it was absolutely crucial that the ballot measure be properly perceived as being both pro-immigrant and politically nonpartisan.
With regard to the former, my own pro-immigrant credentials provided some credibility, but not enough. So I began recruiting a cadre of key supporters: Alice Callaghan, with decades of unswerving left-wing activism on behalf of immigrants and their children; Gloria Matta Tuchman, a Latina and California’s most prominent anti-bilingual activist; and Jaime Escalante, of Stand and Deliver fame, perhaps America’s most renowned public-school teacher and himself a Latino immigrant long opposed to bilingual programs.
But no less crucial was to avoid the deadly embrace of California’s numerous anti-immigrant activists, who were likely to jump immediately aboard such a campaign. Since their touchstone had become the elimination of public spending on immigrants, I drafted my own “English for the Children” measure to save no money but rather to appropriate an additional, if rather modest, $50 million a year for English-literacy programs aimed at adult immigrants. The maneuver succeeded, provoking the strong opposition of 187 activists to our entire initiative.
THIS LEFT the various political establishments. For different reasons, both leading Latino and leading Republican figures maintained a stunned silence throughout most of the campaign. My meetings with the former were cordial; many Latino leaders seemed privately as skeptical of bilingual programs as I, but concerns about a revolt by their activist base prevented them from considering an endorsement, even after public polls consistently showed Latino support for the measure running in the 70- to 80-percent range. As for Republican leaders, they were terrified by the prospect of a minority-voter backlash of the sort their own ham-fisted campaign for 209 had provoked; despite nearly 90-percent Republican support in polls, they, too, mostly distanced themselves from the measure.
Teachers’ unions were similarly conflicted. The late Albert Shanker, founder of the American Federation of Teachers, had for years been among the most vocal national critics of bilingual programs, but his successors had generally made their peace with the program. Most rank-and-file teachers, however, continued to view the system as a scandalous failure, and resented the extra pay and perks that went to bilingual instructors. In October 1997, over the strong opposition of union leadership, a grassroots referendum campaign in the gigantic Los Angeles local garnered 48 percent of the vote for a proposal making support for Proposition 227 official union policy.
All these splits, so surprising to journalists, were extremely helpful to our campaign. When Proposition 227 first appeared on the scene, it seemed almost certain to be perceived as “Son of Proposition 187”–another test of raw political power between California whites and Latinos. Instead, the story we emphasized was one that pitted the common sense of ordinary people–white and Latino, Democrat and Republican–against the timid political elites of all these groups, unwilling to challenge the special interests that benefited from a failed system. Our message to the media was populism without xenophobia, and it resonated widely. Every poll or news story highlighting the widespread Latino dislike of bilingual programs helped reassure moderate and liberal whites that our measure was not anti-minority, while simultaneously persuading conservatives that Latinos and other immigrants shared their own basic values and assimilationist goals.
But there was also a countercampaign, which in resources and funding could hardly have been more dissimilar to our own. Our statewide effort consisted of just three full-time workers, myself included, together with a handful of volunteers whose main role was to participate in public debates and respond to media inquiries. By contrast, “No on 227” was a traditional, well-funded operation led by ace Democratic political consultant Richie Ross and a veteran campaign staff, backed by a field operation of thousands of local activists. It counted the public support of President Clinton, the chairmen of both the state Republican and Democratic parties, all four candidates for governor, every educational organization, every public and private union, and nearly every newspaper. Our opposition was to spend millions on a coordinated barrage of radio, television, and print advertisements; our own campaign was forced to rely almost entirely upon stories in the free media.
Still, despite this monumental imbalance, our foes faced challenges of their own. From the start, public opinion had overwhelmingly and consistently favored “English for the Children” across all ethnic and ideological lines. Although “No on 227” boasted the support of a coalition of pro-bilingual partners, any direct defense of bilingual education was out of the question: nearly everyone knew that the existing system was a failure. No more feasible, given the pro-immigrant credentials of Proposition 227’s main backers and strong immigrant support in the polls, was any attack on the measure as mean-spirited or 187-like. Indeed, such a tactic, by creating an ethnic divide over the measure, might actually backfire by solidifying white support for it.
THE ULTIMATE strategy chosen by the anti-Proposition 227 forces was breathtakingly cynical. This coalition of Latino activists, Democratic operatives, and educational organizations attempted, 187-style, to provoke a white taxpayer backlash by portraying the measure as a huge government “giveaway” to immigrants because of the extra money earmarked to assist adults in learning English. (The entire sum of $50 million amounted to an annual $1.50 per Californian.) Simultaneously, a completely different advertising message, aimed at California’s Latino audience, claimed that the problems with bilingual programs had recently been fixed and that Proposition 227 would actually prevent children from learning English in school.
These nakedly dishonest tactics shredded the credibility of the anti-227 campaign, which received a further blow when its major financial backer was discovered to be A. Jerrold Perenchio, a Republican billionaire and close ally of Governor Wilson. Not himself Latino or Spanish-speaking, Perenchio derived his fortune from his ownership of Univision, the Spanish-language television network, and thus had an obvious economic motive in preventing Latino children from learning English in school. Not only did Univision blanket California with anti-227 “advertorials,” broadcast free of charge, but the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for governor counted Perenchio as their largest financial donor, and all of them starred in Perenchio-funded anti-227 commercials.
When voting day finally arrived, Proposition 227 passed in a landslide, gaining 61 percent of the vote across ethnic and ideological lines. True, the “No” advertising campaign, which outspent our “Yes” campaign by about 25 to 1, took its toll, reducing by over a third the 62-percent Latino support the initiative had enjoyed before the start of the television barrage. But since advertising campaigns merely rent support rather than buy it, Latino backing for Proposition 227 in post-election polls soon returned to its earlier levels. More importantly, the actual dismantling of bilingual-education programs in the wake of 227 proceeded with minimal Latino opposition anywhere in California.
Under the measure, parents who wish to place or keep their children in a bilingual program can apply for a waiver, but few have done so. Within months of the vote, the number of students in bilingual education had fallen to about a tenth of its previous levels, and numerous follow-up stories in the press have featured glowing accounts of parents thrilled that schools are finally teaching their children to read, write, and speak English. There have been almost no signs of the immigrant unhappiness or resistance to English-language classrooms that had been confidently predicted by ethnic activists and anti-immigrant ideologues alike. Proposition 227 had tested the case for a return to assimilationist policies in public education and had proved it both popular and workable.
THREE RACIALLY-CHARGED issues, with three different contours and consequences. What is their meaning for our national future?
Since before the Declaration of Independence, the “American Dilemma”–to borrow the title of Gunnar Myrdal’s classic 1944 work–has indeed been that of race, and it has cast a huge shadow over our entire political life. But that dilemma has had clearly circumscribed limits: namely, the longstanding coexistence and conflict between a (usually poor) small African-American minority and a (usually less poor) large European-American majority. This framework was constant throughout our history, from Jamestown through the Civil War to the civil-rights era of the 1960’s, and even today it completely dominated the thoughts of those who led President Clinton’s National Commission on Race.
Until recently, those aspects of the American experience that did not fully conform to this bipolar, black-white paradigm were either squeezed into place or overlooked with little effect. Thus, tens of millions of penniless European immigrants around the turn of the century were initially viewed as “aliens of a foreign race” but, through the ideology and the reality of the American melting pot, were transformed into “whites” within a generation or two. Relatively small populations of “others”–Asians in California, American Indians throughout the country–were either assimilated into mainstream society or generally ignored as distinct American racial groups. And, as we have seen, Hispanics were not even classified separately from other Caucasians prior to the 1970 census.
In many respects, the civil-rights/Great Society era of the 1960’s represented the culmination of this vision of America. A shamed but wholly dominant white society created a cornucopia of social-welfare and social-engineering programs (Headstart, busing, affirmative action), largely aimed at blacks and intended to serve as partial atonement for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow while easing black entrance into the American dream. But the ideology that evolved to justify these programs also radically changed the terms of the American social compact, replacing the emphasis on assimilation with an emphasis on ethnic difference.
Two further events occurred simultaneously with the completion of the old American racial agenda, and they drastically magnified the impact of this ideological change: the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which reopened America to large-scale immigration after a 40-year hiatus, and, as a direct consequence of affirmative-action politics, the creation of the Hispanic racial category.
Over the past 30 years and at a growing pace, more than 25 million new immigrants–80 percent of non-European origin–have entered America, and they and their descendants now constitute a rapidly growing fraction of our total population. Well over half of these new immigrants have been Hispanic, and this ethnic group–today defined in racial terms, with all the attendant special treatment under official government policies–will by itself represent between 20 and 25 percent of America by the middle of the approaching century, at which point Americans of European origin will have become a minority of the population.
A future America in which both whites and all other ethnic groups see themselves as minorities will be far different from our traditional majority-white/minority-black society. Since the 1960’s, the deepening ideological decay of the American melting pot, especially among the journalists and intellectuals who shape our thoughts, has transformed our official self-image from that of a nation of individuals living in a common culture into that of a nation of groups arrayed against one another in an ethnic spoils system. Multiculturalism and “diversity” thoroughly dominate our nation’s schools and politics and public discourse, encouraging minorities to exercise influence through the mobilization of ethnic or racial grievance. Under this framework, the rise of a similar ethnic-grievance movement among America’s emerging white minority is likely, perhaps inevitable.
Already there are early warning signs of such a movement. Public schools are reporting interest in white student clubs, and white firefighters associations and European-American pressure groups are forming in California. Although so far these developments and others like them are minuscule, and the individuals involved make every effort to avoid even a hint of extremism, evolving white-bloc politics could eventually develop a white-nationalist orientation or fringe. Elements of white nationalism have been the unspoken subtext behind the rise of extremist militia groups and the appearance of populist third parties, and represented the obvious core of the anti-immigration movement of the mid-90’s.
AS THE first major state to face the political reality of a shrinking white minority, California has become the laboratory of America’s ethnic future. The verdict of its recent experiments is a mixed one. From the distance of five years, the raw emotions evoked by Proposition 187 may seem as if from another world. Not only has the initiative itself died a lingering death in federal court, but the subsequent, far more moderate 1995 federal legislation that it inspired, removing various social-welfare benefits from legal and illegal immigrants, has also largely been repealed. And where Democrats like Dianne Feinstein once worked hard to outdo Pete Wilson in anti-immigrant fervor, now Republicans like George W. Bush work no less hard to showcase their facility with the Spanish language.
In part, this change is surely traceable to our transformed economic and political landscape. During 1994, America was facing difficult economic times, and California in particular was struggling through its deepest recession of the century; today we are in the midst of a seemingly endless boom, led by California’s high-tech economy. In addition, political movements targeting immigrants have had the unintended consequence of generating an unprecedented wave of naturalization and voter registration among Latinos and Asians, with these groups doubling their share of the California vote between 1990 and 1998. Politically vulnerable communities are no longer so politically vulnerable.
But surface appearances are deceiving. Underlying social dynamics, whether in California or in the nation at large, have not changed, and ethnic conflict, temporarily submerged, has far from disappeared. To the contrary, given the nature of the demographic processes now at work in the country, the potential for such conflict is growing rather than diminishing, and any sudden crack in our unprecedented economic prosperity might well be the occasion for its revival.
This need not occur. The overwhelming evidence is that today’s immigrants are at least as economically productive and socially assimilative as their European predecessors, with low rates of crime, welfare dependency, and social instability. Asians have followed the pattern of high academic achievement and economic entrepreneurship exhibited by America’s Jews before them, while Latin American immigrants have demonstrated much the same social conservatism and working-class values as Italians or Slavs. (One remarkable sign of their assimilationism is the high rate of conversion to evangelical Protestantism among Latin American immigrants.) As the campaign for Proposition 227 proved, today’s immigrants are no less eager than yesterday’s to have their children merge into our English-language society. Most significantly, nearly 40 percent of third-generation Asians and Latinos are intermarrying, usually with whites, a figure far greater than the intermarriage rates of Italian-Americans or Greek-Americans with other ethnic groups as late as the 1950’s.
It is therefore a tragedy of the first order that, even as the reality of the American melting pot remains as powerful as ever, the ideology behind it has almost disappeared, having been replaced by the “diversity” model and by the politics of grievance. A social ideology that allots to blacks and Latinos and Asians their own separatist institutions and suggested shares of society’s benefits cannot long be prevented from extending itself to whites as well, especially as whites become merely one minority among many minorities. Before it is altogether too late, those who support this status quo must realize that the diversity prescription contains the seeds of national dissolution.
America today stands as one of the very few examples in history of a large and successful multiethnic society. If we are to continue and extend our success–which is hardly foreordained–we can only do so by returning to the core principles of Propositions 209 and 227: ethnic assimilation, and individual equality under the law. Otherwise, we face the very real threat of future movements along the lines of Proposition 187, each worse than the last, and on a national scale. There are few forces that could so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism.
Ron Unz, here making his first appearance in COMMENTARY , has written on public policy for the Weekly Standard, the Nation, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications. A Silicon Valley entrepreneur, he was the author of California’s Proposition 227, the “English for the Children” initiative to dismantle bilingual education, which passed in 1998.
The End of White America: An Exchange by Ron Unz, et. al.
Commentary (Letters), February, 2000
Footnotes
[1] . The fault line between native-born and immigrants in California paralleled almost precisely the line separating whites and blacks on the one hand from Asians and Latinos on the other, thus heightening the racial character of the immigration issue. This was not (and is not) the case elsewhere. New York, for example, was second only to California in its concentration of legal and illegal immigrants, and suffered from even greater economic and welfare problems. But for a number of reasons, including the much more variegated makeup of New York’s illegal immigrant population, which numbered multitudes of Irish, Italians, and Africans in addition to Asians and Latinos, attacks there even on illegal immigrants never much entered the portfolio of Republican-party leaders. Even at the height of the immigration wars, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani defied national party leaders by publicly defending his city’s population of undocumented residents. A measure like Proposition 187 was a complete nonstarter in New York from day one.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Lessee…
California became a great state because of white people.
So, non-whites wanted to come to California to partake of white greatness.
But over time, the idea was that whites should surrender and make way for non-whites who couldn’t do on their own in their own nations what whites did in California.
It’s strange, this business of non-whites going to white places to live off white greatness but then blaming whites for all problems.
So, what is the Historical Law? Whites must build nice things to surrender them to others who insult them?
It’s like the non-white admiration for white things make them hate whites. They feel wounded pride because they themselves could not do what whites did.
So, non-whites are drawn to PC that allows them to come to white nations and take from whites but also blame whites as the source of all problems.
The logic goes something like this: Non-whites cannot have nice things for themselves in their own nations because of white evil that permeates the world, so they must come to white nations to take nice things from whites.
At this point, whites becoming tribal and breaking the present nation (i.e., partition) may be their best option, but it’s quesionable whether they can achieve sufficient racial coherence to accomplish it. A continuation of the present trend will put the majority of whites in a state of de facto slavery to provide for unproductive parasitical minorities, all while being lectured by a Jewish-and Asian dominated elite that minority dysfunction is all white people’s fault.
Unz ignores the fact that while these disparate groups on non-whites might be, “at least as economically productive and socially assimilative as their European predecessors, with low rates of crime, welfare dependency, and social instability.” The fact remains that none of them are Western or have Western values and culture which is key to maintaining this country as a constitutional republic. Most of these immigrants are from socialist countries run by dictators and that is what they want here.
No where in the world, but the West is it seen as a good idea to replace the native culture with third world immigrants. The stupidity of it is incredible. It is national and cultural suicide and nothing else. And Unz, a jew, multi-millionaire and ivory tower dweller, doesn’t give a shit while he tries to convince us it is a good idea. But then jews don’t think they are white, and that may be their fatal flaw. One can hope anyway.
Jews are not widely represented in any of these third world nations they seem to think we should take in as our own. Perhaps the truth is that until jews are exterminated, we will never be rid of their virulent, pathological ideas and influence.
Diversity is not a problem in America, the problem is the cultivated hysteria of diversity people and their reliable habit of trading votes and using activism, sometimes violent, for illicit federal entitlements.
Diversity people:
Women are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veteran are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
2-party System Dependents are federally entitled because of Independent oppression
Aboriginals are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
National Socialist are federally entitled because of Local-state Government oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Crooks are federally entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Fascist oppression
Perhaps Mr. Unz’s optimism is a product of his billionaire status, as California is still a nice place to live if you have money. For the white working class, it has become a place with no future for them and millions of them have left the state (including my five brothers and sisters and most of their offspring).
Many interesting thoughts, but I think you have missed one big thing.
In order for their to be assimilation, there has to be enough to go around for all. Rapid population increases prevent that. In the past the United States had a surplus of resources: immigrants were assimilated AFTER there was a pause in immigration and the economy could rebuild, and there were plenty of raw materials to do so with. Not now, where immigration and immigration-fueled population increases are steadily increasing, and we no longer have the buffer of endless resources.
Forget the fraction of the population that is white. When the population of the United States hits a billion or more by the end of the century, and water and food etc. become precious for the average worker, assimilation and social peace will simply become impossible.
They say that the United States is special because it is a nation of immigrants. Wrong. Every nation on the face of this planet is peopled by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, many more recently and in larger numbers than the United States. What made the United States special was that, relative to our developed resources and industrial capital, we had so few immigrants and descendants of immigrants.
With shared prosperity a diverse population can, in time, forge a shared identity. In a zero-sum society wracked by poverty, even the most ethnically homogenous society will eventually tear itself apart. And nothing helps create the latter than sustained rapid population growth.
I think a question that could be asked is whether California is still the “future.”
On a personal level I have little interest in the state. Is it still really the case that trends starting there inevitably wind up elsewhere? If California has some unseen influence on my life I’m not seeing it anymore (well I don’t watch TV, so maybe that’s it).
The ancestral core of the United States is European Christian. The United States was settled and founded by British Protestants. The Dutch, Swedes, French and other Europeans were here as well, but the nation was formed by British Protestants.
The European Christian ancestral core of the USA is now implicitly represented by the Republican Party. Soon the Republican Party will explicitly represent the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.
We are headed for Civil War II. The European Christian ancestral core of the United States will emerge as the victor of that struggle.
Barbara Boxer favored a border fence to be manned by the California National Guard! Just classic. This factoid must be revived along with Cesar Chavez’s strenuous opposition to illegal immigration.
…
– http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-alt-right-and-the-jews/
…
– http://www.population-security.org/
– http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/05/4-principal-sources-of-power-of-the-roman-catholic-church/
– https://www.unz.com/article/rule-or-ruin/#comment-1624501
– https://www.unz.com/article/rule-or-ruin/#comment-1624652
– https://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1688097
– https://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1689501
And your point is? ( You seem to have taken the time to create a thorough list of something, but I don’t have time to read all your links to figure out what you are getting at.)
Also, you took my comment out of context. I’m not an alt-righter whatever that is and I know nothing about them other than seeing them referred to every now and then and some people being accused of being one. I don’t claim any affiliation with any group.
e plu·ri·bus u·num
ˌē ˌplo͝orəbəs ˈ(y)o͞onəm/
noun
out of many, one (the motto of the US).
Not the Madison Avenue social engineering marketing slogan: “Diversity is our Greatest Strength.”
When there are too many immigrants in one place they do not assimilate well. It turns into competition for resources and tribe vs tribe. Just look at the Jews, a self imposed out-group as an example of a tribe that hasn’t assimilated at it’s core and uses centuries old group survival techniques to garner power and finances far beyond it’s demographic size around the planet.
“California again has nation’s highest rate of real poverty” is the title of this Sept 13, 2016 article in the “Sacramento Bee” based on US Census measures.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article101657302.html
Google to find many more sources if you doubt this. So how did California become poor as whites fled? I’ve have never met a working class person of any race who has lived in California for two decades or more say that mass foreign immigration made their state better. They all say it is far worse off.
What evidence do we have for the level of assimilation of the various Mohammedans so far in our midst?
Thanks, but no thanks, Ron.
I have a copy of Allswang’s book too. And I proudly voted for and would vote for again all three Initiatives (or Referendums).
Earth to Unz, the schools are run for the teachers.
T. Henderson was wrong. His was obvious self validation.
And immigrants may come here for work, but quickly combine a cash job and welfare.
Immigrants are killing us; the schools, the prisons and the health care system. And Mexicans bring an undeniable political baggage as bad as Russians. Mexico had a revolution at the same time and with the same consequences as the Russian revolution. Communism is still here, I meet a wide eyed communist last weeked; single payer was her game.
The flame is not high enough to render the fat in the pot.
To me there is a great paradox to non-white immigration to white countries or areas. Whites build great countries. Non-whites want to come to them to get in on the action. But as whites become minorities, fade away or go, the very thing – whites – that made the countries / areas – great is gone too. Enough Africans in Europe will simply drag Europe down to the same level as the dark continent is. A majority Mexican California will simply create Mexico north. And on it goes. Kind of a crazy cargo-cult syndrome.
A better solution is to outlaw the seditious activities of organizations that lobby for illicit federal entitlements for protected class people.
You should recognize some of these lobbying organizations by now: ACLU, ADL, AIPAC, AJC, SPLC, Open Societies Foundation, Democrat Party.
Sedition is already a crime. The law only works when it is enforced and it is not being enforced. The UC Berkely riots were allowed to happen, even encouraged by the mayor, the UC Berkely President and the cops who stood by and did nothing. Everyone of those people violated their oaths to uphold the law and should be criminally prosecuted for that, but it won’t happen. The US is totally corrupt. I see no solution.
Mr Unz seems to give us only 2 choices: accept massive immigration and insist upon assimilation, or accept massive immigration and see white identity politics fracture the country. I wonder if a 3rd possibility should be at least considered: a pause in immigration and assimilation of those (legally) here. In fact it doesn’t seem likely that immigrants or Democrats would be persuaded to give up the advantages of identity politics for good old fashioned assimilation in any environment other than an immigration pause. In this period of massive immigration everyone can read the future and the future is inevitable white minority and death. Why should immigrants and Democrats relinquish power, embrace assimilation and go to the back of the line behind whites and blacks? If immigration is stopped or substantially reduced then Democrats can more easily understand that demonizing whites has diminishing returns and immigrants can more easily understand that identity politics is a game that keeps them in a numerical minority for a long, long time in a low immigration future.
Furthermore doesn’t the repeal of Mr Unz’s Prop 227 give him pause that his mass immigration+assimilation approach is just a fantasy that crumbles like an establishment Republican when faced with the ferocious power of identity politics- the undisputed Heavyweight Champion of American politics? Mr Unz succeeded with Prop 227 by framing the issue as one of assimilation vs white bigots (and selfish special interests) rather than a typical tribal identity politics struggle. Yet just 20 years later Mr Unz more feeble framing of the issue has yielded to the permanent inevitability of identity politics framing in a rootless, multi-racial country- it ain’t the Heavyweight Champ for nothing. If immigration in California had been severely curtailed or paused during these 20 years who can doubt that Mr Unz Prop 227 would have been seen as the beginning of a new, sane consensus against mass immigration and in favor of assimilation rather than what it will now become via popular culture messaging- just another outrageous chapter in white bigotry and American denial of civil rights to noble minorities. Our Host’s formula: Mass immigration + assimilation is exactly half right.
Regarding some of the comments on my article, I’d still stand by nearly every word of my analysis, but do bear in mind that it was published nearly 18 years ago, and those 18 years have seen major changes in American society, both positive and negative.
Therefore, I’d advise interested readers to take a look at a couple of my more recent follow-up articles, covering some of the same issues:
If you drive a car, you are influenced by trends that start in California. International manufacturers have design studios in the state to identify and capitalize on trends for new vehicles and model updates. That influence has been prevalent in automobiles for decades. Cars are only one example of the California impact, not all beneficial but a fact nonetheless.
Much respect for providing us with this platform, Mr. Unz.
Demography and debt have brought the American Empire to the brink of Civil War II. The European Christian ancestral core of the United States will win Civil War II.
The baby boomer generation decided to bring down the curtain on the historic American nation. Mass immigration and monetary extremism were weaponized in order to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.
Monetary extremism was used to buy off the baby boomer generation with a standard of living that they wouldn’t have had without a debt-based fiat currency system. Massive debt and asset bubbles clouded the long-term vision of the baby boomers. Evil baby boomers enriched themselves while tens of millions of Americans have been pauperized.
Globalization is financialization and multiculturalism. Financialization is just debt. Multiculturalism is an attack on the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.
The globalized central banks are coordinating their actions so as to destroy nation-state sovereignty and cement the rule of a globalized plutocracy.
The English-speaking Anglo-Norman nations have voted to reverse globalization and mass immigration. Britain’s departure from the European Union signals the end of the EU. Good! The election of President Trump signals a counterattack from the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. There is no way to avoid Civil War II
Debt and demography have been weaponized. Global central banks know that if they raised interest rates to normal levels, the asset bubbles in bonds, real estate and stocks would collapse. Federal Reserve Bank Chair Yellen has said she wants to “normalize” interest rates. Yellen is full of beans. If the federal funds rate were to go to 6 percent the United States economy would implode. If the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank were to stop their asset purchases the United States economy would implode.
Greed and hatred have forced the issue. Greedy baby boomers with hate in their hearts for the historic American nation thought they could destroy the USA without a fight. The globalizer baby boomers were wrong. Civil War II is coming. The European Christian ancestral core of the United States will win that war.
In the United States, in 33 of the 50 states the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States#Catholicism_by_state
– https://www.unz.com/article/the-reality-of-red-subversion/#comment-1699584
– https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-reason-the-fed-is-raising-rates-and-why-it-wont-work/#comment-1710969
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_N._Vaile
The attacks on Trump supporters and the continuing rioting has taken away all my reservations about a breaking apart of this nation. I now think that either we separate peacefully, encouraging people to move to which new state they prefer, or else we see a true civil war in which the Left wages total war on all people who are remotely traditional.
We need agreed upon break up to prevent a horror that will make the 1861-65 conflict seem like a mild precursor. And per capita, more Americans wee killed in that war than in any other.
Let the states of CA, OR, WA, HA and possibly AZ be a nation. Let the northeast from DC up to Maine be a nation. Perhaps create a nation in the upper midwest that includes MI and northern OH and northern IL across through MN.
And the rest can be a 4th nation. Or perhaps it should be 2 nations: one east of the MS and one west.
But separating in peace seems to me to be necessary.
And that is the reason that Soros and the worst Leftists as well as Neocons will oppose it. They have Trotskyite world imperium ambitions. And they need, they require, Middle America to be their supply of cannon fodder and tax slaves.
Who gets the nuclear weapons?
“At some unknown date during the late 1980′s, and with no attention paid whatsoever, whites became a minority in California.”
This sentence jumped off the page. particularly the phrase “with no attention paid.” In point of fact no attention was paid ANYWHERE. Until 9/11 of course. Not surprisingly, it was already too late.Appropriate controls should have been imposed commencing immediately after the passage of the Hart-Cellar “immigration reform act” of ’65 (which had the fingerprints of the Brothers Kennedy all over it). But, it wasn’t done. Attention wasn’t paid.
The cat’s out of the bag, the horse is out of the barn. Choose whatever metaphor you want– the same result obtains. Utter and complete chaos, accompanied by race/class/ethnic warfare.
Unless draconian measures are imposed–and it’s safe to predict that they will not–it’s “game over” for the America we once knew. The “Grand Experiment” that was the United States appears to be foundering on the rocks of mutual animosity and hatred. It didn’t have to be this way.
And when all is said and done, we have only ourselves to blame.
Looking across the historical landscape at classical Economic Marxism (Communism), Cultural Marxism (Communism/Progressivism with the evil class of White Males substituted for the Bourgeoise), and the North Korean “songbun” caste system, it seems that all three of these very similar social ideologies and political systems have touch points with a few of the Seven Deadly Sins:
ENVY regarding what White Europeans have created;
GREED for possessing what White Europeans created;
WRATH or anger on not having them; and,
PRIDE/HUBRIS or putting of one’s own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of other people or the general welfare.
All three of these very similar social ideologies and political systems are vapid justifications for looting what others have with scant regard for moral concerns or the rights of others. As a socially and morally suspect (a.k.a. sinful) view of life, it is not surprising that all three eventually self-destruct as their advocates turn on and devour each other when there is nothing left to loot.
I don’t claim any affiliation with any group.
That, my friend, is the problem with most white folks.
Divide ’em up, so neither ‘side’ can use them against the other.
Mr. Unz, it is time to do an update on this article.
I don’t claim any affiliation with any group.
That, my friend, is the problem with most white folks.
True enough, more than the problem of affiliation with the wrong groups.
In regard to “Multiculturalism is an attack on the European Christian ancestral core of the USA”, I would add that the “USA” was and is a genocidal attack on the native American ancestral core of the American continents.
Actually, I published a long follow-up article a few years ago, and linked it upthread:
https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/
It covers California to some extent, but primarily focuses on the similar trends taking place at the national level.
Jews, Muslims ad Mexicans are united against USA and Europe. They are enemies, not friends. USA must make alliances with other nations if it wants to survive. Never trust in enemies, dont invite them to live in USA.
A meaningless straw man argument with countless oranges and apples comparisons. The Indians were few in number, widely scattered and had no civilization to speak of, being largely nomadic hunters. Nor did they allow or permit white settlement as the current alien immigration is being imposed on whites who are not supposed to try to resist but cheerfully acquiesce in their demographic obliteration.
immigration without assimilation = cancer for the country.
affirmative action is racism and discrimination for all except the recipients.
bilingual education is cancer for the country and the affected students.
proposition 209 would have been a godsend, it really is too bad.
man, I kinda want mr unz to be a dictator with total control for 8 years just to see what he can accomplish with the power for 8 years. I agree with alot of his assessments and opinions on most issues. yes, I am a fanboi.
my 2 cents on immigration: think of it like this. the usa/country is a person, immigration is like iodine. the body needs it. too much leads to poisoning and death. moderation is the key. the situation in california exploded because of overdose/excess.
might be OT: forced diversity for the sake of diversity is one of the most retarded ideas to ever come into existence.
Ron’s not a billionaire, is he?
from:
‘The Spirit Of Militarism’, by Nahum Goldmann
Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress.
Genocide not. The little dummies are everywhere and have a complete free ride with plenty of taxpayers cash to stay loaded on.
So then, the American Indians were “xenophobic” in resisting European migrants.
True Europeans are the indigenous peoples of Europe. The UN has a lot to say about the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:
http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/
What the NYT fail to alert their readers about is, their main concern with White Nationalism is they adhere to another nationalism, and as in this sad world different identities bring to the table different interests, they use to battle against one another.
Then, if you care for your (inter)nationalism and identity, the best strategy for you is to work for preventing other groups to form, have an identity and a nationalism of their own.
Acknowledging interests is the best way to botch their pursuit, however, and it’s nobody’s fault, certainly not the NYT‘s, if deception is so central a strategy in social competition.
Nothing against the NYT and their deception here, but much against nature and human nature, made to rely on deception so heavily.
“At this point, whites becoming tribal and breaking the present nation (i.e., partition) may be their best option”
According to “good whites” such as yourself. What about “bad whites” like me who are in the majority, who have their personal opinions about the interactions of the races, including the dreaded “race mixing”?
“but it’s quesionable whether they can achieve sufficient racial coherence to accomplish it.”
Exactly. Why must “bad whites” be badgered about how they view race? If “good whites” and the rest of the races who insist on “racial superiority” or “racial tribalism” want to advocate their position, fine. That is your deal, not ours.
“A continuation of the present trend will put the majority of whites in a state of de facto slavery to provide for unproductive parasitical minorities, all while being lectured by a Jewish-and Asian dominated elite that minority dysfunction is all white people’s fault.”
False News Story alert.
“We need agreed upon break up to prevent a horror that will make the 1861-65 conflict seem like a mild precursor. And per capita, more Americans wee killed in that war than in any other.”
You assume that most Americans, white and non-white, are willing to participate in a race war. Why would a white dude from Mississippi, for example, who has black and Asian friends, who makes his own racial decisions, who had intercourse say with a black woman, be forced to leave his home and community because YOU demand that all white people have the same thoughts as you when it comes to “race realism”.
“Let the states of CA, OR, WA, HA and possibly AZ be a nation. Let the northeast from DC up to Maine be a nation. Perhaps create a nation in the upper midwest that includes MI and northern OH and northern IL across through MN.”
You assume that these regions all unilaterally agree on race related matters. You also assume that liberals and conservatives who have differences when it comes to race lack the intellectual capacity to solve their issues within their birthplace. Why on earth would a conservative, for example, who is white and opposes immigration and affirmative action be forced to leave his community merely because YOU demand that all white people live in a common area to promote YOUR ideals?
“And the rest can be a 4th nation. Or perhaps it should be 2 nations: one east of the MS and one west.”
How do you propose this breakup? What is the process? What happens if people are unwilling to move? Will their liberties be protected in these newly created regions? Will goon squads be formed to smoke them out from their hovels?
Nahum Goldmann wrote Der Geist der Militarismus in 1915 as a manifesto in support of Germany’s war effort, suggesting that full militarisation of society was necessary for Germany to defeat France, England, and Russia. Goldmann wrote the book, as the title suggests, in German, and it’s never been published in English. Wally has presumably given his own translation of the preceding paragraphs. I offer them here in the original.
The original can be found here (pp. 37-38):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435017233032;view=1up;seq=43
My apologies to those of you unable to read Fraktur.
Wally, do you stand by your translation?
Can you offer some reason why the Indians shouldn’t have resisted European settlement? You’re always bleating here about Zionism. Presumably you believe the Palestinians had a right to resist Jews. Why didn’t Indians have a right to do the same with regard to you?
Thanks for the reprint. I’m from BC, Canada. We’ve got plenty of immigrants of our own but they’re different groups, so the experience is different.
Interesting to read about California. Whites are already a minority in the city of Vancouver itself. But the Chinese and Indian (mostly Sikh) migrants don’t create an underclass.
The closest to blacks would be the natives, and they have what appears to be a lot of support, but are still in sad shape.
They have their reservations (some in the middle of the city), so they cannot be displaced as California blacks were.
But Chinese money has made greater Vancouver housing unaffordable.
For Chinese Home Buyers, Seattle Is the New Vancouver – WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-chinese-home-buyers-seattle-is-the-new-vancouver-1486500393?mod=djem10point
New census counts 25,502 unoccupied homes in Vancouver, for 15 per cent jump over 2011 Published on: February 8, 2017
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/census-counts-25502-unoccupied-homes-in-vancouver-more-than-double-the-estimate-by-city-hall
I think a question that could be asked is whether California is still the “future.”
California is as much the future as South Africa is. In both cases there were enough white people around the world who didn’t realize that immigration with the PC push meant race replacement, and so these countries of useful idiots were able to be railed against their cousins and brothers. And so, the can of inevitable white nationalism has been kicked down the road.
Now we’re in a situation where the media is ineffective. The horse is dead, but still being flogged. The people voted for Trump. They voted for Brexit. They have refused to believe that their only choice is the lesser of two suicidal evils. The world is changing, and not before time.
Kudos to Unz for at least calling it White Nationalism instead of White Supremacism or Neo-Nazism way back in 1999. Interesting that it was published in Commentary. “This coming white nationalism – is it good for Jews?”
In regard to “Multiculturalism is an attack on the European Christian ancestral core of the USA”, I would add that the “USA” was and is a genocidal attack on the native American ancestral core of the American continents.
So is China, so is Arabia, so is Sub-Saharan Africa, so is Europe. Do you honestly think that these lands were just settled and it was unicorns and rainbows ever after? Go read some history, wherever you look it was one war after another of killing people and taking their stuff.
The question is not who is to blame. The question is who am I, and do I want to win?
Mr. Unz, I wonder if you might consider posting Unz Review articles at Gab, the new Free Speech competitor to Twitter. It’s still in beta, but there’s a decent crop of dissident thinkers there who like to think about challenging ideas. Big thing Gab lacks are publications like yours as most outlets are still focused on Twitter.
I’ve been very impressed by Andrew Torba, Gab’s CEO, and his commitment to Free Speech. We’re starting to see some real Free Speech competitors rise to challenge the Hive Mind at Big Social. But the Hive Mind is fighting back. Reddit, Facebook and Twitter are all tripling down on Censorship. And Apple won’t approve Gab’s app – claiming it has “objectionable content” – even though there is far worse on Twitter and Tumblr, apps that Apple apparently is fine with.
Anyway, I’d love to see an Unz Review feed at Gab.ai and thought I’d come here and ask.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks. Frankly, I only use Twitter in the most rudimentary fashion, posting UR articles via a third-party WordPress plugin. I’ve seen Gab mentioned a bit in connection with all the recent Twitter Purges. I’m pretty focused on a difficult software project right now, but maybe when I have a bit of time in a few days, I’ll see about signing up for Gab, and checking if there’s some sort of plugin that would do the same thing.
Off topic but..
Why oh why can’t we have coverage of the French presidential elections at Unz?!? France is barely a regional power, but it is Europe, and Buchanan is on to something when he says nationalism is on the rise. An upset to the ‘Establishment’ would help (or hinder) nationalistic momentum across Europe. Plus, it seems a very sophisticated campaign, with at least one curated candidate, reminiscent of Obama.
A letter to Santa would include:
A considered, detailed nitty-gritty piece, Unz-style. Backgrounder with possible scenarios, thank you.
Strategic, sagaesque articles of ‘the fight’ and ‘the campaign’, Buchanan-style.
A humorous, personalities-centered coverage, with Ariadne’s thread-like links, Sailer-style. Macron by himself, with his “meteor strategy” could interest him, and then there’s Le Pen fille.
April 23, May 7.
http://www.lci.fr/elections/primaire-a-droite-l-electorat-catholique-sens-commun-manif-pour-tous-seduit-par-francois-fillon-2013724.html
http://www.purepeople.com/article/emmanuel-macron-et-brigitte-une-histoire-d-amour-et-d-interdit-elle-raconte_a211361/1
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/10/u-s-state-department-begins-effort-to-undermine-french-election-and-utilize-the-vast-russian-conspiracy/
Who cares about whiteness? About 1/3 of Whites in America have black ancestry (the White Nationalists don’t seem to want to talk about that). In any case, once the Mexicans assimilate over the next few decades, more of us Whites will have Hispanic ancestry to go along with our black ancestry. Nothing will change except the definition of whiteness — it will still exist, but it will exist more in the fashion of Latin America.
If you want to be “all white” move to Europe (although it’s quickly becoming non-white as well). America’s time for being “all white” passed about 200 years ago. This genetic admixture was bound to happen once our forefathers began bringing in millions of slaves.
“so easily break America as the coming of white nationalism”
Are you blind ,this country was broken when you allowed Black nationalism and Hispanic nationalism to take over.You allowed these illegals and Black supremacists to take over.You allowed Black Afrocentric BS and Critical Race Theory to be taught in schools as gospel and fact.All lies and propaganda to teach to our White children to feel guilty and allow our White daughters to be bred out by Blacks and Browns to destroy our White Identity.Oh,wait,that’s right,I forgot.Only Blacks and Browns can brag about loving and caring about being Black nationalists and Hispanic nationalists but White people,WHO FOUNDED AND BUILT THIS NATION AND THE ONLY PEOPLE TO CREATE the very first world country that Blacks and Browns could never create in their own backyards.You cry about White Nationalism.What the F^$^$k do you think White Men are supposed to do ,lay down and die and let this country be turned into a third world s%$%ithole.The only reason Blacks and Browns have any kind of education and first world opportunity and lifestyle is because of WHITE AMERICA in spite of how “nationalistic” we are.No whites NO first world country.You can bet on that.No people are as altruistic as white people.Now I would say suicidally altruistic.Liberal bleeding heart whites are a sick and demented people that would revel in their own races destruction.They are a bigger problem than Jews or Blacks and Browns for that plain but simple fact.At least Blacks ,Browns and Jews stand by and defend their own to the death.Whites used to be this way ,but all this propaganda infecting the minds of our white children to be self hating and destroy themselves and our people is disgusting. Any time I hear any white lib or Black or Hispanic running their mouth I get right in their face and let them know.It is way past time for whites to stand up and fight back.That’s all these third world a-holes understand.Only degenerate idiot white liberals would allow their own white children to be raped and bred out and destroyed and smile while watching.These people need to be dealt with first.Whites are standing around being led to the ovens and smiling about it.
And I would argue that if Europeans never showed up here this ,the greatest country ever built ,apparently because every third world loser can’t get here fast enough,would have ever existed for us to be having these arguments.What,you think the natives would have built the America that you are sitting in with your beautiful house with your beautiful lawn and money making job that allows you to purchase all of the above stated or maybe Black Africans.Lol,not.By the way when Blackie gets done sucking reparations from whitey you make sure that these same Blacks sign those checks and return those lands right back to those same native Indians you love so much.But I digress,you are probably in a conundrum over this because you worship Blacks as much as Indians.Oh well.
German to English Google translation of your post
One can summarize the meaning and the historical mission of our time in one: their task is to reorganize the culture of mankind, to replace the existing social system. This is the case when, as usual, our time is described as a transition. Transitional times are just those which are between a previously valid social order and a newly established one, and have the task of replacing the old one with the new one.
All reorganization and reorganization now consists of two things: the destruction of the old order and the reconstruction of the new order. First of all, all boundary piles, regulations, and labeling of the previous system must be eliminated, and all elements of the system, to be reordered, must be interpreted as such, equivalently among themselves. Then the second, the reordering of these elements, can be started.
https://translate.google.com/
It amazes me that White people still believe wherever they go, they make the place GREAT again.
Go to Fiji, the place the GREAT British ruled for 100 years, nothing comes out of it.
Go to Sri Lanka, India, Caribbean countries, etc etc.
White people, as humans, like to take credit for whatever the success remotely related to their habitats and completely dissed the underachievement where they ruined, destroyed, pillaged, blood-sucked the native people.
If you’re really proud of contributing much to the advancement of civilization, next time, go and buy “Oral B” to floss your crooked teeth when you’re shopping because it’s the only product that was labeled as “Made In Ireland”.
Yes, think that was the problem with the story — Prop 227 has just been repealed. By referendum no less.
Assimilation failed. The move now is to turn California itself into a bilingual state.
The immigrants not going to assimilate — America is going to be assimilated.
Around $100MM
The article could have usefully evaluated the probability of these alternate futures, and there are more alternative futures than just two, for example, an American Confederation, Secession, a Plutocratic Coup, Civil War, Social Collapse, Trumpian Unity or No Change. Then there’s the effect of the absolute level of population.
American Confederation: Unz says that “America today (1999) stands as one of the very few examples in history of a large and successful multiethnic society”. However there are more successful multiethnic societies than the United States. Switzerland has been together since the 15th century, speaks 4 different languages and is doing better than the US on all the main social indicators. It does this through a tradition of locality (e.g. in 2002 Geneva collected 84% of its spending locally, taking responsibility for its own healthcare, police, education etc.) with a high degree of citizen participation in local issue discussion and voting (also national issues – e.g. voting to halt immigration, and (2005) allow homosexual marriage but without adoption of children.) The official name of Switzerland is the “Swiss Confederation” and one could imagine an “American Confederation” similarly based on State/County power with most taxation raised and spent locally something like the America of the States envisaged by the Founders through the 10th Amendment. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Swiss-Democracy-Mr-Kenrick-Jones/dp/1906791430/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
Secession: In his book “Restoring America”, Michael Hart sees such an extreme polarization between the liberal left and the traditional right, that, as in an irreparable marriage, the best solution is a divorce, with a fresh start for both parties, and he devotes most of the book to the mechanics of the (friendly) divorce settlement, basically along the lines of the 2016 Presidential Election at the County level. The red counties form the American Federal Republic and the blue counties a new United States. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Restoring-America-Dr-Michael-Hart/dp/1312875704/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
Plutocratic Coup: This would be the formalization of Special Interest/MSM/Corporate/Neo-con/CIA power probably through some kind of fabricated National Emergency. The short lived government run by Cheney on 9/11 may well have been a (failed) attempt at this, but could have succeeded if events in Florida with regard to Bush had turned out differently, and they may try again. Source on the Florida side: https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
Civil War: Rather like an earthquake, with pressure building on a fault line and dissipating through slippage (bipartisanship, cross party conversations, respect for legality and Democratic procedure) or progressing to extreme polarization, with the two sides simply trading insults and refusing to accept the process. With an earthquake underway it builds its own dynamic to release the pressure leaving a dictatorship of the winners among the ruins. Best example probably being Spain in 1936 and the Spanish Civil War.
Social Collapse: The model here could be post WW1 Weimar Germany . The Ruhr was under French occupation, the country was bankrupt and faced impossible reparation payments, had a weak Liberal government, an almost complete Jewish takeover of finance and banking, a notoriously decadent society and a middle class economically wiped out in the hyperinflation of 1922-23. Not exactly the case with the US but if the middle class undergoes some serious economic damage the US could switch to this track. Example: https://www.amazon.com/Outlaws-Ernst-Von-Salomon/dp/1907166491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486856707&sr=8-1&keywords=the+outlaws%2C+von+salomon
New American Melting Pot: The article sees this as pre 1960’s type immigration with immigrants happy to take on a new American identity (with their racial background a distant second or irrelevant). There’s no question that it worked, and as he says, “The overwhelming evidence is that today’s immigrants are at least as economically productive and socially assimilative as their European predecessors, with low rates of crime, welfare dependency, and social instability”. The problem is the “Assimilation” word. In SJW parlance this is abasement to Anglo America and White Power since the “melting” of the “melting pot” is in fact into the Anglo European/American tradition – so they claim that racial ghettos better protect racial identity and pride and BTW are a fine justification for racial patronage (race war).
White Nationalism: Unz sees this as Whites abandoning their American identity and becoming ethnic White-Americans as a self-defense reaction against minority ethnic affirmative action and ethnic white exclusion from academia and employment. He sees this as the effective end of the United States and he’s probably right, and it may also be the precursor to the Civil War or Anarchy options.
Trumpian Unity: If you believe Trump, he said that he would stop mass immigration, stop costly and useless Middle East wars, get rid of the FED, stop automatic outsourcing , get back middle class jobs and “Make America Great Again”. That’s why he was elected despite being massively outspent by the Establishment and being smeared non-stop by the MSM propaganda machine. Since he carried off that remarkable feat, maybe he is also capable of “Making America Great Again” with the present races getting on board with America First. With no new immigration the New American Melting Pot would apply to the existing population. He’s an American nationalist not a White nationalist.
No Change: As in a continuing standoff between Traditional Conservative Constitutional America and the SJW/Corporate/Neo-Con/Wall St/Deep State version with its MSM. Neither side has enough power to break the other although they would like to, so the lack of national unity is seen in a continuing slow decline, with the US as usual not fixing its chronic deficits and becoming more internationally uncompetitive with a failing middle class.
There’s also the question of the absolute population level touched on by TG.
It’s true that a country needs a certain size and organization to develop technology, but there was plenty of new invention and technology in the US and Europe between 1880 and 1914 with a population about 1/4 of the present size.
The 1880 population was building on the base (knowledge and structure that had gone before) but if US had stayed at the 1900 level of 76 million, that’s enough people to provide the necessary scientists and technologists with no need for further immigration.
The only difference that I can see is that corporate sales/profits, taxes and GNP would be a lot lower than at present ( with 337 million people) although American families could be just as well off and live in a much more attractive environment. The US could still be as powerful in a military nuclear weapons/technological sense.
Note the trend in Kalifornia as the white population shrinks and is replaced in state governance leadership positions with blacks and browns. The debt and tax levels go ballistic, education, crime and state operated civil programs degrade into chaos. This is what the Left brings to the table, cultural and civil destruction.
Look no further than black and brown run countries around the world for what Kaliforia is to become. My prediction is the new Kalifornia will resemble a combination of Brazil, Venezuala and Mexico where nothing much works very well and the only people living in safety are wealthy and surrounded by full time security and walls.
[Comments that rant for 700 words but lack proper spacing, punctuation, and paragraphs are unlikely to be published, and too many such comments may get their author redirected to the trashbin.]
Have you flossed your teeth yet? Studies have found that crooked teeth harbor massive amount of bacteria that can damage your brain. Occasionally they can make you retarded.
Europe = The land of Inbreeding
without assimilation this country is 100% headed for fractures in the future. massive immigration in a short period makes assimilation impossible. california went from 90% white to a white minority in like 30 years. that is why there are fractures in california. it is very understandable for a white person living in california to be scare and lashing out.
Ron, God bless you with many more years of good health and spirits.
“With shared prosperity a diverse population can, in time, forge a shared identity.”
Really? Show me one example of this being the case, even historically. Switzerland is the closest but that’s only because they’re all somewhat racially close groups. Racially distal groups have competing, conflicting and antagonistic interests with each other. You can even see this in the way they vote. “Vote for me and I’ll redistribute from whitey to YOU!” Even the super religious right wing conservative family values moslems will vote for Marxist parties because of this, and of course again their conflicting interests: They want to conquer. La Raza wants to conquer. An Indian (dot, not feather) might see their swelling numbers and conclude: In twenty years, MY PEOPLE will be running this country–but hey, this is all multikult racial harmony and not warfare and ethnic cleansing by other means, am I right?
This is all competition for limited land (with limited carrying capacity) and resources. Be it money, food, housing, public pot and the related favors such as ethnic favoritism in hiring, education, public services etc. and even women. Fairly basic what’s going on and why it won’t work in the long term. All roads lead to India-level dysfunction and massive corruption and ungovernability.
Brazil has a police state where the productive class (overwhelmingly whites, and shrinking over time thanks to the promotion of miscegenation and ethnic preferencing policies, just like everywhere else) have to be age 25+ and jump through hoops to own a pea shooter 9mm pistol (that’s all they can own) while it’s acknowledged that the serious criminals own Kalashnikov assault rifles and Stinger missiles, among other weaponry. It’s anarcho-tyranny, on fire, in space, in clown world.
All of this of course requires an insanely expensive set of bureaucracies and public sector make-work rentseeker goons to service it all at no actual net economic benefit to the country. It’s most certainly worse in the USA and other European and European-created countries with all of the translators and so on needed, all of the extra fat you may not see in Brazil since they don’t get as much immigration but have had the race problems exist for hundreds of years without “forging an identity.”.
America is not a successful multi-ethnic/mutli-racial society. FIFTY YEARS is all it took to get to the precipice of something truly horrifying. Just a half century of destroying homogeneity and the economic ruin that comes with it. The lies that buttress all of this are truly astounding. Money printing on a massive scale, ever-increasing clown world numbers in debt and pretending it doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter, and saying “Oh hey the GDP is up” when GDP alone just a measure of the number of transactions and you can run a broken windows style (or broken borders in this case) economy and pretend that all of this is real economic growth and not just kicking the can down the road.
What do the European founding stock in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and native peoples of Europe, none of which were ever consulted or given any vote or referendum on whether any of this would occur, get out of any of this? Well, increasing shifts towards Rhodesia/Zimbabwe levels of anti-white politics but along the ride we are fleeced and plundered to the tune of our birth rates dropping far below average. End prognosis is that, like you might see on some nature channel of a group of chimps wiping out a competitor group and taking their females as war booty, a similar fate awaits us if we don’t stop immigration and start repatriation, and soon.
Seems to be the plan in any case, though. Seems a lot of well-connected and moneyed international types–the usual–want this outcome of us disappearing off the earth. Seems pretty engineered, too. Being of a younger cohort, I just can’t imagine how and why the older generations couldn’t see what was happening and WHY they never stopped it. I guess media monopoly over public opinion shaping might have had something to do with it? Herd behavior. As Aristotle noted, a lot of people are incapable of anything but emotional groupthink.
It’s already probably past the point of peaceful resolution in most all countries this is occurring. I just recently read that in Canada, by 2036, whites will be less than 50% of the population and probably old-age heavy meaning going forward they will just plummet to a political disempowered, despised minority in their own country. This is of course all a crime–genocide–not a policy option, but I guess who cares, right? It’s just whites. Morality doesn’t count here since we’re The Oppressor or something.
Nowhere to flee to, either. I can’t go to England or Germany with genetically similar native populations because they’re both being absolutely destroyed by the same rafts of government policies.
If you can get in touch with Mr. Torba, I believe it would be very fruitful.
Assimilation is a fantasy due to group interests, and using flippant language like “lashing out” at what has been a monumental deceit (“This will not change the ethnic balance of the country!”) and waging of ethnic warfare against us is really strange.
Turns out those horrible southern racists were right all along.
Europeans have the absolutely lowest level of inbreeding in the world according to data on consanguinity, which is the only real way you could even attempt to quantify this with actual data and not your shopworn attempts at racial insults. Any significant level of inbreeding now happening in our countries is owed to the global south invaders migrating into our countries undemocratically.
We’re also on average smarter than most all other groups and responsible for most all scientific advancement and invention (well, the big four are – Britain (chiefly England), France, Germany, Italy). Might want to read Murray’s The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment.
“…Over the past 30 years and at a growing pace, more than 25 million new immigrants–80 percent of non-European origin–have entered America, and they and their descendants now constitute a rapidly growing fraction of our total population. Well over half of these new immigrants have been Hispanic, and this ethnic group–today defined in racial terms, with all the attendant special treatment under official government policies–will by itself represent between 20 and 25 percent of America by the middle of the approaching century, at which point Americans of European origin will have become a minority of the population…”
Thanks Jews. If there is ever a civil war or the whole economy collapses then you know who did it.
I was looking at the Oroville Dam situation and had a huge epiphany that this IS the USA. It’s just like this. Apparently before the flood started they knew they had this defect in the spillway and they didn’t fix it. A huge hole opened up in the defect area. If they would have moved heaven and earth they could have filled it with large rocks while the water was off. Even to the extent of hauling all those concrete dividers from the highways to fill the hole. Anything but no…look at it now. A million dollar problem to a 10 million dollar problem. Now with the spillway is being destroyed it’s up to 200 million and if the emergency overflow breaks, which it might, then a multi-billion dollar problem with whole towns washed out.
If we don’t get a handle on immigration the dam is going to break. The people we have in office have done nothing about the Jewish orchestrated 9-11 attack and the Jewish orchestrated bank collapse and bail out. We need to throw the Jews out of this country like they’ve been thrown out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any numbers. They just refuse to stop attacking us and they never will. There’s nothing you can do to appease them. They won’t be happy until everyone on the planet is dead and only they are left.
how is it a fantasy? are you not a descendant of an immigrant? are you an american? we are all descendants of immigrants.
Well what else would we expect coming from a Jewish person! It is evident for some time now that the Jews are trying their hardest to ethnically cleanse and genocide the white European race. Through EU policies (controlled by Jew run central banks and payed off goyim) to flood all predominantly white *Christian (they hate Christians too) countries with illegals just as they are doing in the US. It is part of their master plan (Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion &Talmud) Other races 3rd worlders or whatever, don’t feel flattered, that these Devils are on your side they just know they can control your masses.These satanists fear white Europeans because we are their kryptonite! In their Nazi style writings of world domination and supremacy they knew America would be the hardest nut to crack …push back has started on these Devils.Trump (hopefully the real deal) and European countries exiting the EU control can hopefully turn this shit train around! Unz review ..guess this won’t be posted enjoy the read Jew boy
Sam J
I totally agree with you. Best comment on this page.
Astute observer
NOT! If you had “observed” way back when whites immigrated to America, they did it through proper channel.
A friend from Ireland immigrated here 15 yrs ago by “winning” the visas giveway for that year. Only a few Irish were granted immigration to the US and had to meet stiff requirements.
They didn’t just cross borders in mass and impose their wishes to their guest country.
The million dollar question is: When Whites are officially declared the minority, will we have ALL the breaks and advantages that Hispanics and others have enjoyed?
PRICELESS!
Ron clearly thinks that he can defeat the forces of minority Identity Politics and implement assimilationist measures, like Prop 227, by reconstituting the Prop 227 coalition. This coalition in grouped non-white nationalism, liberals, and Cuckservatives while outgrouping the cheap wage lobby and (white) Identity Politics (as a virtue signal to the left and non-white nationalists according to Ron). This coalition could not carry the Hispanic vote 20 years ago and could not carry the majority vote last year when it was crushed by the 800lb gorilla, minority Identity Politics.
So Ron’s coalition can’t save an assimilationist program that clearly benefits Hispanics yet he imagines that it can defeat the 800lb gorilla in a life and death struggle over who gets to run the country. Rons coalition might have a win or 2 left in it, outside of California that is, until there are no longer enough whites left to carry the majority as they did for Prop 227. Meanwhile Ron busies himself making the rest of America like California- where, just as a reminder, his coalition just went down like a Kardashian at a porn shoot.
I noticed that you and several other commenters had cited the recent victory of Prop. 58 (largely repealing Prop. 227) as disproving my analysis of the ethnic political situation in California. Although that argument might seem plausible, I don’t think it’s correct.
First, virtually all the organized pressure for the reestablishment of waiver-free “bilingual education” programs was actually coming from affluent *Anglo* parents. They wanted their children to learn Spanish in dual immersion classes and were stymied by the reluctance of Latino immigrant families to sign the necessary waivers to have their own children participate (learning Spanish is much easier if there are lots of native-Spanish speakers in the classroom). As a result of the vote, I suspect many thousands of “less voluntary” Latino students will be dragged into those programs, but such numbers are trivial in a state with over six million schoolchildren.
From what I recall, twenty years ago something like 70% of all Latino children from immigrant backgrounds spent some of their school years in Spanish-almost-only classes. These days, I think the figure is more like 1%, and even if the passage of Prop. 58 raises it to 2%, the practical impact will be nil. Obviously, I was very irritated that the history of the issue was so totally forgotten that a successful effort was made to repeal my Prop. 227, but I doubt much will actually change.
I discussed some of these issues last year in the piece below, which also includes one of the newspaper op-eds I’d published at the time:
https://www.unz.com/runz/bilingualism-vs-bilingual-education-3/
1st statement:
2nd statement that negates the 1st statement:
The logic is if there is no global south invaders into Europe, Europeans will be out-breeding rather than inbreeding.
Ergo, outbreeding in ancient time means there was no invaders. Invaders force Europeans to marry within a family.
No invaders = marrying outside of family
Invaders = marrying within a family
Wouldn’t it be other way round? If you have an outsider, it’s most likely to have a chance that you will marry an outsider. Without an outsider, you’re bound to marry within a family.
Let me educate that for you.
Most of the genetic disorders, recessive diseases are very common among Anglo people. The finding by scientific studies have conclusively proved that those traits results from recessive genes. Chances of inheriting recessive genes are higher when you marry within your own clan. That’s how it all began.
Look at the list of recessive diseases {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autosomal_recessive_disorders]
You’d see many Anglo-sounding syndrome. Why is that?
To give you an example
1. Cystic Fibrosis
Autosomal recessive disease
From wikipedia: CF is most common among people of Northern European ancestry and affects about one out of every 3,000 newborns.[1] About one in 25 people is a carrier.[3] It is least common in Africans and Asians.
What does it tell you?
2. Sex-linked Color Blindness
Very common among European males.
It’s amazing how people who aren’t considered to be white always want to flock legally and illegally to predominantly white countries..where the white racists let them in and they don’t want to assimilate but rather we change for them.There are plenty of brown black and yellow places to go ..so go there! If they let you in because it appears they have stricter illegal invasion rules. Do you know what diversity causes??? The end of diversity! No one should be forced out of their homeland by the wars all of our evil governments cause, so maybe the discussion should be stop wars let everyone live in peace in their countries without interference or us and others trying to jam our flawed ways down their throats.
“…First, virtually all the organized pressure for the reestablishment of waiver-free “bilingual education” programs was actually coming from affluent *Anglo* parents. They wanted their children to learn Spanish in dual immersion classes and were stymied by the reluctance of Latino immigrant families to sign the necessary waivers to have their own children participate (learning Spanish is much easier if there are lots of native-Spanish speakers in the classroom)…”
I find this absurd. I don’t believe this at all. I know I shouldn’t say this. It’s your blog and you can say what you damn well please, you’re the boss, etc., etc., but in an extraordinary amount of issues Jews say the most ridiculous things. Most of these seem tailored like a virus to destroy or degrade the population where ever they are.You know like “diversity is our strength” or “give us your tired wretched poor”. I wonder if you might actually believe this yourself? That something harmful to the population just immediately occurs to you to be true?
Even in the article you wrote yourself you give one example of Whites wanting bilingual education,”…Over the years, Spanish-almost-only “dual immersion” programs have become increasingly popular among California’s affluent, well-educated Anglo families…”. You give no supporting evidence what so ever that they are ,”…virtually all the organized pressure for the reestablishment of waiver-free “bilingual education” programs was actually coming from affluent *Anglo* parents…”. You give abundant evidence for the Spanish teachers and politicians for pushing bilingual education. You also make a note of the dishonest wording in the proposition. Could it be that White people are for bilingual education but that it doesn’t follow that they wish to wrangle Hispanics into language ghettos? It may very well be that a Jewish person would think nothing of screwing everyone around them if they could get a little something for themselves and you just assume that’s what the “Anglos” are doing. You presume too much.
What you’re doing is nothing more than slander as I see it. Along the lines of,”If it weren’t for those evil Anglo’s we could have everyone learn English”. Of course I’m putting words into your mouth you didn’t say but what you did write could easily construed as meaning this.
Well, I’m very busy with my software work right now, so you certainly don’t have to believe me, but I do think it’s absolutely true.
Even during the big California campaign back in 1998, probably 95% of all the fanatic opponents I encountered during a huge number of public debates and forums were affluent English-speaking parents who had their children in Spanish-language programs and were worried Prop. 227 would eliminate those. That was exactly the same situation when I did a similar initiative in Massachusetts. And in Colorado, some fanatic Anglo woman who’d inherited a billion dollars from her father and had her children in a Spanish-language program popped up from nowhere, spent millions on advertising, and managed to defeat my initiative there in 2002.
Now the truth is there probably aren’t more than a few hundred such fanatic pro-bilingual parents in CA, but since everybody else had totally forgotten the issue and paid no attention while they spent years lobbying all the politicians in Sacramento in hopes of ensuring a sufficient supply of Latino children for their programs, they finally managed to get their way.
During the recent campaign, the reporters I talked with who were covering it generally said they’d seen the same thing, namely that all the enthuastic support seemed to be coming from the English-speaking parents who wanted to expand the programs and were having a very difficult time recruiting voluntary Latino students.
I, for one, never want to immigrate to Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia.
I want to immigrate to the place where everyone belong, i.e., America and Australia.
If you have a problem with those places, you can also go back to where you came from. I’ll be very happy with your Bon Voyage!
Ron do you believe that bilingual education and other anti-assimilation measures would widely exist in the 90% Anglo California of just a few decades ago?
[Wow, Ron protects this site from the truth]
My response, 2nd try, is Unz seems so damn disappointed that his view into the future’s window was correct.
I love this country, but the flag no longer stands for me: break this baby up. Then watch as the non-whites whine and worm their way into the new white world, the world they alone cannot create.
Sorry, Mr. Unz, that I only comment on this site now and then, rather than hang round here with my tongue out hoping for the next Unz excretion.
I am the descendant of people who were more commonly referred to as “pioneers” i.e. that carved out the wilderness and created a country where nothing existed. They didn’t migrate to another people’s prosperous country and begin suckling off the teat of a state weighted in their favor as recent arrivals tend to.
In fact until quite recently, welfare states didn’t exist and the other racially similar immigrants we had couldn’t suckle off the teat of the state either. America, Canada, and Australia and New Zealand had immigration policies to keep the racial balance as-is.
This “nation of immigrants” fiction is just that, a fiction. These people aren’t us, don’t have our best interests in mind and are already openly saying what they plan to do in a very matter-of-fact way when we become the dispossessed minority in our own nations we created. They are invaders and nothing else.
Reproducing within the same racial group isn’t “inbreeding.”When we refer to inbreeding, we refer to close family relations which is already a fierce taboo and has been for us for a very long time outside of some weird royals. You’re being disingenuous. I get it though, you want our prosperity (which your group can’t create and/or live in without us) and possibly our genes. You’re a rentseeker, though. You add nothing positive to our nations and weren’t invited in by the actual people.
There are some racial diseases, though, sure. Africans have Sickle-Cell. Jews have Tay-Sachs and possibly others. So what? This isn’t necessarily a sign of “inbreeding.”
It’s telling that in no nation at all was this mass movement of people ever put to the vote or referendum and there was not even a public debate on it. It was simply done from the top down incrementally over decades accompanied by the indoctrination of children. You’re still invaders, though. America, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand are not “for everybody.”
The biggest trend of the late 20th, early 21st century seems to be that everyone wants to live where white people do because we create the best countries in terms of living standards. The problem is we’re running out of white people so those living standards are not going to last. White females of reproductive age probably comprise maybe 3% of the world’s population now.
We already know what a highly race-mixed country looks like. It looks like Brazil, India, Turkey or other such places no one really wants to move to. And we already know what a white minority looks like with Rhodesia and South Africa.
Jews feel white until someone says white power.
You white people are so foolish though. You think you can fxck everybody off -lying, stealing, killing – and it’ll never catch up to you. Please, Russia has nukes, china has nukes, India has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, which means Saudi Arabia has nukes, Japan could build a nuke in a year.
Retards, stop supporting dictators and terrorist and people will stop blowing you up.
You have no logic. You’re just spewing out what you want to believe and what you want to hear. Where in the world you learn those countries are not for everybody?
You might as well claim Fiji, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Caribbean countries, India are also not for everybody.
Get down from your high horse, be realistic. You claim where the success is. You leave those countries where you pillaged, ruined, destroyed, blood-sucked native people.
If everyone wants to migrate to where White people are, I don’t see people want to go to Cape town, South Africa. I don’t see people whining about not going to New Zealand. I see people always going to places where they can succeed and make more money. In this case, America offers those opportunities.
Granted, along the same line, there are people abusing the system to become parasites. Yes, those invaders now currently swarming through Europe, they have different agenda than making use of their lives. That’s your country policy. If you’re so worried about Invaders, go and do something like go back to your country, defend against those invaders instead of spewing out the glory of the past or becoming an armchair warrior in Unz.
Meanwhile your great country back home is being decimated by those invaders, raping local women, marauding cities, disrupting high way traffic, bringing their cultural belief, with a resounding chant Allahu Akbar you can hear from your tiny office in this great country, that is, according to you, not for everybody.
“lying, stealing, killing”
Oh haven’t you heard? White people invented all that.
come on now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html there is no need to glorified our history 🙂 nothing existed my ass 🙂 pioneers my ass, we were invaders and performed a genocide.
well, do you know why all of the countries you listed opened the doors? about welfare. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-14-3-a-how-welfare-began-in-the-united-states.html the start date doesn’t fit your rant 🙂
what are “they” openly saying they want to do? http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents see, we are a nation of immigrants 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States without immigration, those numbers would not make sense. just be honest, you want white immigrants only 🙂
I was raised in Appalachia, so perhaps I have had a different experience with the rates of “White inbreeding” than you did. 🙂
Once an early American wrote this:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
If you are not a pure-blooded American Indian, then you are an immigrant. And even they walked in via the Siberian land-bridge. The only difference is time of arrival.
Me, I’m descended from German immigrants who arrived around about 1870. Maybe the site should make a rule that when discussing immigration, every post has to include when your ancestors got here and where they came from. Just to keep it all real.
Can you comment on the Flynn resignation?
Thanks.
well, if there was no one here when they crossed the Siberian land bridge, aren’t they settlers?
which generation are you billy? I am just curious, 5th?
I’m afraid I’m *totally* preoccupied with my software work right now, and wouldn’t have much to usefully contribute.
Flynn seemed pretty reasonable on Russia, which was a major plus, but especially crazy on Iran, which was clearly a minus. I also think he co-authored a book with Michael Ledeen, one of the craziest of the Neocons and who probably should have been executed for treason years ago, which certainly wasn’t a good sign.
Overall, it looks like the DC Establishment is gradually getting rid of the Trump people and replacing them with more “mainstream” people, who are just crazy in a different way.
Still, it’s better than a serious risk of the nuclear war with Russia under Hillary, so we’re definitely ahead of the game.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if at some point, people will just get fed up and guillotine everyone who lives within the DC Beltway, which would certainly improve things.
Meanwhile, I finally just managed to track down and fix a very tricky interference problem with CSS/HTML, so Flynn or not I’m feeling pretty optimistic right now.
“…Well, I’m very busy with my software work right now, so you certainly don’t have to believe me, but I do think it’s absolutely true…”
“…namely that all the enthuastic support seemed to be coming from the English-speaking parents who wanted to expand the programs and were having a very difficult time recruiting voluntary Latino students….”
I can readily believe that you believe this. I also believe that you are deceiving yourself. That you and most Jews internally deceive yourselves on the state of other non-Jew minds. I suggest that you think the worst of everyone else because…that’s what you would do.
I perceive in the words you selected that you believe there was some cabal of Whites organizing against the interest of Hispanics. Stuff like,”…were stymied…”, “…the structure of those programs also requires participation of large numbers of Spanish-speaking children…”. The idea that you must have Spanish children to teach Spanish seems farcical to me. My cousin learned French in Tennessee without dragooning French children from across the Atlantic and chaining them to Tennessee desk. The idea that Whites wanted a second language taught has nothing to do with forcing Hispanics into a Spanish language ghetto. You may believe this but it’s not logical and it certainly doesn’t require Mexicans to learn Spanish. It appears to me nothing more than one more in a long line of made up offenses that Whites should thank all of our betters for pointing out to us so we can apologize for the evilness of our ways.
As Michaeloh pointed out we wouldn’t need Spanish at all if all these people had not flooded into our country.
A bit harsh on Ron Unz mate considering we are all guests on his site. I’ve had a couple of comments disappear too but to be truthful they weren’t my best contributions and I’ve attempted to improve the standard of my comments over time out of respect for the site and the commenters. We don’t have to agree on everything though.
People do want to go to New Zealand. No one wants to go to South Africa because it’s something like ~85% black and swirling the drain. It’s not a white country anymore than Zimbabwe is still Rhodesia–and what would you know it, Rhodesia is now completely gone and the blacks under Mugabe completely ruined it as they hadn’t had the intelligence and raw ability to upkeep what the European derived founding Rhodesians created. California now has a similar problem with a dam falling apart just like in Zimbabwe. Interesting parallel.
You want to go to where the prosperity is but it just so turns out that that’s almost always where the white people are and recedes and disappears when they’re gone. I bet that’s all just a coincidence, though. We didn’t blood-suck anyone when we came here as it was all wilderness. Same as in those now-ruined countries in Africa.
We never voted on this policy and weren’t given a choice. Any reasonable definition would class the non-European people brought into America since 1965 and other formerly white countries during the same time period as invaders. That’s what they are. It was completely illegitimate in every case. Just because your group may not be an acute a threat as Islamic fanatics with 83 IQ doesn’t mean you’re a good, positive influence and have a good impact on our countries.
Do I know why they opened the doors? Sure. In most cases (in America explicitly) — jewish influence. Ted Kennedy was only the frontman for the persons behind that act. And it was accompanied by lies that it wouldn’t change the ethnic makeup and in every country this was done in undemocratically, and with lies and accusations of “conspiracy theory” when people pointed out the mathematically obvious fact that continued immigration will dispossess and ethnically cleanse us from our own countries, which has in large parts come to pass with cities like London or Paris having very little native population now, and large American cities that now look almost like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did after the bombs got dropped.
Go look at the 1790 immigration act upheld in various forms until 1965. It’s not a “nation of immigrants” and the US founding fathers did not believe the global south should come into the country. You are monumentally intellectually dishonest, though, I get it. Keep telling me more about growing up in Appalachia and how those low class rednecks were totally inbred –and you know this because they’re low class, of course. Give me more cracked dot com, buzzfeed, wikipedia and other completely 100% on the level “sources” to boot. You’re making some real arguments, here, and not just virtue signaling about being an enlightened liberal ethnomasochist.
Let me first start by saying,
People don’t want to migrate to Iceland, Ireland, Ukraine, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Greece, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia to name a few. Those are, as you may have well remembered, all White countries.
Ask any Europeans from Romania, if they want to migrate to New Zealand or the US, even White Europeans will choose North America in a heartbeat. So it’s not so much of a White country rather an opportunity presented to those immigrants.
I don’t say White people can’t create their own place to live. They do create a nice environment for them to live. But it doesn’t prove that White people create the most admired place to live. The most significant advantage White people have over all other races, is they’re extremely brutal and cruel when they deceived native people, colonized the massive land (that is equivalent to inheriting the mega-trillion worth of world asset that is eventually trickled down to, of course, White people.)
[Read up how European settlers tricked native indians to educate them how to cope with the harsh weather in the new found land. They killed their saviors in the end, conquered the New World. Belated Happy Thanksgiving btw.]
Now let’s turn our head to White European immigrants intention. Ask any Romanian if they want to migrate to Estonia or France. There’s no question about it. Why? No wonder France has accumulated her wealth throughout history from colonization in Africa, IndoChina (now known as South East Asia). It’s no question that even a White European want to migrate to another White countries that turn out to be those master colonizers in the past.
The idea is, Nations accumulate their wealth through colonization in the past (Or if need be, through WAR). All wealthy nations on this planet, executed those expeditions in the past. Not to be surprised, those are the countries that majority of people want to migrate to.
There’s no coincidence that those wealthy nations also turn out to be Colonizers in the past.
Not that I remember when British left Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, they’re even doing better to cater to the needs of local people.
Just because your skin present “White” doesn’t mean you make a good impact on my country, i.e., US
You may as well be 1st immigrant, Eastern European, from third world countries, spewing out your White skin, claiming your anglo-saxon heritage (While your dad is somehow remotely related to those wealthy nations UK, France, Germany; your mom from Eastern European, and suddenly you become a White nationalist.).
I’ve seen it, I’ve experienced it. Those ridiculous human Herd Mentality; you reap when the benefits fit you, but you escape into a rabbit hole once your forefather is nothing to do with Mr. Columbus raping and enslaving native strong people.
So bottom line, Get down from your high horse. No one cares what size Queen Elizabeth panty size is.
just admit it. white immigrants only 🙂 1790 immigration act, you mean the law that was in affect when slavery was the norm? when the only voters where wealthy landowners? 😛 times change, laws with it. imo there is nothing wrong with what you want. there is no need for a pedestal. being a racist is a ok in my book 😛 FYI, I completely understand why people like you feel the way you do. there is no need for you to tip toe on unz.
bold: I didn’t tell you any of that 😛
those sources aren’t good enough? link some of your sources? you got any? 🙂 annual immigration numbers for as far back in time as you can find.
at least this was refreshing. first time I read immigration = dropping an atomic.
my point, this is a nation of immigrants. even your 1790 immigration act supports my point :))) hah, you didn’t realized right? 😛
“…White people have over all other races, is they’re extremely brutal and cruel when they deceived native people…”
What you are is anti-White. While some White people have been incredibly cruel you act as if “Natives” were all dancing around proclaiming love for all . The “Natives” you’re so fond of were in many cases a bunch cannibalistic, torturing, evil, genocidist. Thank God it wasn’t they conquering us instead of us conquering them as we would have a world wide religion of pyramids where peoples hearts were ripped out.
According to the Religion of Political Correctness, only bad things were done by the White race. Any good thing was done by “Humankind.”…from Bob Whitaker’s Tweets
“…People don’t want to migrate to Iceland, Ireland, Ukraine, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Greece, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia to name a few…”
That’s not true. I bet I could, if a real offer, get a minimum of 500 million applications of immigration from around the world to immigrate to those countries from countries in the Southern hemisphere.
Off topic:
Mr. Unz,
I am not able to access the “Forum” feature/section of the Unz Review anymore. Error message “Nothing found” https://www.unz.com/forum/
I can however access articles from this section through the comments: https://www.unz.com/comments/forum/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions/
When I attempt to access the article without going through the comments, it simply does not show up: https://www.unz.com/forum/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions/
Did you decide to close down the Forum/discussion of external articles?
Thank you.
Actually, I’ve been very busy the last two months working on major changes in the software, and just loaded the new version on the website earlier a few hours ago.
Given the huge number of changes in the underlying code, it’s been a very pleasant surprise that there have been so few problems that almost no one noticed anything different. Naturally, there were some bugs, and you apparently found one of them. With luck I should be able to quickly fix them once people find them.
After everything seems to be working properly, I’ll put up an Announcement describing the software release and the various new features added.
Thanks very much, Mr. Unz!
Looking forward to the Announcement!
Thanks, Mr. Unz.
The Forum link is fixed and the articles are accessible again.
But now, the link that worked before https://www.unz.com/comments/forum/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions/ redirects me to the All Commenters/Comment Archive page (https://www.unz.com/comments/all/ ], even though the URL does not change, instead of to the comments of that specific article.
We had a similar glitch a while back already, that you were able to fix: https://www.unz.com/runz/a-grand-bargain-on-immigration-reform-2/#comment-1755653
Sorry about that…
Thank you for the work you do. I’m quite blunt and harsh at times but I’m also genuinely thankful for your service.
There is truth in much of what you say. In fact, one could safely argue that Judaism and Islam are “two sides of the same coin”. Islam could be considered an Arabicized form of Judaism.
BOTH Judaism and Islam each have their own form of supremacy, relegating “outsiders” (non-believers) as no better than animals, to be used for the benefit of each respective group.
BOTH the Jewish Talmud and the Islamic Qur’an have virtually identical passages espousing the supremacy of each respective “system”.
BOTH the Jewish Talmud and the Islamic Qur’an proscribe much harsher punishments for “outsiders” who transgress against “believers” while proscribing much lesser punishment for “believers” who transgress against “outsiders”.
One notable exception to this is the way Jesus Christ, (and by inference Christianity) is treated in each respective “system”.
The Jewish Talmud states that Jesus Christ is the product of a liaison between Mary, his mother, who is considered a harlot, and a Roman soldier, and that he is boiling in excrement for eternity. This hatred is still strong, even in the present day and is easily seen on Israeli TV.
Contrast that with the Islamic Qur’an, which regards Jesus Christ as, not the Son of God, but a respected prophet, nevertheless. A special place of honor is given to his mother, Mary, who is specifically mentioned in the Qur’an.
Now, which belief system is more hostile to Christianity??
With the defeat of Hillary, the USA had a reprieve, at least a temporary one. Her election would have meant the “Californization” of the entire country.
See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2016/08/if-hillary-wins.html
Are you idiots forgetting California history?! White European hordes invaded california. They squatted on Californio land grants and Were in fact , the first illegal aliens in California and the Americas. You have no real claim to California, because white people invaded Native American lands. Maybe you need to go bitch about immigration in your own European homelands , because you have zero claim to California at all. And while your at it , pick up a history book and read about how the gringos invaded and squatted on indigenous lands, and how they were the Americas first illegals and anchor babies.
California was Native American and is still Native American land. Then the Californios from Mexico came, like it or not, Americans were the invaders in California. The cam in hordes to squat on other people lands they owned, and got squatters rights to it. They invaded, that’s a simple fact. You can’t change the facts of history that only a few Americans were legal and married into rich Californio families, but the rest were squatters. All the Major big cities like San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Francisco were all founded by Californios who were from Mexico. They were NOT Europeans from Spain, but Natives and Mestizos. White Americans had nothing to do with California until they invaded it. California is a border state and nothing you do will stop people from crossing the border to come here. The ones who bitch the most about Mexicans in California are the sorry ass first , second and third generation Californians who have no deep ties to California and are recent transplants. They have no say in the matter.
Since America was NEVER WHITE you holding on to nothing but a pipe dream. There is only one race that is indigenous by blood , and that is the Native American race. You can always go back to Europe if you like or The Middle East or Asia where your recent ancestors came from. California, was Native American from the beginning , and then the Mexicans founded all the Main cities., unfortunately for you the European Americans were last and invaded California like the Mongol hordes that invaded Europe, maybe they were your ancestors? Doesn’t it suck to know that your ancestors invaded the Americas , and then invaded California?! Your ancestors were invading hordes themselves. California will never be white no matter how hard you bitch and moan!
How did you get the 1980s as the transition point? According to the Census California was 57 percent non Hispanic white in 1990. Are you subtracting middle easterners or something? Just curious.
The third paragraph:
Also, it’s widely believed that there was a substantial under count in the number of Hispanic illegals immigrants.
Yvette Felarca’s BAMN (“by any means necessary”) thugs caused CA to spend $2,000,000 to protect free speech. She, a violent Filipina, remains free.
Imagine a conservative white, middle-aged man…like Yvette teaching at a Berkeley “non-violent” middleschool… being filmed on weekend’s beating women at feminists rallies, calling on-air for even more violence. Think he’d keep HIS job and not be jailed?
Felarca’s BAMN proudly brags about denying citizen’s their First Amendment rights. She spends no time in prison.
Meanwhile, a white couple that shouted WORDS at blacks attending a birthday party got sentenced to 35 years in prison.
THIRY-FIVE YEARS!
We endlessly hear about the one women killed by a lone loon in Charlottesville, VA. We hear nothing about “white nationalists” there playing by the rules (being peaceful, getting permits) who were shoved by cops into streets filled with violent black thugs (one of whom got $166,000 for being a white senior citizen).
No mention, either, that Felarca’s BAMN riot in Sacramento resulted in 9 humans being stabbed.
The NYT never covers such events honestly. Its motto is, “All the news that fits our narrative.”
>” The most significant advantage White people have over all other races, is they’re extremely brutal and cruel”
Native Injuns migrated from Mongolia…a place where kind, gentle Tamerlane butchered 17,000,000 humans pre-Zyklon-B, when the world war far less populous. China was also home to Genghis Khan and Mao: both mass-killers.
Injuns fought each other long before Honkies showed up.
Comanches were notoriously brutal.
Aztecs practiced human sacrifice.
Africans ate each other.
Stop hating whites…and knowledge.
Simply put: Nothing stays the same. Not one solitary thing whether human or not. Ever.
One would think that diversity would, therefore, be by this time, acceptable…alas it is not. There is always another ‘interloper’ waiting in the wings to try something new. The color of the Newbies isn’t the point…the point is FEAR…fear that THOSE Newbies are going to ‘take our jobs’…or Oh My God, look at what they wear and what they eat. We can’t have that. Why They might even marry our daughters!
Of course we CAN have ‘that’ especially when we need human hands to do the Grunt Work that we ‘originals’ don’t want to do. When I say WE I include the world in general with it’s ‘class’ mentality…we were here first and You Newbies will have to speak our language/do whatever we tell you to do if you want to get along. Interestingly the American Indians rebelled when the White man tried putting him behind the plow…when the Red Man rebelled the Newbies had a confab and it was decided that we had to put the Indian out of our misery…we had to look elsewhere to Africa to get ourselves slaves to come on over and do our dirty work. Or else. Low man on the Totem Pole these days are ‘other-complexioned’ and looked upon with suspicion. Everything is in a state of change. It never ends.
california is bankrupt,its a sinking ship
Except Europeans were here long before so called “Native American” Indians.
Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, as new archaeological evidence shows:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9110838/Stone-age-Europeans-were-the-first-to-set-foot-on-North-America.html
https://archive.is/VnqBF
The truth is that jews are exterminating European Christians and blaming European Christians for all their crimes like the slave trade in the Americas which Jews ran and as for genocide in the Americas most of them were killed by diseases from the old world not by any battle or act of violence.
I’ve lived and worked in the third world, and have traveled to 42 countries in my lifetime. Everywhere I’ve ever been in the Non-White world, I’ve heard people talk about coming to America.
They aspire to live in the land of the free, with free food, free health care, free rent, etc.
As the population in the USA approaches 400 million by 2050, our material standard of living will suffer. More importantly, though, America as we know it will cease to exist. Ask history. No multi-racial country has ever survived, let alone prospered. The same prospect looms for the UK, and every other formerly White nation.
There’s a prophetic book that was published in 1996, called “Civil War 2”. The author, Thomas Chittum, predicted things we are seeing now, including a looming race War, illegal aliens being given the vote, and the increasing polarization of the USA.
America will not long survive becoming minority White, in less than another generation.
I am very anti-racism, i love all humans. I am even a fan of The Black Panther Party, Malcolm X, Amilcar Cabral, Thomas Sankara, Mandela, Martin Luther King and other great anti-racism revolutionary heroes.
But what I just don’t understand how can most original americans (whites, blacks, natives etc) have been able to let states like California, Florida, and New York to be literally stolen from Americans by latinos, europeans, asians and people from other countries.
I am not really a nationalist, in fact i am internationalist, but at the same time I am perfectionist and I am very loyal to truth and to do every thing “by the book”. I even weigh the food i eat by ounces.
What i am trying to say is that nation-states, nations, independent countries have been created, or are supposed to be like houses, like family-homes, where the presidents and governments are supposed to be the parents and the population, the children of that family-home.
And even though USA is a large nation-state, and even though it is supposed to be a liberal nation with opportunities for everybody. What i think is that USA was originally created by its founding fathers as a family-home, as a house exclusively for its children to have a place to dweell, a shetler, a place, a land to live in. So USA was not created to harbor and to give room to the 8 billion humans of the whole world.
That’s why there are more than 200 nation-states in the whole world for the whole world population, but at the same time I really do think that USA with its imperialist wars since late 1800s is half-guilty (50% guilty or more) for destroying other countries (with the neoliberal economic model), for installing neoliberal governments loyal to US and Zionist Oligarchs and by doing that it stimulates immigration into USA
I think that if I was US president and I would love to lower the immigrant population coming to USA, the best solution would be to fund Trotskist and Ultra-Leftists Workers Parties in poor countries. So that its oppressed poor population would have the economic power and political power to overthrow the oligarchic evil corrupt dictatorships and replace them with workers states, that way poverty would be reduced and people from other countries wouldn’t want to migrate into USA
.