<< ARI WatchCtrl +  or    enlarges or reduces text size.

Immigration Enthusiasts


Since the early part of the 20th century Marxists have used persuasion and deceit trying to turn America into a socialist country, with some success. The complete overthrow of America, however, proved elusive. Since 1968 they have been using a surer method of attaining their goal:  import ready-made socialists.

The government is “dissolving the people and electing another,” displacing the historic American people with one more to a leftist’s liking. [2]

It is happening all around us and leftists rejoice.  An especially stark example is Tim Wise writing at the Daily Kos, 3 November 2010, in “An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum.”  The title refers to the Republicans having regained control of the House in the Congressional elections held the day before, which victory Mr. Wise sees as a white nationalist reaction to Obama’s election two years before. He is undeterred by such small defeats. Emphasis his, and we leave off our external quote marks:

It is coming, and soon.

This isn’t hubris. It isn’t ideology. It is not wishful thinking.

It is math.

... Just simple, basic, like 3rd grade math.

The kind of math that proves how your kind – mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like – are dying.

You’re like the bad guy in every horror movie ... who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, ... [but who] keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.

... But remember how this movie ends.

Our ankles survive.

You do not.
...
... in the pantheon of American history, conservative old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.

... It doesn’t matter.

Because you’re on the endangered list.

And unlike ... the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone [expletive] that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them ...
...
... in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Nothing ...
...
And by then you will have gone all in as a white nationalist movement – hell you’ve all but done that now – thus guaranteeing that the folks of color, and even a decent size minority of us white folks will be able to crush you, election after election, from the Presidency on down to the 8th grade student council.

... this is math. And numbers don’t lie.
...
... those who are the victims of your greed and indifference take the long view.

They know, but you do not, that justice is not for the sprinters, but rather for the long distance runners who will be hitting their second wind, right about the time that you collapse from exhaustion.

They are like the tortoise to your hare.

They are like the San Francisco Giants, to your New York Yankees: a bunch that loses year after year after year, until they finally win.
...
... those who have lived on the margins, who have been abused, maligned, targeted by austerity measures and budget cuts ... always know more about their abusers than the abusers know about their victims.

They have to study you, to pay careful attention, to adjust their body armor accordingly, and to memorize your sleep patterns.

You, on the other hand, need know nothing whatsoever about them. And this, will surely prove politically fatal to you in the end. For it means you will not know their resolve. Will not fear it, as you should.
...
... they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now – we are – your destruction.

And I do not mean by that your physical destruction. We don’t play those games. ...We don’t need guns.

We just have to be patient.

And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well ... [ellipsis his]

Do you hear it?

The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.
OK.  White nationalists, indeed all whites, will be gone soon, and gleefully Tim Wise and his ilk await the day.

The article reads like something out of a Protocols of the Elders of Multicult exposing the real motivation behind open immigration: white dispossession and destruction. Only it was published not as an exposé or warning but as triumphant gloating – which indeed is frighteningly justified.

Leftists have promoted open immigration for the last forty years by claiming the moral high ground and demoralizing their opposition, yet here we see their morality revealed for what it is: self-destruction and the destruction of all you hold dear.  Behind the triumphalism Tim Wise unabashedly displays is the mentality that Ayn Rand wrote about in her essay “The Age of Envy” (The Objectivist July-August 1971), a nihilistic hatred of the good. He’s not alone either. [3].

America used to be 90% white and there are still many alive who remember those days. Mr. Wise lies when he says that what they remember is “an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like.” America was in fact better back then, from popular culture to prosperity to safety – there is nothing inaccurate or fantastical about it. And that the population was far more white, and freedom of association legally recognized, is what helped make it better. This is what Mr. Wise and his ilk hate, what America once was and what remnant remains.

Mr. Wise concludes his article by pointing out (not quoted above) that given the eventual demise of whites, the Republican Congressional victory in 2010 was only a temporary setback for Democrats.

Mr. Wise knows “but you do not” – some people anyway – that race and politics are correlated. The voting breakdown in national elections reveals this clearly. Though in reality there isn’t much difference between the Republican and Democratic parties – two wings of the same bird of prey as Patrick Buchanan puts it – most people, immigrants included, perceive Republicans as pro-freedom, pro-capitalist, and Democrats as pro-authoritarian, pro-welfare.

There is some truth to it: Republicans are not so pro-authoritarian, pro-welfare as the Democrats, and many who vote Republican do hope they will be pro-freedom, pro-capitalist. Here are the statistics for the presidential elections in which Obama was the Democratic contender:


2008Dem.  Rep.                 
White 43 55
Black 95   4
Hispanic 67 31
Asian 62 35
other n/w       66 31

2012Dem.  Rep.                 
White 39 59
Black 93   6
Hispanic 71 27
Asian 73 26
other n/w       58 38

And in which Hillary Clinton was the Democratic contender:

2016Dem.  Rep.                 
White 37 58
Black 88   8
Hispanic 65 29
Asian 65 29
other n/w       56 37

Behold, the Republicans have become the “white party” – even as the leaders betray their constituency – and the Democrats have become the “non-white party.” Percentage-wise, more non-whites than whites choose socialism, indeed far more. (Again, under the partly justified assumption that Democrat = socialist, Republican = libertarian.) Note that in the 2012 election Asians were even more socialist than Hispanics.

Each number above is a percentage of the group at its left. Another statistic is required to understand what is happening: the relative size of each group. In 1950 non-whites were less than 10% of the population and consequently had little political influence. (Literacy standards for suffrage reduced it further.) Today, mainly due to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 (which took effect in 1968) and the simultaneous collapse of immigration law enforcement, and partly to the amnesty of 1986 and welfare, legal non-whites have about tripled to 28% of the population, a percentage that is steadily rising. (Upon amnesty the percentage would spurt upward and then continue its climb to 100% at a faster rate.)

So though Obama lost among whites, he won in popular votes and in the Electoral College. [4]  In the 2012 election, for example, despite over 60% of whites voting against him, he won the popular vote by about 5 million votes and the Electoral College 332 to 206. There is no question: non-whites elected and re-elected Obama president. [5]  (His opponent in 2012, Mitt Romney, helped by being pro-amnesty, which kept many whites from voting at all.)

The Democrats are well aware of the trend. Here is the insufferable James Carville after the 2010 midterm election, gloating over Americans becoming swamped by the Third World (for “demographics” read “immigration results”):


“When you get into a presidential electorate, it decidedly favors Democrats, and every year it’s going to decidedly favor them more and more. ... Demographics don’t do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white.” [6]


Individuals are not groups and all that, but in an election all that matters is the total. Averages are what count in practical politics.  The following is from “Electing a New People” by Peter Brimelow and Edward Rubenstein  (for “democratic propensities” read “socialist / authoritarian propensities”):


“Demography is destiny in American politics. ...
...
“[The coalition] of the West and the South, of the middle class and urban blue-collar voters, is ... being drowned – as a direct result of the 1965 Immigration Act ... . Nine-tenths of the immigrant influx is from groups with significant – sometimes overwhelming – Democratic propensities. ... their numbers are reaching critical mass.”


Here is Ann Coulter, spot on and well said:


“... Democrats haven’t won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn’t turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration.”


The future is clear. If immigration isn’t stopped and the demographic trend reversed, America will end up like California, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one and not a single Republican holds statewide office. What has happened to California will happen to every state in the union.

And these Democrats are “very Democrat,” that is, more and more socialist. California as it is today is not America’s final destination. America will pass that condition on the way to a combination of Mexico, South Africa and Asia – before it breaks up.

To refurbish a line attributed to Trotsky:  You may not be interested in race, but race is interested in you. [7]

And Official Objectivists with one voice cry out:  YOU  DIRTY  COLLECTIVIST !

Now a few excerpts from “The End of White America” by one Hua Hsu, writing in The Atlantic, January/February 2009 [8]  right after Obama’s election, which the introductory blurb hails as “the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of ‘whiteness’ as the touchstone of what it means to be American.” Hua Hsu begins by mocking the fears of the early 1920s expressed by a character in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby about a future non-white majority. Hua Hsu uses slanted language and derogatory quotes to describe this fear, then – perversely, considering he just made fun of the idea – he points out that it is happening:


“As a purely demographic matter ... the ‘white America’ that Lothrop Stoddard believed in so fervently may cease to exist ... . But where the culture is concerned, it’s already all but finished. ... the culture is being remade in the image of white America’s multiethnic, multicolored heirs.”

Well, Hua Hsu would like to think white America is all but finished. Then he quotes with evident approval part of a speech President Clinton made on 13 June 1998 to students at Portland State University (ellipsis his):

“ ‘Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.’ ”

And apparently it doesn’t mean being white. Hua Hsu’s ellipsis, by the way, does not hide “and remained the same nation,” which would make Clinton’s statement true after deleting “in so short a time.” Hua Hsu goes on to quote Patrick Buchanan, whom he characterizes as “anxious,” commenting on Clinton’s speech in his book The Death of the West: [9]

“Mr. Clinton assured us that it will be a better America when we are all minorities and realize true ‘diversity.’ Well, those students are going to find out, for they will spend their golden years in a Third World America.”

Hua Hsu has no objection and continues:

“Today, the arrival of what Buchanan derided as ‘Third World America’ is all but inevitable.”

After more mocking of The Great Gatsby Hua Hsu quotes a number of whites who welcome white demise, then concludes what he obviously wants to believe:


“... if white America is indeed ‘losing control’, and if the future will belong to people who can successfully navigate a post-racial, multicultural landscape – then it’s no surprise that many white Americans are eager to divest themselves of their whiteness entirely.”

Then follow accounts of whites who don’t want to be white. Obviously Hua Hsu hopes these are representative, but he is aware of  “a growing sense of cultural solidarity among lower-middle-class whites.” He says that the study of this phenomenon is called  “white-trash studies.”

He hits a few more immigrationist points then concludes that “whiteness” does not exist and consequently cannot end.

It’s a long article and the above only indicates its nasty tone and illogicality. Throughout, Hua Hsu uses his own feelings and desires in choosing whom to interview, and projects his own feelings and desires onto whites of his own fantasy.

The better whites, according to him, are ashamed of being white. Whether Hua Hsu himself takes pride in being Yellow or eats himself up with envy and regret is hard to say. In any event, like John Yoo ( Yu Choon), author of the infamous DOJ memorandum justifying government torture, and Viet Dinh, chief architect of the so-called Patriot Act, he is an immigrant we could have done without.

Hua Hsu has good will toward his fellow man so long as the man is either non-white or if white hates himself. Should, per Tim Wise, whites disappear, the circle of Hua Hsu’s disaffection will likely expand to all non-Chinese. Such an attitude may be natural, but why import such as him to harass us?

Most of the separate organizations promoting Hispanics, Asians and Blacks [10]  have the same outlook as Hua Hsu and for now unite against whites. They promote, along with their own group, all other non-whites. When Obama was first elected President the feature story of Starlight Multicultural Magazine – actually a tabloid – was “Multicultural Community: The changing face of America.” The cover showed a photo of Obama lit to look as dark as possible. The article inside, by a Ms. Trujillo, appeared in duplicate, English on the left (reading in places like a Google translation) and Spanish on the right. The “great historic moment” of Obama’s election “called our attention that his wife chose two dresses designed by foreigners,” a Cuban and an Asian. “The census of the United States predicts that after 2010, the diversity of the population will increase to up to 80% and it is growing six times faster than the general population.” The author’s statistics might be off but her hopes are clear.

We continue our slumming among immigration enthusiasts by quoting a penitent, the British journalist Peter Hitchens. The U.K. has inflicted upon herself the same immigration disaster that the U.S. has – or rather that the U.S. government and associated “elites” have upon the populace. In a partly misguided article dated 31 March 2013 [11]  claiming that race is not a problem (of course it’s a problem), Mr. Hitchens writes the following confession and words of belated wisdom. (We have silently combined paragraphs, and leave off our external quote marks.)

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities.” If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins. But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as ‘racists’.

What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor? To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as ‘racist’.

It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did. They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists.

I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).

I have seen places that I knew and felt at home in, changed completely in a few short years. I have imagined what it might be like to have grown old while stranded in shabby, narrow streets where my neighbours spoke a different language and I gradually found myself becoming a lonely, shaky voiced stranger in a world I once knew, but which no longer knew me.

... I did and said nothing in defence of those whose lives were turned upside down, without their ever being asked, and who were warned very clearly that, if they complained, they would be despised outcasts.
-oOo-

Over the years Ayn Rand Institute associates have produced articles, videos and podcasts promoting, unstintingly promoting, loudly and self-righteously promoting, amnesty and open immigration. They care nothing for the historic America, and work to destroy what’s left of it behind a cloud of Objectivist verbiage. [12]

Yaron Brook and the late Edward Kennedy stand together on the subject of immigration but are dishonest in different ways. In 1965 Senator Kennedy promoted the Hart-Celler Act promising that it would not change the demography of America. Mr. Brook promotes amnesty / immigration surge claiming that the change – whatever change, he avoids the word “demography” – is culturally and politically irrelevant.

Yaron Brook spoke about this on the Leonard Peikoff podcast 7 Ocbober 2013, responding to the worry that immigrants tend to vote Democratic. (The focus of the discussion was on Hispanics – despite Asians voting Democratic just as much, and Blacks even more – perhaps because Hispanic immigrants are the most numerous.)

“The percentage of immigrants who vote is very low. So very few immigrants actually vote. So the actual impact on electoral politics is probably minor.”
Even if that were true it wouldn’t be true in the long run. His argument seems to be this: Yes it would be bad if lots of immigrants voted, so our defense should be to rely on lots of immigrants never voting.  The tendentious Mr. Brook continues:
“Particularly given that a lot of these Hispanics are in places like California where the Democrats [inaudible].”
This makes no sense whatever he said at the end, lowering his voice. The Hispanics (and Asians, etc.) in California are becoming the Democrats, that is the point. Perhaps he was thinking that California would vote Democratic anyway without immigrants, but that doesn’t change the fact that the immigrants who are there overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  (For example, in the 2012 presidential election, in California the Black, Hispanic, Asian percentages voting for Obama were respectively 96%, 72%, 79%).

At this point in the podcast the moderator interrupts and asks:  What about Eric Holder’s [13]  targeting Texas to try to get more Hispanics to vote?  Mr. Brook, plugging away without hesitation:

“But the interesting thing about Texas is that for example the Hispanics in Texas don’t overwhelmingly vote Democratic because Republicans have not been as hostile as the national party has been to Hispanics, so that they voted dramatically for Bush locally.”
Locally as in governor before 2000? Though he won a high percentage of the Hispanic vote it was still less than 50%. In any case note Mr. Brook’s apparent reasoning:  A Republican’s hostility to Hispanics, and his Democratic opponent’s lack of hostility, justifies Hispanics voting for the Democrat. A politician’s attitude toward Hispanic immigration is all that matters to Hispanics and that is unobjectionable ?

A little hostility goes a long way. In 2012 Hispanics in Texas voted for Obama 70% to 29%. [14]

Mr. Brook then elaborates on the idea that immigrants vote Democratic only because the Republicans treat them badly, though he never tells you what that treatment is (emphasis his, and he was quite emphatic):

“Look, the Republicans in the [2012] primaries were vicious, vicious.  I mean, Muslims they patted on the back, but immigrants, they were vicious towards immigrants, they competed on who could be more vicious towards them, when they’re friendly to everybody else.”
Apparently giving speeches in Spanish wasn’t enough. (And apparently Reagan’s blanket amnesty of 1986 is long forgotten.) In any case, members of “La Raza” etc. and those who support them deserve to be treated like the traitors they are.

Mr. Brook’s motivation is clear. He wants more immigration and to get it he will utter anything with the outward trappings of an argument to try to ensnare your mind, the truth go hang.

Yaron Brook is president of what ought to be called a branch of the Treason Lobby, because what he and the others at ARI are advocating – Third World immigration – is destroying any hope of turning the country around politically. Statistically and overwhelmingly, Third World immigrants, and non-whites in general, will not vote for a libertarian-type candidate. ARI writers can spout individual exceptions until they’re black in the face, the final tally is all that matters. Among these people the socialist wins.

Mr. Brook made the statements quoted above in a discussion or debate with Leonard Peikoff, moderated by Amy Peikoff. (Mr. Peikoff had once been for open boarders but briefly modified his views as far as America today is concerned.) Though Mr. Peikoff made some good points in the debate, which covered two podcasts (7 & 14 October 2013), eventually he admitted that in his argument against immigration today he wasn’t sure of his facts and conclusions.

Mr. Peikoff however was sure of one thing. He said repeatedly that he would be for open immigration if only America were a free country. That gives away the farm. Even if America were a free country (no welfare, food stamps, EITC, etc), it would still be swamped and ruined by the immigration we have had since Hart-Celler.

Another ARI member outspoken in promoting open immigration is Harry Binswanger. Writing on the Forbes magazine website, next to a picture of the Statue of Liberty: [15]

“Immigrants are a natural constituency for the Republican Party. Yes, the Republican Party ... ”
Well no, overwhelmingly not the Republican party.  Mr. Binswanger continues:
“... because foreigners come here to participate in the American dream.”
Unfortunately for this rationalistic argument, far more often than not the foreigner’s dream is a socialist one. Though he might come here to escape the consequence of socialism, namely poverty, typically either he fails to understand the cause-effect relation and even though he is productive votes socialist,  or – and frequently – he is a looter on the receiving end of socialism, and votes socialist.

In any case, Third World foreigners ought to work to change their own country and make their own dream. Their influx is slowly turning America into a nightmare, enabled by the likes of Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook and the others at ARI.

-oOo-

When dozens of Jewish groups who signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress demanding amnesty, [16]  a like number of mostly Catholic groups who did the same, [17]  when businessmen plugged into the receiving end of the welfare state, when employers unable or unwilling to pay higher wages, along with every leftist who ever breathed, are promoting something and ARI promotes it too, you have to wonder if ARI is on your side. Though the coincidence doesn’t prove ARI is wrong, it’s ample reason to suspect it.

In our articles about U.S. foreign policy and related domestic policy we have often pointed out that the people at ARI act like neoconservatives. ARI’s advocacy of open borders is another example. Neoconservatives generally (there are exceptions) favor open borders. Still, in this case the neoconservative label doesn’t quite get at the essence. A more focused description is that ARI writers are Cultural Leftists – they promote leftist culture without the leftist economics. [18]  And since culture trumps economics, eventually we will get both.

Yaron Brook revealed another instance of ARI’s Cultural Leftism in a talk published 27 January 2014, again in Leonard Peikoff’s series of podcasts. When asked if there was anything he didn’t like about the Tea Party, he replied yes, then criticized them for, among other things, violating individual liberty and civil rights with “their arguments against gays.” Now the only position the Tea Party has ever expressed about “gays” is that they – the Tea Party – oppose “gay marriage.”  You can draw your own conclusion. [19]

The conclusion isn’t left to your imagination in “Gay Marriage Must Win Through Appeals to Freedom, Not Equality” which appeared in the Spring 2014 edition of ARI’s undergraduate newspaper The Undercurrent.  The article begins:

“The proponents of legalizing same-sex marriage should congratulate themselves on a number of victories in recent years. The fact that some 17 US states now allow gay marriage – and laws banning gay marriage have been challenged by courts in 7 additional states – is making a real difference in people’s lives on a day-to-day basis.”
Above this is a photograph of a cheering crowd and two tuxedoed men, carnations in their buttonholes, marching toward the camera, holding hands. This is what organized Objectivism has come to:  invade the world, invite the world, and promoting queers.

ARI managed to pocket two balls with one cue stroke by endorsing Jason Hill, a homosexual Jamaican immigrant. See  The Ascension of Jason Hill  on this website.

ARI on Immigration  lists the immigration articles by ARI writers.




1  “The Age of Envy” Part II, The Objectivist, August 1971. At the time Ayn Rand applied this idea to “hippies.”

2  What is in quote marks is a reference to a poem by Bertolt Brecht titled “Die Lösung” – “The Solution.” On the 17th of June 1953 East Germans rose up against their Communist oppressors and rioted in the streets. In response the Writers Union, which acted as a propaganda organ of the East German government, distributed leaflets proclaiming, not that the government had forfeited the confidence of the people, but rather “the people had forfeited the confidence of the government.” And that the people might win back the government’s confidence by “redoubling their efforts.”

The quotes are from Bertolt Brecht’s description of the leaflets in “The Solution” written around this time. The poem ends with a wry remark mocking the rôle reversal of people and government:
“Would it not be easier ... for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”
Peter Brimelow noted the relevance of Brecht’s poem to today’s immigration disaster in his book Alien Nation.  The full poem can be read at
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung

Alien Nation was first published by Random House in 1995 then despite excellent sales was inexplicably allowed to languish. A second edition with a new introduction was self-published in 2013, available from Amazon:
www.amazon.com/Alien-Nation-Americas-Immigration-Disaster-ebook/dp/B00BHNCGCE
Here is the C-Span Booknotes author interview with Brian Lamb, 11 June 1995:
www.booknotes.org/Watch/65259-1/Peter-Brimelow.aspx

3  More from this section of the Horror File:
“... we are becoming the first universal nation in history ... If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
— Ben Wattenberg, The Good News is the Bad News is Wrong (1984).

“We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
— Noel Ignatiev, American History professor at the Massachusetts College of Art, and John Garvey, promoting the Boasian fiction that whites are a fiction, there is no such thing as race. (Approvingly quoted in “Abolish the White Race” Harvard Magazine September-October 2002.)

“De-Confederatizing [that is, removing confederate flags and monuments from] the United States won’t end white supremacy [code for what’s left of historic America], but it will be a momentous step in that direction.”
— James W. Loewen, among other things, according to his website, “an expert witness in more than 50 civil rights, voting rights, and employment cases” – in other words a cog in, and profiteer of, the police state apparatus. The quote is from “Why Do People Believe Myths about the Confederacy?” from his blog, July 1, 2015.

“Kill white folks and they pay you for it?  What’s not to like?”
— Line from the movie Django Unchanged produced by The Weinstein Company (Harvey Weinstein), written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. The line is said by the character Django, a black presented as a heroic figure.
This film is one of several anti-white “snuff films” in which angry non-whites righteously slaughter whites. I’ve only read about these movies. Besides Django Unchained (2012) other examples include  Machete (2010 produced by Robert Rodriguez, Elizabeth Avellan and Rick Schwartz), Birth of a Nation glorifying Nat Turner (2016 Nate Parker),  Get Out (2017 Jordan Peele).

“# kill all white men”
— hashtag used on Twitter in 2015 by Bahar Mustafa, welfare and diversity officer employed by the student union at Goldsmiths University, London. (The student union is independent of the school.)

“Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks. [Goes on to mention a Kurdish community, interracial couples and their children, Latinos in the classroom, etc.] So people are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country ... .”
— Barack Obama on January 23, 2015 when a Vox interviewer asked about polls indicating that on racial issues the nation is splitting along party lines.

“... to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.”  Students taking the course will “endeavor to make whiteness strange.”  Students must “interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.”
— Professor’s Rachel Sanders, Portland State University, in the course description for “White Privilege.”

“When I first joined the Libertarian party, two things stood out very starkly. One, 75% of you are men. Number two, 99.8% of you are white. Shame on you. Shame on you. [Approving noises and clapping from audience.] And shame on me for never having mentioned it before.”
— John McAfee, the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential candidate at his concession speech.

“I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.”
— Charles Murray, of all people, co-author of The Bell Curve, virtue signaling in NRO December 12, 2006.

“Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be [German] majorities in our city. ... We will live in a city that thrives on having many different ethnicities. We will have plenty of people and live in a ‘supercultural’ society. This is what we will have in the future. And I want to make it very clear, [here becomes very intense] especially towards those right-wingers: This is a good thing.”
— Stefanie von Berg, leftist and member of the Green Party, in an address to the city council of Hamburg (translated from the Germany, c. November 2015)

“... Not only our Muslim communities but African communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities, and the wave still continues. It’s not gonna stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things I think we can be most proud of. ... An unrelenting stream of immigration. Non stop, non stop. Folks ... who are Caucasian of European descent for the first time, in 2017 [sic, more like 2040 unless something is done], will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing, that’s a source of our strength.”
— Joe Biden speaking at a State Department luncheon June 30, 2015. Transcribed from a video recording.

“All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.
“To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”
— George Ciccariello-Maher, professor at Drexel University, Tweets, the first on Christmas eve 2016 and the second on Christmas day. The university condemned the comments in a news release. In 2014 Ciccariello-Maher published a paper titled “So Much the Worse for the Whites: Dialectics of the Haitian Revolution.”

“I don’t think it’s evil.”
“We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”
— The first remark is by Don Lemon, a black CNN host, commenting (January 4, 2016) on the kidnap and beating of a random white. The perpetrators were four blacks, who on the video of their victim, which they broadcast over Facebook Live, are heard saying “[expletive] white people.”  The second remark is by one of Lemon’s guests, Symone Sanders, a black “Democratic strategist” and former national press secretary for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Setting aside the phony concept of “hate crime,” apparently only whites can commit one.

“His fear is justified. We will bury him.”
— Lawrence Chua, an oriental from Singapore, in a review of Peter Brimelow’s book Alien Nation in which Brimelow points out that if not checked the Third World immigrant flood will swamp whites demographically. The review, “The Closing of the American Mind,” appeared in the Village Voice April 1995.

“What happens when the white guys are back in charge”
— title of a negative CNN article by Jill Filipovic (May 6, 2017) about Congress scrapping Obamacare. “Were there more people of color in the Republican Congress, one imagines this bill wouldn’t be so devastating to the poor ... .”

“New Study Group:  Meeting racism, sexism, and white male privilege ... This is a group where those who most often exhibit racist and sexist behavior – white males – can begin to be self-critical of the very dangerous, brutal and depraved hierarchical pathologies of superiority, supremacy, and inferiority handed down to us by white Euro-American institutions.
“The main topic for discussion will be an ongoing one: How do we deal with the depravity of whiteness and the brutality of masculinity?”
— Prof. Maggie Reitz-Wells, St. John’s College in Santa Fe, in an email sent to all students and faculty (apparently with the approval of Assistant Dean Jan Arsenault), January 30, 2017.

“Her characters are white, and her world is white. What do you do with that?’ ”
— Prof. Juliette Wells, English Department at Goucher College, about teaching the novels of Jane Austen to substantially multiracial classes. Quoted in a NYT article of March 20, 2017.

“Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women ..., et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history ...”
— Susan Sontag, Partisan Review, Winter 1967.

And you thought you were a nice guy.

4  In the 2008 presidential election the Republican would have done better had it not been for public reaction against Bush and the Iraq War, which repelled many from voting for a Republican. And again in 2012 the Republican would have done better had there been a real difference between the party platforms, which that year were even more alike than usual (the GOP roundly rejected Ron Paul’s bid for the nomination). If the Republican party ever fields a reasonable candidate, doubtless among whites that candidate will do even better against the Democrat than in past years.

5  Since Mr. Peikoff gets quite exercised over Evangelicals in his DIM Hypothesis, believing that unless stopped they will erect a totalitarian theocratic state, here is the voting breakdown by religion (Protestant/Christian excludes Catholic, Evangelical is in parenthesis to indicate it is part of Protestant/Christian):
2008Dem.  Rep.                 
Prot./Christ. 45 54
( Evangelical       24 74 )
Catholic 54 45
Jewish 78 21
2012Dem.  Rep.                 
Prot./Christ. 43 56
( Evangelical       21 78 )
Catholic 50 48
Jewish 69 30
2016Dem.  Rep.                 
Prot./Christ. 37 60
( Evangelical       61 81 )
Catholic 45 52
Jewish 71 24
An Evangelical coup d’état is like global warming: any day now.

Mr. Peikoff also claims that the U.S. would have been better off if the Germans (for the most part Lutheran, included in Protestant) had been kept out of the country. That sauce, if appropriate at all, would have been more so for the gander.

Getting back to Evangelicals, despite the voting pattern of individuals, the leaders of Evangelical groups (organized groups, not just groups defined by being Evangelical) are just as much for unrestricted immigration as Catholic and Jewish groups even if not as well financed and influential, so don’t look for salvation there.  See
“Catholics, Evangelicals Team Up Against House GOP on Immigration”
by Suzanne Gamboa, NBC News, February 26 2014
www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/catholics-evangelicals-team-against-house-gop-immigration-n39296
and
“Pass Immigration Reform This Year, Catholic and Evangelical Leaders Ask Congress”
by Napp Nazworth, The Christian Post, February 27, 2014
www.christianpost.com/news/pass-immigration-reform-this-year-catholic-and-evangelical-leaders-ask-congress-115291

See also our critique of Mr. Peikoff’s understanding of Evangelicals in:  Presidential Election 2004 – DIM Hypothesis .

6  “Dem Strategists: Obama bungled 2010”  by David Catanese, Politico.com, November 18, 2010.  The bungling is about the Democrats having lost many Congressional seats in the midterm elections.

Here is Howard Dean during an NPR interview August 15, 2008 when he was chairman of the Democratic National Committee:
“The demographic trends favor the Democrats because we are an inclusive, accepting party. And if you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, than in the [laughs] Republican Party ...”
(“Howard Dean Accidentally Calls the Republican Party the ‘White’ Party” ABC News, August 16, 2008)

In a speech Sen. Charles Schumer (D. NY) gave January 23, 2014 he spoke of the Tea Party’s (and by implication anyone’s) opposition to such changes as the browning of America:
“Tea Party adherents see an America that’s not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it.
...
“Yes, things have changed. White Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running the country anymore. President Obama lost the white male vote 35%-62%, yet he recaptured the presidency ... And more profoundly, only 1 in 10 GOP voters were non-white.

“... this fear of a changing America helps explain ... why so many on the right vehemently opposed the Senate immigration bill [Schumer goes on to lie about how conservative the bill is]. ... the Tea Party rank and file know it’s a different America. It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”
Schumer understands that politics has become a racial conflict in which whites are losing, and clearly their losing is what he wants.

Here is Harold Meyerson, another Tim Wise type who hates America’s past and the whites who made it, writing in 2008 (“Economy? What Economy?” Washington Post September 3, 2008):
“In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly – un-Americanly – white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power.”

7  The following bon mot is usually attributed to the mass murderer Leon Trotsky, referring to the Russian Revolution:
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
But apparently he never said it:
www.en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky

8  Oddly enough Hua Hsu’s article is reprinted in Best African American Essays, 2010, edited by Gerald Early. Either hatred of whites transcends black solidarity or the editor was really hard up for essays.

9  We point out above the same correction to Clinton as Buchanan does in Death of the West.

Ilana Mercer’s review of Buchanan’s book:
“The Sequel to ‘Suicide of A Superpower’ 
www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=625

About the Clinton quote, in both Hua Hsu’s article and Buchanan’s book the last two sentences are not in the document released by the White House. Perhaps they were last minute additions.

10  For example, the National Council de La Raza – now calling itself UnidosUS – is focused on Hispanics. It receives millions of dollars in U.S. government grants each year and supports “reconquista” by immigration.

11  “How I am partly to blame for Mass Immigration”  by Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday 31 March 2013 and Mail Online the next day.

See also Nicholas Pringle’s, The Unknown Warriors, reviewed in:
 ‘This isn’t the Britain we fought for’, say the ‘unknown warriors’ of WWII”
by Tony Rennell, Mail Online, 21 November 2009
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html
The relevant parts can be read  here .

Kevin MacDonald criticizes parts of Hitchens’s article above in
“Peter Hitchens’s Show of Guilt: Enoch Powell Was Right”
The Occidental Observer  April 10, 2013
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/peter-hitchenss-show-of-guilt
That article references:
 ‘Like the Roman’: Enoch Powell and English Immigration Law”
by Ciarán J. Burke, Amsterdam Law Forum (VU University Amsterdam)  Fall 2008
ojs.ubvu.vu.nl/alf/article/view/50/65

12  Misters Binswanger and Brook advocated open borders in articles and podcasts during the debate over the Senate version of the Rubio-Schumer et al amnesty / immigration surge bill in 2013. Eventually the bill passed the Senate, but died in the House. You can be sure it will be back in a new dress and (we predict) ARI will be out there with parallel propaganda.

After the Rubio-Schumer bill’s defeat, President Obama began an “administrative amnesty” – amnesty by executive order – without a peep of protest from anyone at ARI.

On November 20, 2014 Obama announced what had been forecast and discussed in the news for several weeks: a massive, in-your-face unconstitutional, amnesty of five million illegal aliens (which after family reunification will quickly swell to several times that number).

The same day Obama made his announcement ARI published a blog post by Don Watkins titled “The Garden of Eden Premise.” Mr. Watkins begins by commenting on an “interesting” book – published several years before – that he’d been thumbing through:  “It really captured what I think is one of the most notable and admirable characteristics of immigrants to this country: how many of them come expecting to work for a better life. They value freedom, not because it makes life easy, but because it makes success possible.” He goes on to say that some of them “work their way to prosperity. They don’t expect to be given anything – not a job, an education, a business loan, or even a guarantee that hard work will bring them success. All they ask for, and all they need, if for no one to stop them.”

The operative word is “some.” Deaf and blind to the voting records we present above, Mr. Watkins provides no statistics to back up his insinuation that such immigrants are examples of a trend rather than unusual exceptions. And considering the timing of his post he is making another insinuation:  “Don’t worry about Obama’s immigration anarchy, it brings in millions of Objectivists.”

Obama knew better:  It brings in millions of socialists. For this executive order alone Obama ought to have been impeached.

Mr. Watkins is the author of a book whose title is a play on “Obamacare”: RooseveltCare: How Social Security is Sabotaging the Land of Self-Reliance. He could – but doubtless won’t – write another book: The Hart-Celler Act: How Third World Immigration is Sabotaging the Possibility of Repealing AnyGovernmentCare.

13  Eric Holder was the U.S. Attorney General appointed by Obama – non-white, a proponent of hate crime legislation, supports the so-called Civil Rights Act when used against whites, complicit in the Justice Department’s gun running operation called “Fast and Furious” which armed Mexican drug cartels.

14  “New Poll: How Texas Latino and New Citizen Voters Influenced the 2012 Election” from “America’s Voice” (the “new” America’s), 8 November 2012.

A Pew Research poll in 2013 asked the question “Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?”
“Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project” Figure 4.2
www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/04/2012-phc-identity-24.png
Some of the results:
First generation immigrant Hispanics:81% bigger
Adult children of immigrant Hispanics: 72% bigger
All Hispanics (immigrant and non-immigrant):75% bigger
Entire U.S. population (including Asians, Blacks, Hispanics):  41% bigger
Despite some immigrants responding “smaller,” the total is what matters. Immigration makes the last percentage get larger and larger.  “Don’t bother to examine a folly – ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

The choice “more services” is somewhat vague so consider the particular case of healthcare. According to a Pew Research Center and USA Today survey conducted September 2013,  61% of Hispanics approve of Obamacare, contrasted with 29% of whites.  (“Obamacare’s Latino Push May Give Democrats Political Edge” by Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg.)

In the Washington Post editorial “The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable” subtitled “Just look at the demographics” (October 19, 2015) UCLA professor Adam Winkler writes:
“The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane.”
...
“Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin ... . Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.

“... Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

“Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

“... Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”
...
“... the heart of the organization’s [NRA’s] power is the voters it can turn out to vote, and they are likely to decline in number. Unless the organization begins to soften its no-compromises stance on gun safety legislation, it’s likely to become increasingly marginalized in a changing America.”

15  “Let’s Call The Democrats’ Bluff On Immigration”  Forbes 10 December 2013
In this article Mr. Bingswanger suggests that the U.S. “Expand immigration without citizenship.” and see how it goes.  “Ultimately, there should be completely open borders ... But a compromise is acceptable, if it’s a step in the right direction ... .”  Nowhere in the article does he mention these quasi-immigrants returning home.  (After the do-gooders get done in the courts they will be immigrants with citizenship.)

16  “Jewish Groups Push for Immigration Reform on Passover Eve”
www.forward.com/news/breaking-news/173720/jewish-groups-push-for-immigration-reform-on-passo
Drafted, organized and circulated by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society:
www.hias.org
They try to fool you by putting what they want, your dispossession, in moral terms.

17  For Catholic groups see for example:
“U.S. Bishops’ Migration Chairman Urges President Obama and Congress to Enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 13, 2012
www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-196.cfm
Jesuit:
“Society of Jesus Calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
Jesuit Conference, May 13, 2013
www.jesuit.org/press-detail?TN=NEWS-20130715092802
For Evangelical see footnote 5.

18  Instead of “Cultural Leftists” other commentators usually use the term “Cultural Marxists.” It is as vague as neoconservatism, a constellation of ideas rather than an integrated system. It’s associated with the Frankfurt School which worked to undermine Western institutions by inculcating pathological self-criticism. A history of the Frankfurt School at the Marxists Internet Archive:
www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school

19  I have to put “gay” in quotes. The word ought to mean happy and carefree, like Fred Astaire.

Which reminds me of a long moment at the supermarket recently which illustrates what Cultural Leftism is doing to America. While in the checkout line, Third World immigrants – some with progeny in tow – to the left and right, I chanced to see what I usually automatically blank out, the cover of one of those vulgar national tabloids. The top inch or so was hidden by something overhanging it. I saw no title or text, just the picture that was the front page, a striking color photograph of the effervescent Shirley Temple as a child. And in a moment I knew why that picture was there without reading anything.  1928 – 2014.

I have no opinion of “Leave It to Beaver” and the other shows the disgusting Tim Wise sneers at, but growing up I enjoyed the Shirley Temple movies on TV.  It was a sad moment at the supermarket, and sad to think of such as her being replaced by, to be objective, those having a far different standard of physical beauty than mine, and an average IQ below average. Two extremes: beauty and genius on the one hand, ugliness and, for the most part, stupidity displacing it.