White Environmentalism

Rolling Green Hills

Credit Image: © Mint Images/ZUMA Wire

It’s clear that the environmentalism and loving “the great outdoors” are Stuff White People Like. Every year there are articles complaining how few “people of color” went to America’s national parks, and a Green party is represented in most European parliaments. Something appeals to our people about protecting the natural world and keeping it healthy for generations to come.

There’s a catch: The Left has been allowed nearly to monopolize this issue. Except for the occasional conservative who cites Theodore Roosevelt, the Right makes little effort to join forces with environmentalism. This is an unfortunate legacy of how conservatism fought the Cold War. As a “big tent” coalition against communism or anything that smelled of it, the Right stood against the hippies and their Marxist professors, their pacifism, and their flower power. It saw protesting over the environment as the work of left-wing rabble. But that doesn’t mean the issue is one of the Left. No one on the political spectrum can escape questions of energy and environment.

Conservatives oppose environmentalism because protective regulations cut profits and distort markets. They require a bigger, more intrusive government, which makes the capitalist wing of the anti-communist coalition scream. But so too does Trump’s pro-white populism, and without it there could not have been a Republican president.

Conservatism, as expressed through the Republican party, is overwhelmingly a white cause, and this is being recognized more broadly. President Trump won the election largely because he flipped Rust Belt states with above average white populations. Environmentalism should likewise be embraced as a conservative, nationalist, populist cause. While the hotbeds of liberalism are all in that Clinton Archipelago of mostly coastal cities, conservatives tend to live in the suburbs and in the rural interior. These typically white voters are literally closer to the environment than much of the Democrat base. There’s something ironic about the inhabitants of dirty, crowded, diverse, liberal cities being the most prominent voices in environmentalism.

Preserving the beauty of the land is not an inherently liberal cause. The health of the environment is closer to conservative and nationalist Republicans than to liberal Democrats, who can’t see anything green unless they drive for an hour into the countryside—which is populated with people they loathe anyway. For whom do they wish to save this environment? Trump Republicans should embrace environmentalism, not only to broaden the voter base, but because it is good, nationalist and conservative policy.

It shouldn’t be a hard sell, either. There is a nationalist-conservative tradition of men like Theodore Roosevelt, who thought overhunting would despoil the land. Today, overdevelopment and pollution are the major threats. Our natural commons needs stewardship; it needs future-oriented management to ensure it will still be there for our descendants.

Theodore Roosevelt at Union Station, Washington DC, May 1914 (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Theodore Roosevelt at Union Station, Washington DC, May 1914 (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Environmentalism can also appeal to Christian conservatives, since the Bible enjoins the faithful to be stewards of creation. Looking after the environment is thus traditional in a religious and a Republican sense.

Real conservatism—or conservation—requires taking care of something that will bear fruit long after you are gone. Anyone who just wants to collect rents, dispense spoils, and live off the accumulated capital of past generations is a wastrel, not a conservative. If we treat the land we’ve inherited like a savings account rather than a checking account, then we will be able to pass it on to our posterity. We should treat the environment just as we treat our racial and genetic heritage: as a treasure for all future generations.

Any opposition would probably come only from the purely capitalism-minded, deregulatory wing of conservatism. But should we really ignore the impact of business on the environment just so private companies can make a quick buck? Is that America First? Is that good for the white interior? Is that good for these Trump voters who live closer to the environment than the liberal urbanites, who are just virtue signaling about places they have no connection with? These are important questions for conservatives and nationalists.

Today, environmentalism suffers both from a lack of support from the Right and from its marriage to the Left. Despite their professed “green” policies, liberals are often strongly in favor of mass immigration. Because immigration inflates the population with no regard for its equilibrium with the environment, it is probably one of the least “green” of all policies. Adding millions of non-native people year after year has a terrible effect on water and energy usage, waste disposal, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, etc. Silicon Valley companies may make their headquarters energy efficient, but the California created by the Democrats they donate to will be an energy nightmare. Liberals are too committed to Big Diversity to be proper stewards of the environment. Environmentalism has no future in the hands of the Left.

Left-environmentalism also opposes nuclear power even though it is probably one of the greenest alternatives we have that isn’t dependent on favorable weather. Nuclear plants produce essentially no greenhouse gas, and nuclear power is a more efficient than burning fossil fuels. Its only major drawbacks are waste management and security—but the power grid should be secure anyway.

We must find ways to be efficient without being filthy. We are already halfway there; just compare China’s industry-driven toxic smog with our government-mandated automobile fuel efficiency standards. What good is accomplished by fighting for our nation if we destroy our lands and rely on non-renewable and polluting energy? If we aren’t facing the future, in which direction shall we face?

Unlike conservatives, nationalists and populists must offer a true embrace of, well, conservation. Focusing only on the economy or the Constitution while neglecting demographics and the environment is a failure to embrace the real challenges of our times. We have already gone through a phase of reckless pollution and exploitation. There are parts of Britain that never recovered from the Industrial Revolution. The same is true for parts of the American rust belt.

Today we have new opportunities to redefine energy policy, protect our national interests, and be stewards of our country in every sense so that posterity may reap what we have sown. We must seize these opportunities.

America Discovers Poor Whites

J. D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, Harper Collins, 2016, $27.99.

This book was written before working-class Rust Belt whites handed the presidency to Donald Trump, but the widespread interest it has attracted—along with White Trash by Nancy Isenberg—may be due in part to that sudden reminder of the continuing importance of this long-despised class of Americans.

Continue reading

Coming of Age, Then and Now

In many primitive cultures, tradition has dictated that young men, soon after reaching puberty, undergo various tests of courage and fortitude before they could be considered full-fledged adults.

Young boys of the Satere-Mawe tribe in the Brazilian Amazon mark their 13th birthdays by putting their hands into specially woven gloves containing hordes of fiercely stinging bullet ants. They must keep their hands in the glove for ten minutes at a time without crying out, and must undergo this 20 times over the course of several months.

In Vanuatu, young men must prove their manhood by jumping off a 98-foot tower with only two bungee-like vines attached to their ankles to break their fall. For the jump to be considered a success, their heads must actually touch the ground before they are yanked back upward by the vines.

The Masai of Kenya and Tanzania get circumcised at puberty, but must not flinch during the procedure, or they will bring shame upon their families.

In ancient Sparta, when a boy turned 18, he had to go into the countryside, armed with only a knife, and kill as many state-owned slaves (helots) as he could.

The Mandan Indian tribe of North America would pierce a young man’s chest, shoulder, and back muscles with wooden splints, then lift him by ropes attached to those splints. Crying out during this ordeal was forbidden. After the young man lost consciousness, he would be lowered to the ground again, and subsequently had to present his left hand for his pinkie to be chopped off.

The Fula tribe of West Africa would introduce their boys to manhood with a whipping duel, in which the boy who took the most punishment the most stoically was judged to be the winner.

There have been many similarrituals the world over, too many to list. All present a stark contrast to the current coming of age ritual in our country.

At age 18, many young people are herded off to college, where, in order to be accepted, they must demonstrate that they are so incredibly sensitive, and have such exquisitely refined sensibilities, that they cannot bear to hear any offensive truths.

And if you should be exposed to any harsh truths, you must flinch and yell and cry as much as possible. He who can take the least pain/reality, wins.

I’m glad I didn’t have to grow up in one of those primitive cultures and undergo one of those excruciating rituals.

I’m also glad I’m not going to college today.

Not Building the Wall IS a Government Shutdown

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall?

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown.

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.

The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending ourborders — not Ukraine’s borders.

Building a wall is not only Trump’s constitutional duty, but it’s also massively popular.

Although Trump doesn’t need congressional approval for a wall, it was smart for him to demand a vote. Let the Democrats run for re-election on opposing the wall.

Let Sen. Claire McCaskill explain to the parents of kids killed by illegals that she thought a wall was inhumane.

Let Sen. Angus King say to the people of Maine that instead of a wall that would block heroin from pouring into our country, he thought a better plan was to sponsor a bunch of treatment centers for after your kid is already addicted.

Let Sen. Chuck Schumer tell us why it’s OK for Israel to have a wall, but not us.

Let open borders Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio tell African-Americans that it’s more important to help illegal aliens than to help black American teenagers, currently suffering a crippling unemployment rate.

Republicans are both corrupt and stupid, so it’s hard to tell which one animates their opposition to the wall. But the Democrats are bluffing. They’re trying to get the GOP to fold before they show us their pair of threes.

Now that Trump has capitulated on even asking for funding for a wall, the Democrats are on their knees saying, “Thank you, God! Thank you, God!”

No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn’t build the wall.

Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn’t build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he’s not running for re-election.

The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, “We are so impressed with his growth in office, we’re going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!”

No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.

No one voted for Trump because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build “a big beautiful wall.” And who’s going to pay for it? MEXICO!

You can’t say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.

Do not imagine that a Trump double-cross on the wall will not destroy the Republican Party. Oh, we’ll get them back. No, you won’t. Trump wasn’t a distraction: He was the last chance to save the GOP.

Millions of Americans who hadn’t voted in 30 years came out in 2016 to vote for Trump. If he betrays them, they’ll say, “You see? I told you. They’re all crooks.”

No excuses will work. No fiery denunciations of the courts, the Democrats or La Raza will win them back, even if Trump comes up with demeaning Twitter names for them.

It would be an epic betrayal — worse than Bush betraying voters on “no new taxes.” Worse than LBJ escalating the Vietnam War. There would be nothing like it in the history of politics.

He’s the commander in chief! He said he’d build a wall. If he can’t do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Is Macron the EU’s Last Best Hope?

Emmanuel Macron

Emmanuel Macron (Credit Image: © Visual via ZUMA Press)

For the French establishment, Sunday’s presidential election came close to a near-death experience. As the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, it was a “damn near-run thing.”

Neither candidate of the two major parties that have ruled France since Charles De Gaulle even made it into the runoff, an astonishing repudiation of France’s national elite.

Marine Le Pen of the National Front ran second with 21.5 percent of the vote. Emmanuel Macron of the new party En Marche! won 23.8 percent.

Macron is a heavy favorite on May 7. The Republicans’ Francois Fillon, who got 20 percent, and the Socialists’ Benoit Hamon, who got less than 7 percent, both have urged their supporters to save France by backing Macron.

Ominously for U.S. ties, 61 percent of French voters chose Le Pen, Fillon or radical Socialist Jean-Luc Melenchon. All favor looser ties to America and repairing relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Le Pen has a mountain to climb to win, but she is clearly the favorite of the president of Russia, and perhaps of the president of the United States. Last week, Donald Trump volunteered:

“She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France. … Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.”

As an indicator of historic trends in France, Le Pen seems likely to win twice the 18 percent her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, won in 2002, when he lost in the runoff to Jacques Chirac.

The campaign between now and May 7, however, could make the Trump-Clinton race look like an altarpiece of democratic decorum.

Not only are the differences between the candidates stark, Le Pen has every incentive to attack to solidify her base and lay down a predicate for the future failure of a Macron government.

And Macron is vulnerable. He won because he is fresh, young, 39, and appealed to French youth as the anti-Le Pen. A personification of Robert Redford in “The Candidate.”

But he has no established party behind him to take over the government, and he is an ex-Rothschild banker in a populist environment where bankers are as welcome as hedge-fund managers at a Bernie Sanders rally.

He is a pro-EU, open-borders transnationalist who welcomes new immigrants and suggests that acts of Islamist terrorism may be the price France must pay for a multiethnic and multicultural society.

Macron was for a year economic minister to President Francois Hollande who has presided over a 10 percent unemployment rate and a growth rate that is among the most anemic in the entire European Union.

He is offering corporate tax cuts and a reduction in the size of a government that consumes 56 percent of GDP, and presents himself as the “president of patriots to face the threat of nationalists.”

His campaign is as much “us vs. them” as Le Pen’s.

And elite enthusiasm for Macron seems less rooted in any anticipation of future greatness than in the desperate hope he can save the French establishment from the dreaded prospect of Marine.

But if Macron is the present, who owns the future?

Across Europe, as in France, center-left and center-right parties that have been on the scene since World War II appear to be emptying out like dying churches. The enthusiasm and energy seem to be in the new parties of left and right, of secessionism and nationalism.

The problem for those who believe the populist movements of Europe have passed their apogee, with losses in Holland, Austria and, soon, France, that the fever has broken, is that the causes of the discontent that spawned these parties are growing stronger.

What are those causes?

A growing desire by peoples everywhere to reclaim their national sovereignty and identity, and remain who they are. And the threats to ethnic and national identity are not receding, but growing.

The tide of refugees from the Middle East and Africa has not abated. Weekly, we read of hundreds drowning in sunken boats that tried to reach Europe. Thousands make it. But the assimilation of Third World peoples in Europe is not proceeding. It seems to have halted.

Second-generation Muslims who have lived all their lives in Europe are turning up among the suicide bombers and terrorists.

Fifteen years ago, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Now it is all over the Middle East, as is ISIS, and calls for Islamists in Europe to murder Europeans inundate social media.

As the numbers of native-born Europeans begin to fall, with their anemic fertility rates, will the aging Europeans become more magnanimous toward destitute newcomers who do not speak the national language or assimilate into the national culture, but consume its benefits?

If a referendum were held across Europe today, asking whether the mass migrations from the former colonies of Africa and the Middle East have on balance made Europe a happier and better place to live in in recent decades, what would that secret ballot reveal?

Does Macron really represent the future of France, or is he perhaps one of the last men of yesterday?

Letter from South Africa

Old Map of South Africa

South Africa circa 1905

This note is in reply to F. Roger Devlin’s excellent review of Hermann Giliomee’s history of the Afrikaner people, which was posted yesterday. I know Hermann Giliomee, and we sometimes exchange an email or two.

My criticism of his book is that it is too academic and encyclopedic and does not go to the heart of the problem, which is our struggle with real enemies: avaricious Brits when gold was discovered, then the communists, Soviets, Cubans, the USA under Carter that actively fomented revolution, the Swedish Social Democrats who financed the ANC and the Communist Party, etc.

We also had to fight the liberals in our own ranks: some Afrikaners, but until recently mostly wealthy, decadent English-speakers in Johannesburg and Cape Town who never felt any real patriotism or connection with our country. J.B.M. Hertzog, a fine prime minister from the first half of the 20th century, described them as “foreign fortune-seekers.” These days, of course, many of these people and the media they control have turned virulently anti-white and anti-Afrikaner, and are agitating side by side with ideologically crazed, Marxist blacks to turn South Africa into “just another African country.”

It is easy for Americans to say to us: “Just abandon your country and your stake in it for a new life elsewhere.” But who is to say that our children will not meet the same fate elsewhere as they face white capitulation, expediency, decadence, liberal values, etc.? At least here we still have a proud tradition, and a core of rational people who suffer under this system but do not accept it. Many Europeans who visit South Africa say they feel more at home here than in their own countries, where politically correctness prevents them from expressing their opinions. If you say in Sweden, “I love my country,” you are called a fascist and a Nazi. At least here you can still say that.

Africa is full of blacks who are supported by the West in the form of aid and handouts. They have no military or economic power, and even a small country like Belgium could probably conquer sub-Saharan Africa tomorrow. Most South African blacks are not much of a threat to us either, unless they form looting mobs or gangs which, alas, happens often.

The real danger to us is the ideology of liberalism/Marxism. Someone once said that “Marxism was the bastard child of liberalism,” and he was right. It arms the mob and protects blacks in court if they are ever get caught. So our real enemy is the internationalist whites here who behave exactly like US liberals or European socialists, and believe in a post-racial, “brown” future. Essentially they want us to be physically absorbed by the black population and culturally absorbed by global American culture.

Here in Johannesburg, the English-speaking white teenagers listen to American rap with the most appalling lyrics. They have no identity and are easily manipulated by advertising and the media. I also see many mixed couples among them, and their liberal parents have no objections.

We must take the fight to the white liberals, who are the hidden hand in this whole black revolution slowly destroying the country. If we could get rid of them or neutralize them, we could work out a new dispensation, get more immigrants from Europe, and rebuild ourselves.

But we also need a new history book to replace the one by Hermann Giliomee. A new history would be more concise, and would show the real forces in conflict here. For the first 150 years, Holland could hold off England, but in 1806 the British took over and immediately brought in their “philanthropic” missionaries who turned the administration against the local whites. During the 1980s the Anglican Church funneled Swedish money to the South African Communist Party from a secret office right in St. Paul’s Cathedral. The BBC, Guardian and other media are virulently anti-white—as is the New York Times, of course—but they take a special interest in South Africa to make sure that whites and especially Afrikaners continue on their downward path.

The communists never had any electoral support. Even now the South African Communist Party (SACP) doesn’t even field candidates. Yet they control the ANC, the universities, and most of the media. They conquered the country through terrorism, propaganda, and foreign money from Sweden, the Netherlands, American liberals, and others. Thatcher and Reagan supported us to some extent, but eventually our stupid leaders capitulated under the barrage of hysterical propaganda from the Western media—the same people who hate Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Geert Wilders.

Instead of emigrating, we should persuade the white liberals to emigrate—and then replace them with Europeans and Americans who share our values and ideals. Out of a white population of 4.6 million, there are probably only about 100,000 to 200,000 liberals, but they are very powerful, control vast wealth and many institutions, and are also supported by Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the EU, the US government, and even Russia. Ironically, because Russia backed the ANC and the SACP during the Soviet era, it still clings to its “old friends.”

Five million committed whites could easily take back South Africa, re-order it, and encourage outward emigration of blacks to other African countries. We have a history of good ideas for political solutions. P.W. Botha, prime minister from 1978 to 1984, proposed a quasi-democratic “tricameral parliament,” in which whites had a veto over the other chambers. Botha is nowadays rejected by both liberals and conservatives; the former see him as a “hardline defender of apartheid,” while the latter regard him as a closet liberal and reformer who moved away from strict segregation. Here are some quotations from him that show his true colors:

The people who are opposing the policy of apartheid have not the courage of their convictions. They do not marry non-Europeans.

I am one of those who believe that there is no permanent home for even a section of the Bantu in the white area of South Africa and the destiny of South Africa depends on this essential point. If the principle of permanent residence for the black man in the area of the white is accepted then it is the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it in this country.

Others can be found here.

Botha was no intellectual, but a practical politician and good organizer who built up our military as defense minister. He was a man of integrity who did not capitulate in the face of international pressure, which is why he is hated to this day. I visited him twice before his death in his neat, spacious home on the Southern Cape Coast at Wilderness. He was 90 at the time, still lucid and well spoken, but heartbroken at what had happened after having fought his whole life against black rule.

South Africa was much better off when the world hated us. We don’t need anyone; we grow our own food and meet all our basic needs. Even if we don’t have any foreign currency, we still have billions of dollars worth of minerals underground that we could sell to China or India if the West again tried to boycott us. With more whites—10 million—could dominate all of Africa and once again secure the entire continent’s vast resources.

What we lack now is the will to fight. Just this last weekend hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners streamed to Bloemfontein to listen to an English preacher, Angus Buchan, a charismatic televangelist who prayed that “all the races should unite against evil and corruption.” As if ANC politicians would ever put an end to the corruption that fills their pockets!

In the old days, at the battles of Blood River, Vegkop and others, we prayed and then we fought. Now we just pray, and it is the likes of Angus Buchan who pray for us. Like whites everywhere, we must fight.

Who Will Take Care of You When You’re Old?

Assisted Living Center

Credit Image: Veronika Lukasova/ZUMAPRESS.com

Home Instead Senior Care is a company that sends caregivers to private homes to help look after elderly people. In December, 2010, Home Instead paid $150,000 to settle a racial bias suit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC claimed that two Home Instead offices in Maryland used a method of coding called “circle dots” to identify clients who preferred white caregivers. Speaking for the EEOC, Attorney Debra Lawrence stated, “We brought this lawsuit to remind employers that race-based decision making has no place in the modern workplace.”

Clients were not telling Home Instead whom they could hire. They were simply expressing a desire to be looked after by white people.

The elderly population is increasing. According to the Census Bureau, the population of US adults over age 65 will double from 40 million today to 80 million by 2050. Eighty percent of those 80 million people will be white, and they will probably not be able to decide who will be coming into their homes to take care of them during what may be the most vulnerable period in their lives.

Oldest Living Couple

Credit Image: © Michael S. Wirtz/TNS/ZUMAPRESS.com

I have several years of experience as an in-home caregiver and have monitored the care of clients in assisted living facilities. I have seen first-hand the challenges old people face, and I’m worried about the lack of control elderly white Americans have over who looks after them.

When I arrive in a home, there is a care plan for the client listing medications, allergies and general notes for the caregiver. In many cases, the care plan may read “no black caregivers” or “no African American caregivers or client will be afraid and lock herself in the bathroom” or “client does not want anyone who does not speak English.”

Preferences of this kind are not made public; only the family, the agency, and the caregiver are likely to know. In my experience, it is not uncommon for whites to ask that they be looked after by whites, and the agency will generally try to honor that request—and keep quiet about it. A problem can arise if there are simply no whites available for the assignment.

While I understand employers cannot discriminate in hiring, I don’t want my grandmother or anyone’s elderly relative hiding in the bathroom. Can an agency like Home Instead dictate to people whom they can and cannot have in their own homes? Must the rights of privacy and home ownership be sacrificed to political correctness?

An agency will let you choose the sex of your caregiver. If you need someone who seeks Spanish, the agency will try to make an accommodation. If the client is from Jamaica and would prefer someone from the same culture, the agency will also try to make an accommodation.

Do people of other races express a preference for caregivers of their same race? I don’t know. I have worked with only a few Asian or Hispanic clients and no blacks. This may have been the luck of the draw or because non-whites frequently ask for same-race caregivers, in which case I would not be sent to their homes.

From the caregiver’s perspective, if a black family would rather have a black caregiver, I would understand. If a Hispanic family wanted someone fluent in Spanish, I would respect that decision. I doubt many caregivers would take offense or call the EEOC.

Recently I had a conversation with the owner of a home healthcare agency who said, “I wish we could tell people they have to accept whoever we send, and they can’t discriminate by telling us we can’t send black or Hispanic people.”

For a moment I forgot I was talking to my boss and blurted out, “You can’t tell people who they can and cannot have in their own homes. A lot of these people have never had a black or Hispanic person in their home. They’re in a vulnerable state and the last thing they want is anyone they feel they can’t trust taking care of them.”

Her reply was, “We can’t discriminate in our hiring so we’ll tell them they can’t discriminate or they can’t work with us. That generation has to get over it.”

Get over it? Yes, I’m sure someone in the beginning stages of dementia or in the end stages of Alzheimer’s disease will get over it with no trouble.

Old Folks Home

Credit Image: © Diedra Laird/MCT/ZUMAPRESS.com

I believe the majority of caregivers who work in homes and in assisted living facilities are well-trained, competent, caring people. And I want to believe caregivers will always act in their client’s best interest. However, there is unease and outright animosity between the races, and I worry about what this will mean for millions of Americans who need care.

The solution is simple: Let elderly Americans—even white people—choose the people who look after them. Let them choose without interference from the home healthcare agency, the EEOC or anyone else. The transition from being independent to being cared for is never easy, but it will be easier if we accept individual choices rather than challenge them.

Why the H-1B Visa Racket Should Be Abolished, Not Reformed

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban (Credit Image: TechCrunch/Wikimedia)

Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can’t go unchallenged.

Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You’ll see why.

First, let’s correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it’s regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a fascistic government-business cartel in operation.

The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.

Here’s how:

Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.

Domestically, the fascistic partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belonging to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire?

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America’s problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.

Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.

Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with “86,320 new residents between April 2015 and 2016, marking the region’s biggest population gain this century, fueled in large part by the region’s technology industry. . . . an average of 236 people are moving to the Seattle area each day,” reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper—in my case, parrot-cage liner—have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to “share” their traffic-jam stories.)

Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban are certainly as detached.

Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds—from the comfort of their monster mansions—these social engineers don’t experience the “environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion”; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe, the increase in traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution, the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported I.T. workers and extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped up waste management and associated seepages.

For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples line up to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our “stupid leaders,” to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)

In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves in to residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.

Alas, since the high-tech traitors can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims—they need not bring in the best.

Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to “search the world for the best applicants,” he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yet more crap.

Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? “Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices,” by the Economist’s accounting.

Overall, the work done by the H1-B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. “Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work,” attest the experts who’ve been studying this intake for years. The master’s degree is the exception within the H1-B visa category.

More significant: THERE IS a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn’t displace ordinary Americans in … 2008:

It’s the O-1 visa.

“Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics,” states the Department of Homeland Security, “means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”

Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.

Theoretically, the H-1B program could be completely abolished and all needed Einsteins imported through the O-1 program.  (Why, even future first ladies would stand a chance under the business category of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating supermodel could certainly qualify.)

Now you understand my disappointment. In his April 18 Executive Order, President Trump promised to merely reform a program that needs abolishing. That is, if “Hire American” means anything to anybody anymore.