With all the chatter about the Alt Right that came up in last year’s election season, Jared Taylor has been doing some interviews recently. The interviewer—this one, for example—generally opens by asking: “What is your organization, this American Renaissance, all about? What do you stand for?”
This morning in my neighborhood I saw four blonde girls whom I think were sisters: They looked alike, there seemed to be a one- to two-year gap between their ages, and they had been shopping for groceries. They were greeted by a fifth girl, also blonde, who was walking a dog. All five then continued in the direction of a nearby where houses sell for around $400,000, the only neighborhood for miles around in which such a group could possibly live. In the city where I live, I have never seen a group of four blond girls—probably siblings—on a public thoroughfare here.
We have written frequently about the European “migrant crisis” of 2015: its origins, how the media misrepresent it, and why it is such a threat to Europe. We have profiled the keys personalities, from Angela Merkel, to Geert Wilders, to Viktor Orban, and reviewed several books about different aspects of the crisis. We have also published accounts of how sevral countries are handling the crisis (Italy, Russia, Poland, France), and covered the terrorist attacks this invasion has brought. We have also written about the organizations that have taken a stand to fight for Europe.
Here are some of the most memorable photos of the crisis from the last two years.
Did we back the wrong candidate in France? Is Emmanuel Macron—dare I say it—“our guy”?
Bret Stephens, the newest token “rightist” at the New York Times, sparked outrage across the Right last month with a column called, “Only Mass Deportations Can Save America.” He wrote about American citizens who have children out of wedlock, are dependent on welfare, don’t have jobs, and commit crime, and argued that they should be deported—not the allegedly hardworking, upstanding Catholics pouring in across our southern border.
As Steve Sailer noted, if you didn’t know better, you would think Mr. Stephens was complaining about blacks, who have the highest rates of criminality, bastardy, and welfare use. Alas, Mr. Stephens was clearly talking about poor whites in Appalachia and the Rust Belt, a group that he, like all “Never Trump” Republicans, despises. Indeed, if the New York Times editors had the slightest suspicion that Mr. Stephens was talking about blacks, they would not have published the column.
The most prestigious newspaper in the country thinks it’s fine to “joke” about deporting citizens they don’t like. It also publish opinion pieces by illegal aliens demanding we let them stay.
This column was repugnant enough, but Mr. Stevens wrote a piece two weeks earlier that makes it even worse. In a column on the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, he wrote solemnly of Israel’s courage, and the importance of its victory. Savaging Israel’s critics, Mr. Stephens wrote, “For the crime of self-preservation, Israel remains a nation unforgiven.”
In a void, I take no issue with this. I harbor no animus towards Israel. It is a distinct nation, with a distinct people, culture, religion, language, etc. that it is determined to preserve. I admire that. I would rather live in Israel than in any of its antagonistic neighbors. Israel is at a civilizational level well above that of the Arab world surrounding it. I do not begrudge Israel actions it finds necessary for survival.
Mr. Stephens does not apply the same logic to the United States. In fact, he applies the reverse logic. His column on “deportations” assumed that America is just an economic zone, with no people, culture, religion, or language to preserve. If “citizens” of this country are not productive enough, they should be replaced with more productive imports. But Mr. Stephens would never accept this purely economic view of Israelis. Israel has surprisingly high levels of corruption for a developed country. Why not deport corrupt Israelis and replace them with people from less corrupt nations such as Japan, Uruguay, or the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Stephens, I am confident, would not consider this even as a joke. Corruption is bad, but Israel with corruption is still Israel. Israel with no corruption, but composed of equal parts Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, and Japanese, is not Israel; it’s just an economy.
The same is true of the United States. America has always been a white country. It was founded by whites for whites. That history is utterly unambiguous. When America stops being white, it loses its essence, something intangible but vital. On some level, Mr. Stephens probably knows this. I suspect that when he chooses his co-workers, friends, and neighbors they are a ratio of white-to-non-white similar to America as a whole—America of the 1950s.
Since Mr. Stephens wants to preserve the essence of Israel, why does he not want to preserve the essence of his own country?
He calls himself a “conservative” but what does he want to conserve? Certainly not the founding stock nor the Europeans who came later. Our culture, language, religion, values and essence arise from a certain people. That is true of every country—certainly of Israel—as Mr. Stephens would surely agree.
For America, Mr. Stephens wants to “conserve” abstractions such as free markets and civility in the media. An issue of strange importance to him is stopping government intervention intended to slow climate change. A question for Mr. Stephens: Would he prefer an Israel that adopted his laissez faire approach to climate change—but was 60 percent Hispanic—or a majority-Jewish Israel that meddled in the economy to slow global warming? We know which he would choose, and he is not wrong for making that choice.
Mr. Stephens puts the essence of Israel ahead of everything else, as he should. Why can’t he treat America with the same respect?
At the G-20 in Hamburg, it is said, President Trump was isolated, without support from the other G-20 members, especially on climate change and trade.
Perhaps so. But the crucial question is not whether Trump is alone, but whether he is right. Has Trump read the crisis of the West correctly? Are his warnings valid? Is not the Obama-Merkel vision of a New World Order a utopian fantasy?
At the monument to the patriots of the Warsaw Uprising, Trump cited Poland as exemplar of how a great people behaves in a true national crisis.
Calling the Polish people “the soul of Europe,” he related how, in the Miracle of the Vistula in 1920, Poland, reborn after 12 decades of subjugation, drove back the invading Red Army of Leon Trotsky.
He described the gang rape of Poland by Nazis and Soviets after the Hitler-Stalin pact. He cited the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps by Stalin, and the rising of the Polish people against their Nazi occupiers in 1944, as the vulturous legions of Stalin watched from the safe side of the river.
When the Polish Pope, John Paul II, celebrated his first Mass in Victory Square in 1979, said Trump, “a million Polish men, women and children raised their voices in a single prayer. . . . ‘We want God.’ . . . Every Communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down.” And so it did.
The crisis of the West today, said Trump, is akin to what Poland faced. For it is about the survival of a civilization, rooted in Christianity, that has made the greatest of all contributions to the ascent of man.
What enabled the Poles to endure was an unshakable belief in and a willingness to fight for who they were — a people of God and country, faith, families, and freedom — with the courage and will to preserve a nation built on the truths of their ancient tribe and Catholic traditions.
Given the threats to the West, from within and without, said Trump, we need such a spirit now. What are those threats?
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?
“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”
Trump professed confidence in the West’s will to survive. But whether the West still has the character seems an open question.
Across the West, the traditional family has been collapsing for decades. Not one European nation has a birth rate that will enable its people to survive many more generations. Uninvited migrants in the millions have poured in — are pouring in — from Africa and the Middle East. The elite of Europe have been gladly surrendering their national sovereignties to transnational institutions like the EU.
Christianity is more of a dying than a thriving faith on the Old Continent. And as the churches empty out, the mosques are going up. Before our eyes, the West is being remade.
In June, gays and lesbians celebrated in Berlin as the German Parliament voted to approve same-sex marriage.
In Moscow, from May to July, a million Russians stood in lines a mile long to view and venerate a relic of the 4th-century bishop, St. Nicholas, on display in a glass case in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, rebuilt under President Putin.
Liberated from Leninism, Russia returns to the old faith, as Germany returns to Weimar.
At that G-20 gathering in Hamburg, hundreds of criminal thugs went on a three-day rampage — rioting, burning, looting and battling police, some 300 of whom were injured.
Were the autocrats of the G-20 — Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Narendra Modi of India — impressed with the resolute response of Angela Merkel — the media-designated new “Leader of the West” — to mobs rioting in Germany’s second city?
At Harvard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described what was on display in Hamburg: “A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. . . . Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite.”
Secularist and hedonist, New Europe worships at the altars of mammon. Handel’s “Messiah” cannot compete with moonwalking Michael Jackson’s “We are the World.”
Once Europe went out to convert, colonize and Christianize the world. Now the grandchildren of the colonized peoples come to Europe to demand their share of their inheritance from a West besotted with guilt over its past sins that cannot say “No!”
Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017, 343 pp., $23.40.
This is an important book. Something remarkable has happened when a prominent British author and associate editor of The Spectator begins a volume with these words: “Europe is committing suicide.” On the first page, Douglas Murray explains that this is suicide by immigration and that “by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.” Few authors express so passionate a love Europe or such a keen sense of what could be lost. Perhaps none has so ably described the lies, cowardice, self-loathing, and lassitude that have set calamity in motion.
Tribalist and masculinist Jack Donovan has written a thoughtful critique of white nationalism and the white nationalist movement called “Why I Am Not a White Nationalist.” He is a fellow traveler of the movement—he’s spoken at American Renaissance, Counter-Currents, and National Policy Institute events—so he can’t be accused of ignorance. Indeed, many of his criticisms are on the mark. Some, though, are aimed at only a fringe of the movement, while others fail to consider the existential plight our race faces.
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.
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.
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.
In celebration of Earth Day this Saturday, let’s review how the Sierra Club sold its soul and screwed the Earth for a $100 million donation. They must hate themselves for it, so why shouldn’t we hate them, too?
After Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act began dumping millions of Third-Worlders on the country, the Sierra Club talked of little else besides reducing immigration.
In 1970, the club adopted a resolution complaining that the country’s growing population was polluting the “air, water and land” — to the point that “our very survival (is) threatened.”
In 1978, the Sierra Club adopted a resolution urging Congress to “conduct a thorough examination of U.S. immigration laws,” noting that the United States, Canada and Australia were the only countries admitting “more than a handful of permanent immigrants.”
In 1980, the club dropped its promotion of birth control, in order to focus on immigration. “It is obvious,” the club said, “that the numbers of immigrants the United States accepts affects our population size and growth rate,” even more than “the number of children per family.”
In 1989, the club’s Population Report expressly called for reducing the number of immigrants.
In 1990, the club’s grassroots leaders voted overwhelmingly to launch a major national campaign on the immigration problem.
Even people who don’t live in yurts can’t help but notice the environmental damage being done by hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans clamoring across the border every year, setting fires, dumping litter, spray-painting gang signs in our parks and defacing ancient Indian petroglyphs.
The problem isn’t just the number of people traipsing through our wilderness areas; it’s that primitive societies have no concept of “litter.” That’s a quirk of prosperous societies. The damage to our parks shows these cultural differences.
Writing in an environmental journal at New York University, Rosa P. Oakes described the “reprehensible” damage being done to “towering cactus, Joshua trees, flowering cactus varieties, colorful wildflowers and rock formations” by illegals. With accompanying photos, she noted that the immigrants’ litter included “abandoned vehicles … used needles, drug paraphernalia, plastic grocery bags, paper products, empty water containers, blankets, clothing, used disposable diapers, among other things.”
The Mexican cultural trait of littering is apparently well known to everyone — except American journalists.
As usual, when it comes to anything that reflects negatively on Third World immigrants, you have to be Agatha Christie to get at the truth. If the media can hide Hispanic child rape, it’s child’s play for them to ignore the Hispanic littering problem.
The best way to find out about garbage being dumped all over by our vibrant recent immigrants is to look at local news stories from any town that contains a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Here are three from last year:
Local politicians in heavily Hispanic Allentown, Pennsylvania, wanted to suck up to their constituents by renaming Seventh Street “Calle Siete.” Then it turned out that the Hispanic merchants on “Calle Siete” had no interest in this idea. Their No. 1 issue? Litter.
Dorcas Derivera, an immigrant from Guatemala, said in perfect English that if politicians wanted to do something useful, they would deal with the litter problem on Seventh Street, which she said she must pick up from the sidewalk before clients arrive.
“It’s embarrassing,” she told a local newspaper. “How am I going to do business?”
Also last year, in a classic MSM Hide-the-Mexican story, there were media reports of “racist” graffiti targeting “Hispanics and African-Americans” in San Leandro, California’s Marina Park. Obviously, graffiti directed at “Hispanics and African-Americans” could only have been left by one of those white supremacist gangs so prevalent on “Law and Order”!
Nope. It was Mexicans, again: The Nortenos, a Mexican gang. By “Hispanics,” the media meant “Hispanics other than the ones doing the graffiti.”
Then last October, the parks and recreation department in Decatur, Alabama, was again forced to remove goals from the soccer field because of the mountains of garbage routinely left behind. In the past decade, the soccer games had become “an increasingly popular social event among the Hispanic community.”
Would any of this be of interest to an alleged environmental group? It used to be — until the early 2000s.
That was when the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum in exchange for never opposing immigration again. The club said, How dare you ask us to abandon our principles for filthy lucre!
Just kidding! It said, SURE! Did you bring the check?
Mass Third World immigration is a triple whammy for the environment because:
1) Millions more people are tromping through our country;
2) The new people do not share Americans’ love of nature and cleanliness; and
3) We’re not allowed to criticize them.
One big advantage of taking white Western European immigrants is that we’re permitted to complain about their grating cultural habits without being accused of “racism.” (Also, there aren’t that many of them.)
The Sierra Club didn’t anticipate the PC reasons for preferring non-Third World immigrants, but simply wanted to stop so many people pouring into our country and stepping on the flowers. Which is why the club used to be nearly monomaniacally focused on reducing immigration.
By now, it’s been a quarter-century since the Sierra Club cared about the environment. As is the fate of most groups that stick around long enough, today it’s just another left-wing, hate-America interest group. Unfortunately, among the things the Sierra Club hates about America are its rivers, mountains, hiking trails, parks and wildlife.
Give me your tired, your poor, your empties and pizza boxes, your Cheetos bags, your soiled diapers and abandoned couches …
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION