Category Archives: Multiculturalism

Desperately Seeking Ebonics Experts

Government, Labor, Law, Multiculturalism, Pop-Culture, Race, Racism

It sounds like OUR Myron Pauli, the relative of THAT Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel Prize for Physics, 1945) has had enough of his current position, and the type of federales that come with the job. I got wind (via another very smart man, R. J. Stove) about a job opening with the feds. This is Myron’s opportunity to push boundaries.

As far as Rob could make out, this is serious (i.e. not an ONION satire):

Justice Department Seeks Ebonics Experts.

“Move over Ali G.,” says Rob.

In all seriousness, an Eminem-type federal employee should push this envelope hard and insist that, as an adaptable honky who has mastered the future lingua franca, he ought to have access to this job with all its benefits and fun (talking in tongues? ‘Cmon). The feds can’t discriminate based on race. The job should be open to whites with flare and improvisational abilities (at least that should be the pitch on the resumé).

No Faith In Islam

Barack Obama, Islam, Multiculturalism, Religion, Terrorism

In “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?” I said what is now being restated by the president and reluctantly by everyone one, even by some of the sentimentalists fighting the Mega-Mosque with appeals to emotions: “Restricting acquisitive property rights in a free society should never be entertained.” (It is the proper libertarian position that rights of property subsume freedom of religion. You can’t demand to practice your religion on my property).

Obama reignited the mosque-at-ground-zero debate, which never really died down. A yet another White House event, this time celebrating Ramadan (Bush put on a big bash on Cinco de Mayo; not sure how he celebrated Ramadan), Obama, “expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks.”

“Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.”

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

“But the next day,” reports the Mail Online, “he insisted he had not been commenting on the ‘wisdom’ of placing a mosque in such a symbolic place.”

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida at the weekend, the President said: ‘I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. ‘I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.”

As CNN’s John King reported today, there are other mosques in that radius. The small Muslim community is well-served in Lower Manhattan and the surrounds. He also pointed out that the “not in my backyard” attitude to the erection of mosques is shared across the country. His chorus of Republican and Democrat commentators agreed that what we have here is anti-Muslim bias.

What we have here are people who won’t come out with it. What do I mean by “IT”? I said so in “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”:

“Having examined only their feelings, Americans campaigning against occupiers in-the-making have failed to examine what it is they are really saying and, then, say it out coolly and clearly, and then take cover.

If Christians raised a cathedral at Liberty St. and Church St., most Americans would not mind. If the Hari Krishna set up a place of worship in the vicinity, and bobbed up and down the exact complex in Lower Manhattan, Americans would smile benignly. Ditto if a Jewish tabernacle were to be erected around the corner; this reaction would not have occurred.

It’s in the faith of Islam and its adherents that Americans have no faith.”

“Such pleas [for sensitivity] remind me of the victim impact statement so popular in our Courts. How humiliating and futile is it to plead for contrition from sadists who’ve amply proved they are incapable of such sentiment, and derive sadistic pleasure from watching their victims squirm.”

UPDATED: It Takes An Indian

History, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Nationhood

To tell it like it is. An American Indian. This may be well-ploughed territory to readers of this space, but it can’t be said often enough. “America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” writes David Yeagley at AltRight. “Everyone else is an immigrant. Even the early Celtic add-ons were not part of the foundations. The later Irish Catholic immigrants were most definitely not part of the foundations. The social order, that is, the government of the colonies, and that system which distilled into the Declaration of Independence, was created by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The Constitution of the United States of America is the work of Englishman who separated themselves, by war, from their home country.”

“Modern descendants of the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, etc., are first to declare that America is a nation of immigrants. This is their self-protection. Therefore this is their talking point when it comes to addressing the issue of immigration in general. But their mantra ‘America is a nation of immigrants’ only justifies their own presence here. The fact is, these people are all additions, not founders. All of the early immigrants, besides the Jews, have of course blended themselves into the founding sentiments. It was easier for the Scots than anyone else, because they were ‘British’ anyway.”

***
About left-liberal Jewish strategising, which is no different to the wimpy, lemming’s lunacy evinced by their WASP counterparts, THE BAD EAGLE says the following:

At this point, the argument that other non-WASP groups must be nurtured and honored by the Jew, in order for the Jew to protect himself from persecution, is a dangerous argument, and really ought to be dropped. It invites anti-Americanism. This in turn invites anti-Semitism

The argument is also self-defeating, as I observed in my 2003 “BLAME THE JEWS”:

“MacDonald’s assertion that Jews support open immigration policies so that they can bring about a more diverse society in order to diminish anti-Semitism and promote ‘Jewish ethnic interests’ must be questioned, especially in the post-September 11 world.”

Jews have little to gain by advocating for minority communities with which they haven’t much in common, culturally or socioeconomically, and who are likely to be hostile to them. How does promoting immigration from Muslim countries, for instance, benefit Jewish interests?
Jewish activism, if anything, is self-defeating as a group strategy. The community’s egalitarianism is thus more accurately seen as a function of liberal pathology, the same pathology so many Christian denominations exhibit – they all believe, mistakenly, that they are promoting ‘social justice.’
All in all, the paleoconservatives’ attempts to blame Jews for pervasive gentile madness, such as Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, his lingering presence in Afghanistan, multiculturalism and ‘mass, non-traditional-immigration,’ is too silly to sustain, but, at the same time, a little sinister. (Next, MacDonald will hold Jews responsible for loading the Episcopal Church with homosexuals.)

[SNIP]

If you are interested, David interviewed me a while back, as part of a series of interviews with rightists about “Patriotism, Nationhood, and the American Indian.”

UPDATE (Aug. 15): From “Nation, State & Mass Immigration”:

“To say that America is a ‘nation of immigrants,’” writes commentator Lawrence Auster, “is to imply that there has never been an actual American people apart from immigration.”

It is to put America out of existence as a historically existing nation that immigrants and their children joined by coming here, a country with its own right to exist and to determine its own sovereign destiny—a right that includes the right to permit immigration or not. No patriot, no decent person who loves this country, as distinct from loving some whacked-out, anti-national, leftist idea of this country, would call it a ‘nation of immigrants.’

The people who established the American political order, described by Thomas Jefferson as “a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution … derived from natural right and natural reason,” were overwhelmingly British Christians. America’s Anglo-Saxon historical majority descends not from immigrants, but from English and Scots-Irish colonists. Over to Auster:

The immigrants of the late 19th and 20th centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America ‘a nation of immigrants’ is to suggest that America, prior to the late 19th-century wave of European immigration, was not America.”

Demographic Diversity In Borrowing, Again

Affirmative Action, Business, Economy, Journalism, Multiculturalism, Racism, Regulation

Building On yesteryear’s willful errors, the Orwellian named “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010”—“the 2,300-plus-page conference bill which is designed to protect households from predatory practices by banks, subprime lenders, brokerages and other financial intermediaries”—entrenches yet more affirmative action in lending, the kind that contributed to this depression.

The fecund female who has set-up the same pigment-based privileges that guided state lenders Freddy and Fanny is Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Carl Horowitz’s Townhall column is extremely edifying (this is the kind of comment I will read on Townhall because it does vital shoe-leather journalism. Ditto Malkin’s work; she does the footwork. The punditocracy’s ignorant opinions I don’t bother with):

“… The measure, in addition to giving the U.S. Treasury the authority to liquidate banks that pose a threat to financial stability (a mixed blessing at best), all but exempts lenders from shutdown if black and other minority borrowers account for high portions of their loan portfolios, especially in minority neighborhoods. The bill states: ‘The orderly liquidation plan shall take into account actions to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on low-income, minority or underserved communities affected by the failure of the covered financial company.’ In other words, federal bank examiners should make every effort to keep a failing institution open so long as it underwrites lots of mortgages to the kinds of borrowers instrumental to the disaster in the first place!

There is more. The amended bill would create a Financial Stability Oversight Council headed by the Secretary of the Treasury to consider a struggling financial institution’s ‘importance as a source of credit for low-income, minority or underserved communities’ before any takeover. The measure also would establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion within each of the Treasury Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve System. Rep. Waters’ amendment is explicit: ‘Each agency shall take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workplace of the agency, at all levels of the agency.’

All of this looks like quota legislation, even if Rep. Waters can’t quite bring herself to admit as much. And although these diversity-or-else offices wouldn’t be vested with formal enforcement powers, one can be sure that the Justice Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies with a civil rights mandate will find every pretext possible, however flimsy, to crack down on lenders whose practices create disparate impacts by race.”

MORE.