Sunday, September 15, 2019

The Principles Of Newspeak.

This is a look into George Orwell's novel 1984, we are living it now and it is only getting worse. Listen now because there is no guarantee how long this information will be available on Blogger as with everything else here. Enjoy.
 
https://ia801503.us.archive.org/5/items/theprinciplesofnewspeak/The%20Principles%20of%20Newspeak.mp3

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Saturday, September 14, 2019

 Nagging Little Voices | From The Provinces


Happy Birthday "Old Man." 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=6_OY6i97Srs

 

Saturday, September 14, 2019


Happy Birthday "Old Man."

Harold Armstead Covington (September 14, 1953 – July 14, 2018)

Friday, September 06, 2019








White-Latino Relations in America’s Southwest: Why a Paradox of Race Relations Is a Sign of Growing Political Polarization

Last year’s midterm election results were hardly unusual for a party holding the presidency. Similar electoral setbacks had occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. But this one was portrayed as if it were somehow unique — an explicit rejection of President Trump’s nationalist and anti-immigration policies.
For some, the electoral losses in Orange County, California were particularly galling. “You want to see the future? Look no further than the demographic death spiral in the place once considered a cornerstone of the party,” wrote one GOP strategist.
In a state that had once launched the careers of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, Republicans had fought the rising tide of demographic change and were crushed, they said. Now the GOP was repeating the same mistake on the national stage.
Such arguments are not new. They have long been a staple of establishment Republicans who support the corporate open borders agenda. They also represent a fundamental misunderstanding what is happening in the American Southwest.
California, New Mexico, and the region’s other states are not trending left solely (or even primarily) because of Republican intransigence on immigration. They are trending left because of larger socioeconomic trends and migratory patterns that may lead to America’s eventual dissolution.
The Southwest Paradox
For any close observer of race relations, the politics of California and the Southwest must be puzzling. Extensive research on the 2016 election found close links between White attitudes toward race and immigration and support for Donald Trump. Other research has found a similar link between these attitudes and greater awareness of demographic change, with close physical proximity to Latinos playing an important contributing role.
Given the breadth of this evidence, recent general election results in America’s Southwest seem incomprehensible. These states — defined for our purposes as including California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — all have large and growing Latino populations, but their White populations have responded not by shifting right, but to the left.

Some observers, such as Ron Unz of The Unz Review, have noted this unexpected trend in race relations and concluded that those who argue that increased diversity will eventually tear the country apart are simply wrong. According to Unz, the Dissident Right has erred by treating White-Latino relations as if they are the same as White-Black relations. There is ample evidence that proximity to Blacks has produced a significant backlash among Whites in places like the old South, but there appears to be less evidence of a similar backlash to Latinos. Unz attributes this difference, at least in part, to lower Latino crime rates and greater mutual understanding once Whites get to know their Latino neighbors better.
“With such a large fraction of our immigrant population living in states displaying such negligible levels of nativist rancor,” he wrote, “the likelihood that today’s immigration controversy at the national level will produce any long-lasting negative consequences seems very low to me.”
Is Unz right? Will America’s Latino population simply follow in the footsteps of previous generations of immigrants by assimilating and contributing to America’s culture and growth? Are the Dissident Right’s fears irrational and unfounded, as the left and corporate elite keep assuring us?
The answer is no. The extensive research on this subject is not wrong. The Southwest Paradox is merely an artifact of larger socioeconomic forces.
Solving the Paradox
To understand why, first consider a related paradox. If one were to closely examine White voting patterns across the United States, it would be natural to assume — consistent with the experimental research — that Whites who live in highly diverse neighborhoods would be more likely to react negatively and become more conservative. But this is not true. Whites who live in diverse neighborhoods are not more conservative than other Whites, they are usually more liberal. The primary reason for this is uncomplicated: White flight.
The research on White flight has shown a common recurring pattern. When minorities first move into a White neighborhood, the reaction among Whites is only mildly negative at first, but after diversity rises above a certain tipping point — believed to be around 25 percent for Latinos — White flight begins in earnest. In general, the Whites who move first are the most ethnocentric and/or most likely to be adversely affected (often families with children). Their departure causes the neighborhood to become less White, which in turn causes more Whites to leave (and others to avoid moving in). This process produces a cascading effect that usually transforms the neighborhood within a few years.
After this process has played out, such neighborhoods will often retain a small White population, but it is usually one that is more tolerant of diversity or more able to protect itself through higher housing prices, gated communities, and private schools. The pattern is similar for Whites in gentrifying urban neighborhoods. In each case, the demographic profile of such Whites is fairly consistent — they tend to be disproportionately liberal, single, and childless. Depending on the neighborhood, they often have higher incomes and are more likely to have a college degree. These are the Whites who are responsible for the seemingly paradoxical result of Whites living in more diverse neighborhoods being more liberal.
The political effects of White flight and gentrification are reasonably well understood, but it is becoming increasingly clear that interstate migration is playing a similar role. This phenomenon was first noted in the popular press by Bill Bishop, author of an influential book on the subject called The Big Sort, which attributed much the nation’s growing political divide to differences in where we choose to live. Although Bishop’s methodology was criticized, his conclusions were substantially confirmed by other academic research. The only real disagreements were not over whether it was happening, but why.
Some, like Richard Florida, have focused on the migratory patterns of college-educated Whites — specifically what he calls the “creative class” — who are disproportionately moving to a select number of cosmopolitan regions and states for economic reasons. Others have cited the departure of more conservative working-class Whites from these same areas, often because of rising costs of living. Still others have highlighted more explicitly political reasons or other lifestyle choices that produce the same net effect.
Whatever the reasons (probably a combination of the above), the resulting demographics look a lot like those produced by White flight. Just like the Whites who live in more diverse neighborhoods, the Whites who live in more cosmopolitan cities and states tend to be more liberal, better educated, less religious, and disproportionately unmarried and childless. Nearly every state in America’s Southwest exhibits these same traits.

These demographic changes have helped nudge southwestern states to the left, but the trend has also been reinforced by another recent political development. The “Great Awokening,” a sharp left turn in the racial attitudes of college-educated White liberals over the past few years, has further accelerated the leftward drift of Whites living in the nation’s more cosmopolitan regions.
Given this increase in White wokeness, a final contributor is noteworthy for its implied hypocrisy. Despite the Southwest’s purported reputation for benign White-Latino relations, these states rank among the most segregated in the country. Racial segregation is growing not just in more conservative places like suburban Dallas, but also liberal cities like Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. According to a study by UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, the two states where Latinos are least likely to attend a majority White public school are liberal New Mexico and California respectively.
The Impact of Latinos on White Voting
Taken together, these trends suggest that the liberalism of America’s Southwest is not due to more amicable relations between its White and Latino populations. Instead, they are the accidental byproduct of larger social factors that have offset and concealed the negative effects.
To confirm this hypothesis, we turn to a large, publicly available survey data set housed at Harvard called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). This survey was administered to over 60,000 individuals in 2016, over half of whom voted and were White. Each survey respondent was also geo-coded, which allows the incorporation of state, county, and local (zip code) variables such as local levels of diversity and other demographics from the Census Bureau.
The full multivariate regression results can be found at the bottom of this article, but the top-line results are straightforward. In general, after controlling for a wide variety of other factors such as gender, marriage, religion, and education, the analysis finds that Whites who live in more diverse states were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, with proximity to Latinos having roughly half the impact of proximity to Blacks. (The effects of living close to Asians and Native Americans were statistically insignificant).
These effects are not uniform, however.  As suggested by similar studies, Whites who live in heavily diverse zip codes (Black or Latino) tend to be more liberal and were thus more likely to vote against Trump. By contrast, Whites who lived outside of heavily Latino neighborhoods, either elsewhere in the same county or the same state, were more conservative and more likely to vote for Trump. These results demonstrate the variable effects of White flight.
Altogether, the combined effects — state, county, and zip code — shifted the White vote toward Trump by about one percent for every 6 percentage points of Latinos in a state’s population. In California, for example, where Latinos comprised 38% of the population in 2016, the model estimates that White Californians shifted right by about 6 percent from where they otherwise would have been based on their education and other demographic factors.
Importantly, however, these are average effects. A more detailed state-level analysis shows that in the Whitest states there were no county or state-level effects. The impact was strictly local, with growing local Latino populations causing Whites to become more conservative, a common pre-White flight result.
At the other end of the demographic spectrum in heavily Latino states, state level pro-Trump effects do not appear until a state’s Latino population approaches 20 percent. They peak at 30 percent (Arizona), and begin to decline after that (Texas, California, and New Mexico). This suggests that states with the largest Latino populations are starting to experience the same liberalizing White flight effects that are found in the nation’s most diverse zip codes.
The analysis also sheds light on why the politics of America’s Southwest are so different from the similarly diverse South. Whites in the South are conservative in part because of the presence of large Black populations, but they are also more conservative because their White populations are much more religiously conservative.
The migration patterns that helped make California and the Southwest more liberal are also having the reverse effect in the South. States like Alabama and Mississippi draw relatively few college-educated White liberals from elsewhere in the country. Unsurprisingly, the few exceptions to this rule (places like Atlanta or North Carolina’s Research Triangle) have politics that more closely resemble the Southwest.
Two Americas
If our analysis stopped here, the conclusions would be only mildly interesting. Yes, the seemingly benign White-Latino race relations in the Southwest are largely illusory, the incidental byproduct of larger interstate migration patterns, but so what? The politics of these states are still trending left, no matter what the cause. How does this change the conclusion that Trumpism is a losing political proposition in the long run?
The answer can be found by stepping back from a narrow examination of trends in the Southwest and instead looking at the nation as a whole. The Whites who flee or avoid moving to these states have not disappeared into the ether. They have simply chosen to live elsewhere and, in the process, made the rest of the nation more conservative.
The following map shows White voting trends from 2000 to 2016, two comparable election years when the GOP won the presidency but narrowly lost the popular vote. As expected, the map shows Whites in the Southwest and on the West Coast trending left over this period. But it also shows Whites in much of the rest of the country shifting to the right. This rightward trend includes the midwestern states that helped elect Donald Trump. It also shows a substantial rightward shift even in the liberal Northeast, where Whites in states like New Jersey, New York, and much of New England have also been moving sharply to the right.

This is a story that one almost never hears from the mainstream media. There are countless articles concern trolling the GOP for its losses in more diverse states like California, but there is almost nothing written about the rightward drift of the rest of White America.
These trends are two sides of the same coin and they point to a very different conclusion. This is not the story of Republicans or the Dissident Right waging a losing demographic battle. It is the story of a nation that is slowly, but inexorably, becoming more divided along racial and geographic lines. (See The Racial Realignment of American Politics).
To anyone even vaguely familiar with the larger literature on ethnic conflict, this pattern is completely predictable. The fact that there is not even a hint of the dangers in the mainstream media despite obvious lessons from conflicts in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur only demonstrates the establishment’s control over the media narrative. The warning lights are flashing red all around us — and we are flying directly into the coming storm.




 

Sunday, August 25, 2019



 Is White Genocide Possible?
Paul Craig Roberts • August 20, 2019



 Image result for white genocide


Readers agree that the demonization of white people is unfair and divisive. Many report that they have experienced reverse discrimination, and they expect discrimination against whites, such as the announced anti-white policy of the New York public school system, to worsen as the media’s demonization of white people escalates. A few readers noted that both the Jewish and Armenian genocides are disputed. They asked if there are any historical episodes of genocides. A few others noted that even when white Americans become a minority, it will be a large and numerous minority and, thus, too numerous for a genocide.
I will address these issues after I walk readers, who never got past my rhetorical title, “Is White Genocide In Our Future,” through my column that provoked their questions. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/08/16/is-white-genocide-in-our-future/
The liberal/progressive/left, media, and Democratic Party have used the El Paso shootings of Hispanic immigrants to brand President Trump and all who voted for him “racist white supremacists.” In other words one instance has been used to write off half of the white American population. My point is that an enormous edifice of hatred has been built on one instance. Suddenly, all mass shooters are racist white supremacists inspired by President Trump despite the Mass Shooting Tracker that shows that mass shooters in 2019 are 51% black, 29% white, and 11% Latino and that few identify as supremacists of any hue. Hah, you say, you haven’t heard about black and Latino mass shooters, only white ones.
If white people are actually supreme and think of themselves in this way, how can university professors call for the eradication of white people and not be denounced for advocating genocide? What do you think would happen to a professor who called for the eradication of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, or homosexuals? It would be hate speech, a hate crime. But calls for eradication of white people are not regarded as extreme. Such calls are not denounced as hate speech and a hate crime. So who is supreme?
Try to imagine the consequences for NBC Universal if its movie, “The Hunt,” about white Trump supporters being hunted and killed for sport was about hunting blacks or Jews, or immigrants, or transgendered for sport. It would be the end of NBC Universal and the producer of the movie.
The point of my article is that the presstitutes and the Democrats are creating another hoax to take the place of the failed Russiagate hoax. The hatred that was directed at Trump and Russians is now directed at Trump and white people. The hatred is so powerful that it has cast aside integrity, facts, caution, evidence, and reason. In a country already fatally divided by Identity Politics, ALL of Trump’s supporters are declared “white nationalist terror supporters . . . and this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.”
If this racist outburst on Twitter by TV host and University of California professor Reza Aslan was against blacks or Jews, he would have been fired and banned from Twitter. But as white people are the target of Aslan’s racism, it is OK for him to be racist. In America today, it is not only permissible but also desirable to spew racial hatred against white people.
Don’t fool yourself. The hatred against white people is real. People claiming to be South African and American blacks sent me emails stating that after all the genocides white people have committed, it was time for white people to experience one of their own.
The New York Times has begun the “1619 Project,” which it intends to take into the school system, that intentionally or unintentionally will pave the road to genocide by demonizing not only white people but all of their accomplishments.
On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times’ employees to refocus the Times’ attack on Trump. Mueller let the paper down. The Times’ spent two years “to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet declared, but it turned out to be a hoax. The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from Trump-Russia to Trump’s racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative.
Of course, if Trump is a racist it means that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet’s view, Americans have always been racist. To establish this narative, the New York Times has launched the “1619 Project,” the purpose of which is “to reframe the country’s history.”
According to the Washington Examiner, “The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It begins with an overview of race in America — ‘Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.’”
The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all sections of the Times — news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project intends to take the “reframing” of the United States into the schools where white Americans are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says “this project takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has shaped their country’s history.” In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery the ONLY explanation of America.
At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times’ employees to refocus the Times’ attack on President Trump, Baquet said: “Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story.”
A Times employee taped the meeting and leaked it. You can read about it here:
The campaign against white people is already underway in the New York School system. The assault on whiteness is now part of official educational policy. In New York City the head of the education department, Richard Carranza, a son of Mexican immigrants, is conducting a campaign against “toxic white supremacy culture.” His training program for teachers identifies objectivity, individualism, belief in meritocracy, and Protestant work ethic as manifestations of white supremacy that have to be rooted out of the education system. Carranza says these white values constitute a deep-rooted bigotry. Carranza dismisses whites, who object to his portrayal of their values as racial biases, as “defensive of white supremacy culture.” To get rid of whiteness, Carranza has fired numerous white education department officials. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/24/whiteness-is-the-new-evil/
Carranza was appointed by the white mayor of New York City. Carranza is still in office with full support from the New York Times and the Democratic Party despite his openly racist policy. What more proof do you need that racism against white people is the official policy of the Democratic Party and the media? How do we understand this? As a psychiatric problem or the consequence of years of falsifying history and teaching lies to people who have been trained not to think?
Does anyone understand the audacity of Carranza’s policy? A third world immigrant openly declares to the white core population of the US that he is using the public school system and their tax dollars to eradicate their culture. Where is the outrage? Are white Americans too intimidated and guilt-ridden to protest?
Genocide is generally associated with physical elimination. But it can also happen by cultural elimination. What is occurring in the New York school system is also occurring in Cambridge University. The British newspaper, The Telegraph, reports that the university has assigned Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) political commissars to white professors and administrators in order to prevent words, concepts, and explanations that institutionalize the “structural racism” of whiteness. That senior scholars at a prestigious university would accept this kind of thought and speech control indicates a complete loss of confidence in their civilization and their scholarship. To all appearances, Cambridge scholars have agreed to hand over the explanation of Western civilization to blacks, Asians, and minority ethnics. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/02/cambridge-university-run-reverse-mentoring-scheme-staff-combat/#
White Americans have no sense of cohesion or unity. They operate against one another. They are not permitted to have white organizations. Blacks can have black organizations. Jews can have Jewish organizations. Women can have organizations, but there is no National Association for the Advancement of White People, no Anti-defamation League for whites, and no White Lobby.
For two decades or longer white people have been undergoing economic genocide. First their manufacturing jobs were offshored to Asia. Then their IT and engineering jobs were given to Indians and Chinese brought in on work visas. The white corporations and their white lobbyists lie to Congress telling the lawmakers that there is an IT and engineering shortage. The lawmakers know it is a lie but understand they must pretend to believe it or forfeit campaign contributions. More white Americans are relegated to the underclass as their careers are given to foreigners on work visas working for one-third less pay. When these dispossessed Americans tried to fight back by electing Trump, who claimed he would bring the jobs home, they were demonized as racist white supremacists. It is difficult not to conclude that white Americans are already history. The President of the United States cannot even enforce the country’s immigration laws without being demonized as a racist white supremacist.
The United States is still a country where the core population remains white, but white people unless they are anti-white do not control the explanations. A small handful controls the explanations, and the explanations are unfavorable for white Americans. This brings us back to readers’ questions: Do genocides occur in history?
Cultural genocide is already underway in the New York school system, Cambridge University, and the New York Times’ 1619 Project. Many people, including Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Orlov, have commented on Western civilization’s loss of confidence. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/07/08/the-western-world-is-finished-over-and-done-with/
As for physical genocides, if we can believe historians, the Romans exterminated the Carthaginians, a powerful military people. In the 6th century Justinian the Great in his reconquest of much of the Western Roman Empire exterminated the Vandals in North Africa and the Goths in Italy, both known for their ability to defeat Roman armies and occupy the territory of Rome. The Soviet communist government exterminated the Cossacks, a warrior class. Mao’s government exterminated Chinese landowners and other “undesirable elements.” The Spanish had their way with the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas, powerful warrior rulers who vastly outnumbered the Spanish colonialists. Lincoln’s Union army exterminated the American Plains Indians. This was the army that allegedly fought to free black slaves. In Africa we have the Rwanda genocide. In South Africa black extremists are calling for the eradication of white South Africans.
There have been plenty of genocides.
When the New York Times reinvents American history, will the Times report the facts that the first slaves in the British colonies were white and that there are more white descendants of slaves in the US today than black descendants of slaves? You can bet your life that the Times will not. It doesn’t fit the agenda.
Why do elite American whites demonize their white fellow citizens? Do they stupidly think that they are exempt from the demonization? Little doubt they are this stupid. If they were to read Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints they would awaken from their delusions.
There is no doubt that today white Americans are intimidated. If a white person stands up for him or herself, it is regarded as proof that they are a white supremacist. A white person is expected to grovel and admit guilt and beg forgiveness or mercy. Seldom do they receive it. I know that white people are intimidated, because some of my friends tell me to shut up. You can’t speak these truths. You will get yourself and your friends in trouble. They seem to think that the way to escape the threat is not to acknowledge it.
So here we have the true picture of the American “white supremacist”: (1) people so afraid that they are pissing in their pants, or (2) insouciant people in total denial that they are under deadly attack and have nowhere to run.
So, the answer to the question is yes, white genocide is possible. Indeed, the preparations are already underway. Depending on where they live, white Americans mainly see white people, and what I have written will seem a fantasy to them, just as Lenin and the Bolsheviks seemed a fantasy to the Russian liberals who overthrew the Tsar. The facts, however, are unfavorable to a demonized white population that is a small percentage of the world’s population. Already in America a person can prove his or her moral superiority by demonizing white people.
When the white population has to turn against itself to survive, death is already upon them.