New York Times Smear Campaign Against Numbers USA and Similar Groups
gold...@nym.hush.com
Elizabeth Wright, Issues & Views—The Blog, February 12, 2009
Who started the lie that the Founders of this nation expended their
energies, in order to create a haven for the rescue of the world’s
displaced populations? Did it come about chiefly from cynical 19th
century industrialists eager only for cheap labor, who sought to
soften their true motives by wrapping them in sentimental bombast?
Was the lie then perpetuated through the fantasies of some early lucky
refugees who found their way to these shores, and who desired to make
the path to the Golden Door easier for their family and kin left
behind?
Or was the lie deliberately concocted by those who despised the
country’s powerful and entrenched establishment, with the expectation
that making mass immigration a national religious mandate might
eventually unglue said establishment?
When restrictive immigration laws were changed in the 1960s, who
expected to benefit most from the mass influx that inevitably would
begin to stream from around the world?
I ask these questions in light of the New York Times’ recent [here and
here and here,] denigrating those Americans who campaign, through
organizations and modest media outlets, to regain control over our
borders, in order to preserve the traditional cultural integrity of
the United States. The Times and its comrades share the presumptuous
notion that the US is the rightful destination of every conceivable
population on earth. They send the word far and wide that, if you’re
hurting in the land of your birth, then you have a right to alleviate
that hurt by transporting yourself to the USA, no matter what stress
is put upon the resources of American citizens.
Thanks to our education system and a century of media propaganda, it
has become a fixed notion that this country, unlike every other on
earth, was put together for the benefit of the world’s faceless
masses. He who desires entrance must merely claim to share certain
ideals, that is, the “propositions” contained in the founding
documents, with a couple of modern axioms thrown in for good measure.
Because of America’s “special” status, there need be no regard for
prevailing social and economic conditions, since the welfare of the
existing population is not as important as that of the prospective
immigrant. After all, America was founded on nothing more than a
bundle of universalist ideas based around themes of freedom; it has no
borders and no heritage.
In an earlier post on this blog, “Farewell to Thomas Jefferson,” I ask
what the likelihood is that any group would form a nation for a people
other than their own kind. Why would these men not desire to retain
the cultural integrity of their lineage? Other than today’s self-
consciously de-racinating whites, what people do not possess this very
preference? Would the Hutu be likely to expend their energies to
develop a society to benefit alien tribes and foreigners? Would the
Tamil? Those who claim that the world has now moved beyond
ethnocentric loyalty, or ought to, might do well to take a look at the
real world.
In that post, I also suggest that the Founders would not be in concert
with the platitudes contained in that mawkish poem that was belatedly
affixed to the base of the Statue of Liberty. Which Founder envisioned
this country’s future in the hands of “huddled masses” from every nook
and cranny of the earth? Certainly not John Jay, who thanked
Providence for giving “this one connected country to one united
people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same
language, professing the same religion, attached to the same
principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”
That doesn’t sound like a proposition to win over the huddled masses
to me. Today, is it unreasonable to assume that, for the sake of
preserving the Anglo-European institutions on which this country was
nurtured, an Anglo-Euro majority should prevail?
The Times’ editorialists do not seem to blush as they pronounce the
outright lie that the United States was “composed of people without
any common national heritage.” How can they attach the reputation of
their once preeminent publication to such a colossal falsehood? Now,
if you’re out to eliminate the Anglo-European cultural make-up of the
US, and are thrilled by the increasingly multiracial polyglot nature
of this society, say so. But don’t fabricate history, in order to
prove that this country was formed in a vacuum by people who shared no
heritage.
One would have thought that coping with the real disabilities of the
descendants of the country’s slaves, as well as accommodating the
Hispanics-Latinos, who had always been a presence, would be enough to
occupy the administrators of an already multiracial nation. To open
the floodgates in the 1960s, ensuring an even greater heterogeneous
influx, would seem an act of folly.
o o o
In its editorials, the Times cavalierly dismisses the impact of these
recent decades of mass immigration on employment. With a wave of the
hand, the editorialists imply that immigration reformers are not
motivated by concern about jobs since, apparently, to the Times, this
is just another “wedge” issue, that is, insignificant.
Blacks have known for some time that their leaders—politicians,
academics, and varieties of “civil rights” bureaucrats—have turned
their backs on the struggle against illegal immigration. The primary
interest of these dignitaries is the protection of their careers and/
or political turf. In Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites, I
outlined the pattern of black leadership organizations (take your
pick) and black politicians (take your pick), who eagerly make
alliances with the elites of other groups, no matter how detrimental
such unions prove to blacks in the long run.
Black politicians like Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and John
Conyers seek only to expand their constituent base. As racial
demographics change in their districts, they frantically scramble to
court and win the confidence of the burgeoning foreigners. The fact
that these foreigners, a great many of them illegal, end up displacing
Americans, frequently poor blacks, in a shrinking job market is of no
concern, either to these representatives of the people, or to the
editorialists at the New York Times.
As more and more Americans find themselves laid off or fired from
stagnating companies, they discover that even the most modest work has
become a scarce commodity. If Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, at a special
hearing, is not moved when a black worker informs her of American
minorities who have been displaced by illegals as roofers, drywallers
and truck drivers, why should the New York Times care?
o o o
The Times has joined the bandwagon of those who smear as “racists” and
“white supremacists” decent Americans who are seeking genuine
solutions to the immigration crisis. Peter Brimelow targets it
exactly. He notes that, since the Democrats are made up of a coalition
of minorities, they “must at all costs prevent America’s majority from
uniting. Hence, the New York Times’ hysteria.” (By the way, the “white
supremacist” tag has now replaced the much over-abused label of
“racist” as the epithet of choice. Watch for it everywhere.)
To the camp followers of the Times, it is imperative to prevent
average white citizens, who are still the majority, from ever uniting
in the name of any cause. Preventing an effective immigration reform
movement is paramount to those who seek to keep this country’s borders
wide open. This is certainly one of the reasons why the editors of the
Times are spending their energies these days castigating three of the
most successful immigration reform organizations—the Federation for
American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies
(CIS), and NumbersUSA. I have followed the outstanding work of each of
these groups since their formation, and have always been impressed by
the respectful manner in which they handle what has become a volatile
subject.
The Times further discredits itself by favorably acknowledging the
biased reports and materials disseminated by the spurious Southern
Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is among a handful of self-appointed
“watchdogs,” a cluster of groups whose creators have mastered the
ability to acquire funding by instilling fear and indignation in the
general public. Besmirching individuals and groups that work to end
illegal immigration as “racists” and “xenophobes,” the SPLC has
diligently set about the task of destroying all proponents of
restrictive immigration laws.
Traveling under the umbrella of “civil rights” or “human rights,”
these “watchdog” groups are represented through a fawning, deferential
media as altruistic protectors of society’s downtrodden. Depicting
themselves as noble champions of “Anti-racism,” they spend a great
deal of time crusading for the expansion of “hate crime” legislation,
that is, laws designed specifically to give government greater control
over Americans’ thoughts and behavior. They have acquired enough
political power to behave as quasi-government agencies, and some
misguided citizens actually believe that these self-appointed
entities, and their executive directors, possess official power.
Two of the major “watchdogs,” the SPLC and the B’nai Brith Anti-
Defamation League, are darlings of the media, because they can be
counted on to provide an endless stream of news fillers. Reporters are
happy to take the easy way out when supposedly covering a story on
race. Just get the press release from the SPLC or ADL on some
particular event or individual, copy what it says and, instantly, you
have a news item to send to your editor. How often have you seen a
news story end with a quote by an SPLC or ADL official denouncing some
individual as a “racist” or “white supremacist?” And we know it’s so,
because the ADL or SPLC says it’s so!
Character assassination is the SPLC’s speciality. Its “link and smear”
tactics are notorious, along with its ever-expanding hit list. Through
insinuations, it will link an individual or group to some other group
or event that is deemed evil by SPLC standards. It then relentlessly
pursues the public destruction of the unfortunate target, all the
while sending out poisonous press releases, that are lapped up and
quoted by an eager, uninquiring media.
If these watchdogs could make the “white supremacist” tag stick to
immigration reform organizations, and could frame their leaders with
some illegal charge, they would then set about stripping these
immigration groups of all their financial resources. Both the ADL and
SPLC have done exactly this to other organizations whose racial
politics were perceived as “incorrect.”
For an in-depth examination of groups like the SPLC, there is nothing
better than Laird Wilcox’s The Watchdogs: A close look at Anti-Racist
“Watchdog” Groups. Wilcox has spent over two decades watching the
watchdogs and compiling detailed information on their strategies and
smear tactics.
o o o
If you have been paying attention, you know that the New York Times,
like all newspapers, is withering away. You also know that, in a
desperate move, its owners recently requested and received a $250
million investment from Mexican businessman Carlos Slim. Some
observers are suggesting that the recent attacks by the Times’
directors on the most high-profile opponents of open borders comes as
partial payment to their Mexican benefactor.
If those New York Times editorials are any barometer, the battle to
resolve this country’s immigration dilemma is going to be an even
longer, more acrimonious one.
Original article
(Posted on February 13, 2009)
f. barnes
wrote:
Of course it does. But fortunately the NY Times is withering away.
johnny@.
Thanks for the article. Elizabeth Wright is brilliant!
I bookmarked the page and will return to it often.
AnAmericanCitizen
The various smear campaigns by the New York Times and other newspapers have finally
caught up with them. Their employee numbers and the content in their product are
being diminished almost daily......AAC