Japan celebrates non-diversity

In case you missed it, I recommend Takuan Seiyo's fascinating "Astarte and Amaterasu — The Diverging Destinies of Europe and Japan" at Brussels Journal. (Part One here; Part Two here.)

Seiyo tries to answer the question of why these two civilizations have responded so differently to aspects of the modern world, especially mass migration and the pressure to dissolve the indigenous culture in a multi-national soup.

Inconveniences and differences notwithstanding, there is one overwhelming blessing that makes me glad to be in Japan. It's the daily experience of living in a country that, unlike Western Europe, and increasingly the United States, does not actively pursue it's own extinction.

I am a European. Ich kann nicht anders. Europe had left my parents long before they left it almost 50 years ago, so now I am a Euro-American and I take this distinction seriously. Still, I don't feel the religious impulse except in a church that's at least 300 years old; and it's only European music that penetrates to my soul, and only European languages in which I can express what I hold dearest, and only European artifacts that satisfy my love of beauty and craftsmanship. Well, not quite – Japanese artifacts do that too.

But Europe is my Beatrice: a pure vision of the past with little resemblance to what she is now. The real, contemporary Beatrice does presume to tread the path, like Dante Alighieri's muse, from Purgatory to Heaven, but the Compass of Reality shows that the path in fact leads in the opposite direction: back to Virgil's guided tour of Hell. This is a Beatrice with a bipolar personality disorder, self-inflicted cicatrices, labial and nasal rings and tattooed breasts, sporting combat boots and a black leather suit with a Palestinian terrorist's kaffiyeh wrapped around her studded dog collar, with a book of onanistic gibberish by an Althusser or Bataille or Foucault in one hand, and a Quranic whip for self-flagellation in the other.

Japan, he argues, has its own social ills, but they don't include inviting non-Japanese populations to come in and take over like the bikers did to the town in The Wild Ones. Nor are they going to dilute their national sovereignty because borders are so 19th century, so un-progressive.

I've read several blog postings and comments lately trying to diagnose why European nations, or at least their rulers and intelligentsia, are culturally suicidal. One popular explanation is the trauma that settled in following two horrendous world wars, or as some historians say, one with a 20-year intermission. The psychological damage is easy to understand, especially for Germany, France, and Britain, which lost huge numbers of people and suffered devastation from air raids and combat.

According to this theory, there was a tendency to blame nationalism for the disaster, and see the cure in erasing boundaries and growing a multi-national Great Brain to replace petty squabbling governments. And a lingering guilt for the atrocities committed during the war, particularly in Germany of course, but even in Britain for bombing non-military targets like Dresden or inflicting dreadful civilian casualties such as in Hamburg.

But it's too glib an explanation. The Soviet Union lost some 10 million soldiers killed, along with 14 to 17 million civilians, about 14 percent of the pre-war population (equivalent to a loss of 42 million in today's U.S.) — simply staggering, beyond conception for most of us. Yet the Soviet Union, needless to say, remained fiercely patriotic or nationalistic (take your pick) during the Cold War, and its constituent nations and the newly independent nations that devolved from it remain completely uninterested in being absorbed in an international, multi-cultural blob.

The same for Japan. While not as much of the homeland was trashed as in Europe, raids in 1945 on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki attracted some notice. The Japanese armed forces were shredded, the country experienced an unquestionable defeat, and it was ruled by American occupation forces for several years after the war.

Yet, according to Seiyo and other sources, that has not made the Japanese ashamed to be Japanese, although they have every right to feel as guilty as Germans for their conduct in the '30s and '40s. For that matter, Russians have as much reason to loathe the memory of their leaders in the Stalinist era.

Every country, like every person, has events in its past that should cause remorse. But a continuous history is one of the ways that the mistakes of the past can contribute to avoiding them in the future. Respect for human rights and property, the rule of law, and many other benefits of a civilized society didn't spring up spontaneously. They are the fruit of bitter experience.

When you cut the mystic chords of memory you cut out the roots of a civilization. And you can't just replace them with a cultural mish-mash and a Universal Declaration of Rights or sententious propositions. When the local and particular is replaced by a centralized bureaucratic state, it doesn't change the facts of human nature or insure that oil and water will mix. Just because different cultures mingle within the former boundaries of nations can't make them live harmoniously together. Apparently the Japanese understand as much.

Seiyo writes:

Japan … has been preparing for a future with a smaller and older population. Instead of importing Asian nurses, Japan has developed robots that care for hospital patients, or it exports its old and infirm to the countries where the nurses are. Instead of importing window and wall washers, it has developed nano-polymers that repel dust and dirt. Instead of importing street sweepers, it has mobilized retired volunteers to maintain the cleanliness of their own neighborhoods. Instead of opening its doors to primitives who happen to be refugees, Japan donates huge sums of money to refugee organizations.

So that's how. But why do they feel no apparent need to apologize for what the bien-pensants of the Western world would call xenophobia? Whatever it is, I wish we could import some, and Europe needs a transfusion.

New York to America: Drop Dead

The Empire State Building, a couple of miles from Ground Zero,
lit up to celebrate the Muslim holiday Eid.

Not even a direct attack to its own heart by devotees of a fanatical politico-religious cult can stay New Yorkers from their precious multi-culturalism.

Next time I hope the suicide bombers sink the whole bloody island.

I don't mean that. Not quite. Not yet.

Nonperforming SEAL

The Times did not allow me to "have my say" by printing my comment concerning this article, in which the author, Magnus Linklater, explains that trainee gangsters in British schools can be lured back to the straight and narrow by "an imaginative curriculum – the kind that gives every child a sense of self-worth and an opportunity to join in, rather than an arid exercise in exam passing."

Such as? Such as:

I spent an enthralling afternoon at Dog Kennel Hill School, then a struggling primary in an unpromising part of Southwark in South London, where the majority of pupils did not speak English as their first language and where there had been a history of truanting, ill-discipline and rock-bottom academic standards.

It did, however, have one advantage. It was within striking distance of various art institutions, notably the Globe Theatre, which its headmistress, Pat Boyer, roped in to help the school to stage its plays. When I visited, they had just finished presenting The Merchant of Venice on the Globe stage, to a rapt audience who could not believe that the bad boys of the neighbourhood had been transformed into Antonios, Bassanos and Lorenzos. I was introduced to a Moroccan boy called Ahmed. He was tiny and he had learning difficulties. But he had just experienced the greatest day of his life by standing triumphantly on a London stage receiving the wild applause of his peers. “This is the Duke of Venice,” said Ms Boyer. “He speaks three languages: Arabic, English – and Shakespeare.” Ahmed beamed happily.

Something tells me they didn't put on Othello.

The article actually begins promisingly, with a few digs at the notion that a debased and criminally inclined youth culture can be made good by "teaching happiness, wellbeing and good manners to secondary school pupils" through a "programme known as 'Seal' — social and emotional aspects of learning — which has been a success in primary schools and is said to help academic performance and instil discipline by teaching children to understand their emotions."

Melanie Phillips, in an article of her own in the Daily Mail, begs to differ:

But now — surprise, surprise — a new report suggests that the SEAL programme may instead leave children depressed and self-obsessed. Drawing on the findings of more than 20 international academic studies, it says there is little evidence that the programme produces any long-term improvement in emotional well-being or academic success and may lead to psychological problems instead.

Meanwhile, turning education into a branch of therapy like this hugely increases state control over children’s lives. For with children’s capacity to learn and develop in a healthy way having been destroyed, armies of professionals then decide that they alone can give it to them.

Not even the American educational bureaucracy, as flaming loony as it is, would inflict a program like SEAL on helpless schoolkids — or if it did, parent groups and politicians would slap it down. The U.K., however, which in my very own lifetime was widely considered buttoned-down, conservative, and commonsense driven, is now straining at the leash to adopt every desperate scheme imported from the moon's backside to try to restore order in its anarchic social environment.

There are still times when I think I'm going to wake up and be grateful that I was only dreaming all this.

The gist of my unpublished letter to The Times was that, while it's fine and dandy to involve schoolchildren in Shakespeare performances, the notion that this would engage their nascent creativity so much that they'd start reciting soliloquies and forget to murder their chums like the unfortunate 11-year-old Rhys Jones, is (in Orwell's famous formulation) so ridiculous that only an intellectual could believe it. Or a journalist.

The reason The Times felt my letter was too far beyond the pale to print, I assume, was because I suggested that the cause of Britain's mean streets was at its most basic a failed policy: multi-culturalism, rammed down the country's gullet by several generations of mostly Labour politicians. Leftist Utopians don't care about the actual, real-world results of their fantasy governing principles, or if they care, they blame the results on someone or something else. The idea is what matters for them.

How did anyone expect benefits from ripping apart the social and ethnic fabric of a nation, rooted in a thousand years of history, in a couple of decades through unconstrained immigration of people with utterly different traditions, languages, and values? Maybe there were fools who actually believed that back in 1960, but once the race riots began in the '80s it was obvious that the plan was not working and was not going to work.

Was some of the trouble caused by racially prejudiced, white skinhead types? Without a doubt. Are plenty of today's yobs white Anglo-Saxons and Celts? Absolutely. Does that mean multi-culturalism should be forced on everybody in Britain? No. Despicable people can be right, even if for the wrong reason. The right reason is that multi-culturalism doesn't work. At least, not when it's introduced through massive immigration in a very short time, without the consent of the indigenous population, by political ideologues with brains full of contemporary-Marxist rubbish.

I'm not sure the British government has ever been very much in tune, or sympathy, with the majority of its citizens. First, for hundreds of years, it was led by monarchs; then an aristocracy; then rich factory owners. Now, most Britons must bend the knee to a political class that knows how everyone should live and uses the law and police to see that they do, and social worker parasites whose government jobs depend on keeping social problems going strong, by importing them if necessary. If the schoolkids at Dog Kennel School Hill actually do learn their Shakespeare, they may find themselves saying along with Hamlet: "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I."

Brussels to Europeans: Sit down and shut up

My two fears for the Brussels anti-Islamization demo — that it would be underwhelming and violently suppressed — seem to have been realized, although it could have been worse.

So far the only accounts I have been able to find are at Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna.

For the mainstream media, the demo seems to have been pretty much a non-event. Not even Lucianne.com has a story about it. The AP gave it the yawning, small-earthquake-reported-in-Chile treatment: "Officers handcuffed two leaders of the far-right Flemish Interest Party, which is very critical of Muslim immigrants, and took them away in police vans," as though there was nothing at issue except criticism of Islam by a right-wing fringe group.

More details may emerge later. For now, the main thing that's evident is that a peaceful demonstration was banned and that those who showed up anyway, without otherwise being provocative, were arrested with considerable force in some cases.

Maybe the spectators at the event, and the few others who will eventually learn about it, were alarmed by how Europe's new superstate has zero tolerance for challenges to its multi-culti agenda. For lots of others, the day's big news was about Britney Spears's "MTV comeback disaster."

UPDATE late 9/11

Brussels Journal has posted a video of demonstrators being arrested by the Police/Politie (Belgium is a bilingual country, just like the immigration industry wants to make us). It isn't shockingly violent — I've seen worse in person, in the U.S. — but I'll bet it will be an eye-opener for some Europeans nurtured on a belief in the goodness of the Nanny State.

UPDATE 9/16

I've now had time to review additional videos and descriptions of the police arrests in Brussels. I was previously a little inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt -- after all, they were acting under orders, and there's no way you can arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested without using some force.

It's obvious, though, that at least in the cases of the Vlaams Blok leaders, the force was excessive and punitive. Some of the cops (and their commanders) should be charged with human rights violations. Of course, they won't be.

But let's not let the most important consideration get lost in outrage about police brutality. What is even more disturbing is that peaceful citizens desiring to make a peaceful protest were denied that right because it would have offended Muslims and possibly led to violence from some among them. A malevolent precedent has been set, by which Muslims can veto the civil liberties of other citizens through intimidation.

Good chaps, these jihadists, but maybe a bit overheated

British schools now shy away from teaching about the Holocaust because "some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial." But you can't say the Department of Communities and Local Government isn't doing everything in its feeble power to keep terrorism at bay. The Associated Press reports:

Britain is funding a curriculum that aims to teach children in Muslim religious schools how to steer clear of extremism, but some of the lessons are worrying Muslim educators.

One lesson plan goes something like this: A group of Islamic extremists want to buy fertilizer that could be used to make a bomb. Should the shopkeeper sell it to them? Or take Ahmad, whose friends want to attack a local supermarket in retaliation for the war in Iraq. Is it right for Ahmad to harm innocent Britons because their government invaded a Muslim country? ...

The project, called "Nasiha," or "guidance," draws on the Qur'an, sharia law, and traditional Muslim scholarship to show that British laws are in harmony with Islamic values.

The stated objective is to teach children, most between the ages of 8 and 14, "to realize that to harm or terrorize citizens in the U.K. is not something permitted in Islam," and "to be able to identify individuals or groups who preach hatred and learn ways of avoiding them."

LESSON NO. 27 (Thanks for giving the Western world the brilliant invention of Arabic numerals!)

Young British citizens, as you study the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh), who inspired so much that went to make up our British legal system, you may occasionally encounter a mullah who seems different from the overwhelming majority of peace-loving Muslim servants of Allah. Perhaps he will say some surprising things in view of the fact that Islam is the Religion of Peace, or attend demonstrations displaying a sign such as this:

Now, you should understand that he is carrying on with a great tradition of this country, which derives from shari'a law, of being able to speak one's mind without fear of reprisal. It is something we can all be proud of, and does honour to the Prophet (pbuh).

You should not take at face value the content of the message, and others you may hear in connection with jihad (that is, a peaceful inner struggle). While it is true that in Great Britain many who were thought dangerous (Sir Walter Raleigh, for example) have been beheaded in harmony with Islamic values, this sort of thing is frowned on today by many in the community. You might want to suggest to imams and others who use such language that, in deference to the feelings of some fellow Britons, they express themselves in this way only in an appropriate setting, such as a mosque.

The Department of Communities and Local Government completely understands the anger of those whom some infidels describe as "extremists," in view of our country's shameful collaboration with the Great Satan in invading Muslim countries and attempting to support the worldwide Zionist conspiracy by formerly teaching about an imaginary historical event called the Holocaust.

Nevertheless, if you happen to work in a shop and some of these so-called extremists want to purchase a load of fertilizer that can be used in making a bomb, you might want to remind them that through immigration and reproductive rates alone, the United Kingdom will soon have a Muslim majority and the infidels who do not convert to the Crescent will live as dhimmis. Therefore, trying to hurry the process along through the means of explosives might only result in more British expressing disrespect for the Prophet (pbuh) meanwhile.

Better to study the Holy Qur'an, so that when you are grown up you will know exactly how to apply it to any situation as a member of the ruling class responsible for seeing to it that no offence against the strict laws of shari'a will be tolerated, which traditional Muslim scholarship notes is fully compatible with the British legal system.

Allahu Akbar!

Whistling Dix

The arrest of six people accused of planning a bloodbath at Fort Dix has been presented in the media in a most curious way. There is an aura of celebration about it that is unlike anything I can recall before in similar circumstances. It's being treated as though our team won the World Series. Even buttoned-down CNBC pundit Larry Kudlow could hardly contain his cheerleading.

Let's enjoy our five minutes of self-congratulation, but there's a lot more here to make us uneasy than confident. FOX reports:

A federal law enforcement source confirmed to FOX News that the three — Dritan "Anthony" or "Tony" Duka, 28; Shain Duka, 26; and Eljvir "Elvis" Duka, 23 — also accumulated 19 traffic citations, but because they operated in "sanctuary cites," where law enforcement does not routinely report illegal immigrants to homeland security, none of the tickets raised red flags.

The brothers entered the United States near Brownsville, Texas, in 1984, the source said, which would put their ages at 1 to 6 when they crossed the border.

The source said there is no record of them entering by way of a regular border crossing, so they are investigating whether they were smuggled into the country.

So what have we learned? Three brothers among the suspects have been living in the United States for 23 years after crossing the border illegally. No one suspected anything -- they were some of the famous "moderate" Muslims. Thanks to the useful idiots who created "sanctuary cities," they were apparently never investigated before, even though they had 19 traffic tickets.

Obviously, we can be grateful that the plot was smoked out and stopped. But many more like it are probably currently under way, and it wasn't primarily shrewd counterterrorism that saved the day, just luck. According to the reports, the case was investigated because of a tip-off. No doubt the authorities handled it well after that, but you can't count on tip-offs to safeguard national security.

To get back to the light-headed joyousness with which the media have delivered the story, at least part of the reason is that it fits comfortably with the mythology of the Liberal Establishment. In that view, the plotters were a handful of Muslim "extremists" (although, as always in these situations, they were "moderate" law abiding citizens until caught); the long arm of the law was sufficient to take them down. We're back in a September 10 world -- terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Militant Islam isn't the problem, just a few criminals, and as this case proves, we've got them clocked. The only thing to worry about is a "backlash" against domestic Muslims by the drooling morons of the American public that the ACLU stands guard against.

I have not read or heard one suggestion in the mainstream press that we ought to reconsider our policy of admitting Muslims to settle in the United States and then playing catch-'em-if-you-can to sort out the violent jihadists. Seems to me it would be a lot safer and less expensive to keep them out in the first place than to invite them in and then try to track them down. But in the Age of Political Correctness, that would be "discrimination," one of the deadly sins. I can't fathom why a sovereign nation shouldn't be able to use discrimination in choosing who it allows to move in, but we'd rather risk a horrendous terror act than offend the members of any group, thanks to liberal ideology.

Well, to hell with liberal ideology. It's no time to stop at plugging leaks. If we know what's good for us, which most Americans except those handicapped by working in Washington or living in "sanctuary cities" do, we need to start patching the holes.

Britain leads the world in race replacement

The Telegraph of London reports that one in 10 Brits lives outside the country, and they're jacking the United Kingdom at a clip of 200,000 a year. They're bailing out to places all around the world (see The Telegraph's map) — 10,000 British choose to spend part of their lives in Bulgaria.

BBC Five radio yesterday broadcast an interview with expats phoning in from the Canary Islands, Spain, Poland, and somewhere else in Eastern Europe I can't remember. Others said they were planning on moving to Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Why did they leave the U.K. or expect to, the presenter wanted to know. Predictably, most mentioned Britain's lousy weather, high taxes, the lack of decent affordable housing and other such practical reasons, but one or two brave souls — brave perhaps because they were beyond the reach of the U.K.'s "hate crimes" laws — acknowledged that they were sick of political correctness.

Whatever the given reasons, I would suggest that one of the main motivations for the widespread British diaspora is mentioned in the Telegraph article:

The current emigration is more than balanced by the record numbers of foreigners arriving in Britain, with net immigration running at around 200,000 — easily the highest in the country's history.
Official figures show that the non-white British population grew by more than half a million between 2001 and 2003 while the white British population fell by more than 100,000, largely because of emigration and a low birth rate.

Whole countries (with the U.K. leading the pack) are now undergoing the kind of social shift that American cities experienced beginning in the 1950s and that picked up steam in the '60s and '70s: a mass influx of nonwhites to the inner cities induced an equal and opposite reaction as whites moved to the suburbs to escape a perceived growth in crime, disorder, and crowding in the cities. The difference is that now it's countries, not cities, undergoing race replacement as international corporations with jobs on offer in far-flung locations, the homogenization of popular culture, cheap phone calls, and jet travel make moving to presumably greener pastures practical for many people.

Because of its leftist media and government the U.K. may be at the leading edge of the immigrants in-natives out trend, but the same tendency is encouraged in all the European Union countries. In Rome I saw a phenomenon that is now common, I gather, throughout Europe. Within a short walking distance from two of the city's most renowned attractions, the churches of Santa Maria Maggiore and San Giovanni in Laterano, is an immigrant district with all the standard trappings: stores selling cut-rate fashion knockoffs and acres of tacky jewelry, street stalls selling ditto, and lots of young men hanging out. They smoke, they argue with one another, they wait for something that will lift their lives up — basically, pretty much the same things they would have been doing if they'd stayed where they originated. Do they wonder why they bothered? Or are their lives, limited as they are, nonetheless better than anything they could have expected in their former homelands?

I hardly need to add that the Mexican Invasion and the hispanicization of the United States present the same picture.

The race replacement that is occurring so fast and so visibly in Europe and the United States surely has not escaped the notice of the ruling classes. Even if it's only through their inaction, they are behind it. I think it's more than malign indifference, though, it's something they want.

The reasons have been much discussed here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, as well as among many citizens privately when they're confident they won't be called before a diversity board and lose their jobs or their freedom — which is to say, discussed practically everywhere except in the mainstream media.

There is the ideology of liberalism, which says that (a) there is no such thing as race, it's only a social construct, and (b) the white race is the devil and the oppressor of all other races, so anything that can be done to replace white majorities is all to the good. There is the High Priesthood of EU bureaucrats, who scorn national identities and traditions that are sand in the gears of the Great World Unification Project. The International Business Establishment prefers to replace white workers, with their history of unionizing and political freedom, with Third Worlders who will do what they're told and shut up because that's how things have always been for them. The social work branch of the nanny state can't wait to have millions of new clients and programs to administer. In short, a centralized state, driven by economics and leftist politics, designed to serve business and bureaucracy, finds it much easier to direct a population of immigrants they can buy off with dole money, high-rise nests of subsidized housing and social services paid for by taxes on whatever is left of the middle class.

As for the natives panting to reach escape velocity, the pin-striped overlords put up a warning sign: "DANGER. Swinging doors can seriously affect your health. Make certain that the door is securely fastened as you exit the society."

But when the world's "suburbs" like Australia and New Zealand are full up or decide they've had enough refugees, and the United States is North Mexico, where will everyone fleeing the race replacement campaign go? The last helicopter out won't be able to hold everyone who wants to climb aboard.

Consent of the governed? Get serious

Liberalism once meant, according to its apostles, supporting the interests of ordinary people against the rich and powerful. The past is another country, right enough. Dennis Dale at Untethered notes how liberal commentators, for example Jacob Weisberg, nowadays are nervous that mere — sniff — voters might be over-influential with newbie Congresspersons.

Weisberg seems to be lamenting that America is electing the wrong people. We're, apparently, no more trustworthy with the keys to democracy than the Third World primitives that Weisberg wants to throw the border gates open for. (This phrase, electing the wrong people, was used by a member of the Coalition Provisional Authority when explaining the delay of Iraq's promised elections.)

Weisberg's not sure we can be trusted with democracy. We might use it to interfere with market forces.

Weisberg is against "economic nationalism," with its hateful connotations of Americans having a greater say in how the United States is run, and who for, than Mexicans or Indonesians or French. But Weisberg favors "economic populism" because, as Dale puts it, "unlike its evil twin above, it knows its place, limiting itself to minimum wage laws, confiscatory taxes and stumping for social programs, while accepting whatever may come of unbridled immigration and outsourcing."

Weisberg worries that "most of those who reclaimed Republican seats ran hard against free trade, globalization, and any sort of moderate immigration policy. That these Democrats won makes it likely that others will take up their reactionary call. Some of the newcomers may even be foolish enough to try to govern on the basis of their misguided theory."

Dale comments, aptly:

'Moderate' of course means not having the coarse manners to take enforcement seriously. Is this fair, when 'enforcement first' is nothing more than an attempt to enforce existing law? At what point did we make the deliberate decision that our immigration laws were no longer needed and our border a mere inconvenience?

The federal government has silently and without the assent of a distracted public gotten away with abnegating its responsibilites over the last twenty years (since '86's amnesty law and its ignored enforcement provisions). This is a curious interpretation of the consent of the governed in a republic.

There's a reason why Third World countries get that way, and stay that way. It's not something in the water or the way the planets are lined up. You may run into the odd psychiatric case study such as a U.S. president with delusions of being, not Napoleon, just Maximilian, Napoleon III's Mexican Emperor. But the transformation of our country into an overpopulated, debt-ridden, elite-run society is perfectly rational if you're among the Chosen Ones.

Which would you rather be? (a) Someone in a closely knit circle of acquaintances — people of this sort don't have friends, exactly — who get what they want without the tedious business of working too hard, persuading lots of people, and following inconvenient and possibly even wealth-constricting laws? (b) An ordinary citizen, tied down by all kinds of restrictions for the common good, forced to try to get laws passed thorugh political give-and-take without always succeeding, not especially looked up to or given special treatment?

If you answer (b), then I commend you on your virtue. But don't be too sure what you would choose if (a) was actually in your power, if you had but to part your lips, speak your wish and watch it carried out by the state and its running dogs in the media. So much simpler. Saves a lot of bother all around. Gives you more time to be gracious and swan about with your peers who have razor-sharp creases pressed into their jeans.

Whether they fly the flag of multi-culturalist social engineers or economic libertarians, many among today's media, academic, and corporate elite choose Door no. 1 above. They're impatient with mossbacked reactionaries stuck in values like historic and cultural traditions, national borders, laws enacted from the broad base of people rather than from the top down. They don't care if the country works or not — hell, they don't have to actually live in it, except in protected enclaves where they can look down on the proles — as long as it works for them. What makes it work for them is importing a huge reservoir of poor, ignorant plantation hands that can be manipulated to overbalance any residual influence from the dwindling middle class.

A secondary value of dredging the world for dollar-a-day migrants to add to the U.S. population is that they help buy off the government parasite class of social workers, report writers, legislation drafters, etc. A huge new group of the "underserved" to be inducted into the welfare industry! Bigger "human services" departments, more projects, more regulations to administer! The best Chris — oops, "holidays" present ever.

This isn't some dystopian fantasy of the future; it's the explanation of the otherwise inexplicable, taking shape all around us now.

A "velvet revolution" for America

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to acknowledge that a nation's "leaders" have turned against its ordinary, middle-class citizens to become servants of international corporations and of a bordering country ruled by drug pushers; when they have no guiding principles beyond hoarding power, economic expansion, and suicidal tolerance; when those same "leaders" intend, for their various reasons, a thorough ethnic replacement scheme for that nation; and when they perceive the country to which they are supposedly responsible as no more than a marketplace, cut off from its historical and cultural roots, a space for buying and selling from sea to shining sea — the people have a choice.

The first alternative, of course, is to go along. If the Devil is whispering in your ear, he's telling you that that's exactly what the majority of Americans voted for this week. Maybe the old boy is right. Maybe a sociological Gresham's law has been at work for 35 years, ensuring that everything trashy and stupid about the '60s counterculture has driven all that was good in it from circulation. It surely doesn't help that several generations have been educated (to use the word loosely) in schools that no longer teach them how to read, write, or think. Perhaps as a culture we don't understand any values except technology, and i-this and nano-that are our household gods.

Maybe too many of us have led sheltered lives for too long, wrapped in a comforting blanket of politically correct pieties that leave us unable to comprehend that we actually have enemies, not just others whom we don't understand yet or vice versa. And maybe we voted Tuesday to go the way of utopian decadence: let us have our GNP growth and cell phones that cook our breakfast and 250 channels of shopping TV and reality shows, and invite the world to come mow our lawns and deliver our pizzas while the party goes on and on.

If that's what the American people as a whole voted for, here's what they'll get, and they'll deserve it: another few million illegals every year, many giving birth at taxpayer expense to babies who will automatically become welfare dependents — excuse me, I mean U.S. citizens. More taxes to support Medicare and Medicaid for our proud newcomers. A country where English-speaking descendants of northern Europeans, British, and Irish are a minority that will probably still be legally discriminated against via "affirmative action" in 20 or 30 years. Very likely further severe hits from Muslim terrorists, as they are welcomed into our "nondiscriminatory" multi-culti paradise and are confirmed, understandably, in their contempt for a country that abolishes its own borders and thinks it's advancing peace by not defending itself.

Do not be surprised at what happens. The international corporate class and the social work Establishment that drools at the thought of a huge new clientele do not like Anglo-Saxon-Celts. I know that's not the sort of thing you're supposed to say out loud, but it's true. They don't want citizens with a long heritage of flipping the bird to Authority and sometimes rebelling against their Betters. Their ideal is a small corporate Mandarin class and a vast population of subliterate, servile peons.

Don't kid yourself. That's what we're headed for. It's going down.

But I know this, as much as I know anything in heaven or earth: there are still a lot of Americans who won't stand for it. Most have never heard the (probably apocryphal) story, but it's bred in their bones: back in the Old West, a European visitor came upon a ranch hand out where there weren't a dozen settlers within a hundred miles, and after making the proper self-introduction, asked him: "Who is your master?"

The ranch hand replied, "He hasn't been born yet."

Now, if that man's blood flows in your veins, you are in for some tough times. I mentioned there is a choice. Your choice, if you don't intend to serve the international business interests and the multi-culti Mafia for all your days, comes down to this: revolution.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about some romantic nonsense of wearing a beret and tying a bandana around your neck and hiding up in the maquis. Or keeping a stash of rifles in your backyard and taking potshots at the enemy.

It must be a "velvet revolution."

The term comes from the overthrow of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia in 1989. It got that nickname because it was a "bloodless revolution." I knew a man who covered it, in situ, for the Associated Press. He said he greatly admired what the Czechs and Slovaks had accomplished, blowing away the oppressors "without a single person being hanged from a lamppost."

And that is what I ask you to consider. I'm dead against any sort of violent revolution, not just because I don't want the karma of suggesting it, but because it won't work. Take up the sword and they will kill you. I'm being literal, not metaphorical. I've been in a crowd of demonstrators, itself potentially homicidal, that was fired on with live ammunition. I'm also old enough to remember Kent State. Believe me, if those who imagine themselves as rulers expect for one second that they are in danger of physical violence, they will order the police or military to terminate you. The uniforms may not like it, but they'll do it; they have solemnly pledged to subordinate their own feelings when they are told to.

So, how would this American "velvet revolution," which I see as the only alternative to the death of everything we hold dear, work? Look, I don't know, and it wouldn't matter if I did. Success won't come from anyone's plan or manifesto. It will happen the way that the Resistance has taken shape in the blogosphere, by free minds connecting with one another, outside of any effort organized from a particular source.

It will probably involve various kinds of passive resistance: refusal to obey laws, standing up to persecution for what the multi-culti Establishment will try to brand as "hate speech," tax refusal, all that and more. Hey, Washington, want to see a million-man-woman march for real? How about ten million? Just give los illegals amnesty.

Whatever the tactics, they must be a form of jujitsu, winning without material weapons. Don't think that can work against the seemingly infinite power of the forces that pull the government's strings? Back to Czechoslovakia for a minute: I had a relationship with a woman who had lived there under the Communists. She and her then-husband and their children escaped by a fake "visit" to Austria. They did not dare tell their own parents they were leaving, forever as it seemed at the time. All their possessions, practically all their money, had to be abandoned to get out. That's what Czechoslovakia was like in the early 1980s. And it fell without a shot on either side, because people who had never even known freedom had an instinctive understanding of what it would be like and what they had to do. Not even the corporate/social work/liberal Establishment in the United States has the power that the Communist tyrants had. You think our "masters," too, won't buckle at the knees?

Even so, I hesitate. Unarmed resistance doesn't insure against punishment. In asking you to consider it, I'm not sure I would have what it takes. I'm too old and have trouble imagining myself in prison for a cause. Maybe I'm like the proverbial general sending the young cannon fodder into the front lines.

I think what I am suggesting, though, is the only alternative to the death of America except as a purely geographic expression. If you're not up for that kind of self-sacrifice, I don't blame you and am probably one of your number. Others may feel different.

So, as always and everywhere, it's down to you. I've tried to suggest what the choice involves, but I can't tell you what to do. If it's what you decide, take the path of least resistance. The party is just getting started, although it's almost over. Enjoy it but don't check the clock or look up. It's late, and it's getting dark.

To hell with all this p_______ c_______

You'd better not accuse the Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, England, of political correctness.

They've tried to ban the term as politically incorrect.

Yes, just when you thought you'd heard every possible variation in every key from cultural Marxists, they find a way to advance the ball a few more yards. Conspiracy theories aren't my line of goods, but I suspect there is a secret one-upmanship contest among backside-of-the-moon leftists to devise new forms of mental corruption and get the state to push them.

According to the Daily Mail (Britain's only conservative newspaper and the sole source of much news about outlandish political and social policies in that benighted country), "A council has warned staff against using the phrase 'political correctness' at work because it might offend people. A booklet outlining 'equality' policy to council workers claims using the term at work can be damaging and even linked it to the Ku Klux Klan."

The 44-page booklet, called "Equality Essentials," contains plenty of other Big Brother commandments. You won't be surprised that using words like "policeman," "fireman," and "chairman" is taboo — that's probably in most government handbooks, in the U.S. as in the U.K. But "Equality Essentials" manages to plow some new ground, even in an already well tilled field. The word "ethnic," for instance, is banned (not "appropriately descriptive"). The booklet says:

'The term political correctness was coined in 1988 by John O'Sullivan III, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He was making an after dinner speech complaining about how Black Americans were being allowed to take the jobs traditionally reserved for the white majority because of a wave of political correctness. Since then the phrase political correctness has almost universally been used to decry changes which aim to prevent offensive behaviour.'

It goes on to say because this takes the form of 'blaming the victim, denying peoples experience or expressing the view of a popular majority,' using the phrase can represent a 'physical attack.'

No appropriate comment suggests itself. Words are simply inadequate to some things.

Brussels sprouts une petite intifada

The, uh, "youths" in the Paris suburbs may be hot to trot, but those in Brussels are showing their muscles, according to a piece in The Brussels Journal:

These past few days, there have been some «small fires» – small indeed – in the Brussels area, but today the fire brigade was lured into an ambush in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek. There were no casualties, but apparently we'll have to see a few dead before it will be possible to reflect seriously on what is really going on in Brussels. The authorities did not want to confirm a connection to the fires in Paris, but did not dare to deny it either.

Brussels is, of course, the very brain pan of the European Union, the factory of multi-culturalism, so it should be fully prepared to respond at a lightning tempo. None of your French dithering. Even now, I expect a dozen committees, quangos, special bureaux, and academic studies are developing more ways to encourage the youths to integrate with the city they are passing their time by trashing.

Speaking of Brussels, Paul Belien, editor of the aforementioned Brussels Journal, has some thoughts on the American election:

Americans can already see what their country’s future will be if they vote for [the dreaded potential House Speaker, Nancy] Pelosi and her band. They only need to watch Europe. That is what America will be like 20 years from now if the Liberals succeed in turning the U.S. into a European-style welfare state. The latter is the cause of all Europe’s problems. It has led to secularization, because people who are catered for from the cradle to the grave no longer need God. It has led to the immigration debacle, because Europe has attracted welfare immigrants who only come for the benefits and not to contribute to the host country’s wealth creation. It has led to the loss of the citizens’ ability to care for themselves, because they expect everything from the state.

However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West and the Muslim “youths” in Europe’s cities will become even more arrogant. They utterly despise the Europeans, whom they perceive (not entirely without reason) to be men dressed up as ballerinas, and they hate America because it fights back. In a world ruled by men who only understand the language of power it is better to be hated than despised. If America withdraws the Islamist fanatics will despise America for it. They will take this as a sign that the West has been defeated and that the world is theirs.

I think the world of Belien, and quite agree with the first paragraph above, but I have to dissent from the second. There is simply nothing left that we can "win" in Iraq unless, as he seems to imply, "not withdrawing" is a win. Maybe there once was a chance for a meaningful victory —I believed it at the time we went in and for a few months afterward — but if so that's now just one of history's countless "what ifs." Under the guidance of our presidential nation destroyer (in the United States) and nation builder (in Iraq) the whole wretched business has gone irrevocably pear shaped.

"The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West and the Muslim 'youths' in Europe’s cities will become even more arrogant"? Please. The Iraq debacle is already perceived as a defeat of the West, beyond anyone's poor power to add or subtract. That isn't to say that no good can still come out of it; we could partition the country into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish areas and keep a hefty amount of firepower on hand (probably in the Kurdish territory) for situations. Frankly, I rather like the idea of millions of Muslims divided among themselves. The allies were quite happy to split Germany after World War II, as a further check against the Jerries getting sentimental about lebensraum again, and it worked out well.

But the biggest problem with Belien's analysis is his idea that the United States can, or should, keep the restless youths pacified. Every country in Europe has the means to get them to shape up or ship out. Even if we were willing, no act or example by the United States could solve the problem unless Europe locates its spinal column. It doesn't take more excruciating years in Iraq, squandering yet more resources, to deliver the news that the world doesn't belong to the youths for setting some fires.

Iraq is not the alpha and omega. There will be other times and places where we will need those resources, human and material, that we are casting into the Mesopotamian void.

Crawling king snake?

The young girl who was crowned Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 is now 80 years old. In a reign that has been, on the whole, disastrous for her country, she's been a model of monarchical dignity and poise through thick and thin. Of course, plans are already being made for the succession, when the present Prince of Wales will be anointed King Charles III (I guess; I don't think British monarchs can choose new names for themselves, like Popes).

King Charles the Diverse

Tim Walker, writing in the Speccie, muses on what can be expected on that momentous day. He asks — hands up, anyone who's surprised — "Will Charles be the first multicultural monarch?" And answers: "While he has always revered his mother, Prince Charles is understandably keen that his coronation should bear his imprimatur and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a new era and a new kind of reign." Walker continues:

He wants the event also to acknowledge the religious diversity of the country that he will be ruling. In 1953 the Queen pledged solemnly to do her utmost to ‘maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law’. In what will be regarded as a dramatic break with convention, I am told Prince Charles is drawn to the idea that, following the formal Christian ceremony in the Abbey, in which he will be crowned ‘by the grace of God’, there should be a separate interdenominational ceremony in Westminster Hall in the Palace of Westminster to reflect his desire to represent the peoples of all religions. …

In doing this he would simply be fulfilling his promise to his biographer Jonathan Dimbleby in the 1994 television documentary Charles: The Private Man, The Public Role, that he wished to be seen as a ‘defender of faith’ rather than ‘defender of the faith’, the form of words used since the time of Henry VIII.

The change of wording is hardly unreasonable. The question is, what lies behind it? Britain in all the years since Henry VIII has had non-Anglicans, including Jews, Hindus, and Muslims among its people. Since the early 19th century Catholics have been legally recognized as having the same rights as any other British subjects. Nobody got fussed about "defender of the faith." It was just an acknowledgement that Britain had an established Church, which in itself is neither good nor bad.

Charles's Muslim sympathies are well known, even to the point where it is rumored that he has secretly converted. That's probably bunk, but it's hard to doubt that he has openly converted to the most widespread Western religion of our age, the Church of the Holy Multiculturalism. Walker adds:

‘It is no secret that the PoW [Prince of Wales, not prisoner of war, although that may come later if the U.K. doesn't become an Islamic Republic fast enough to suit the imams] has long felt passionately about this matter,’ the courtier adds. ‘His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks. It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions. As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the entire country to follow.’

You don't have to be an alarmist to worry about what example he plans to set.

The British monarchy is a ceremonial role, the carrier of a tradition that until recently gave English, Scottish, and Welsh something to tie them together in a history and nation. It is meant to be old-fashioned, backward looking, unchanging. Change is the job of politicians and citizens, not those who emerge from aristocratic wombs to play at colorful pageantry. Elizabeth II has always understood this, as has every monarch since Victoria — and even the very assertive Victoria knew there were limits.

Charles, it appears, doesn't. He has eyes to be an enthroned social worker and expects the Crown, like almost every other institution in modern Britain, to explain to the proles how to live. If that means throwing a multi-culti party after the coronation and crawling before leaders of the Islamizing Britain Project, just say the word. Charles isn't about to (as the English expression goes) "over-egg the pudding" with too much dignity when he accepts his new lid, either.

I am told that, in the early years of the 21st century, Prince Charles is of the view that much will have to be done differently from the coronation of 1953. It will not be possible, for instance, for the five tiers of the hereditary peerage to wait in attendance on him in the way they did for his mother. Tony Blair’s ‘reforms’ have, of course, rendered them all but obsolete. Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she felt, together with Dr Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be too sacred. Prince Charles, for his part, recognises that such deference no longer pertains. He understands that if the event is to be accorded full live coverage by the major channels, it must be truncated from the three hours of pomp and circumstance that kept more than 20 million Englishmen and women enthralled in drab, postwar Britain into a ‘less unwieldy’ and more ‘focused and telecentric’ event for blasé modern viewers.

Charles. Let me tell you, Reg old boy, this isn't going to be their Mum and Dad's coronation show on the telly, you can ride that one into the stable.
Reginald, TV producer by appointment to His Majesty. No, Sir.
Charles. I figure 50 minutes, tops, with a break at the bottom of the hour for a BBC hate-America session.
Reg. Very good, Sir.
Charles. Oh, Reg, do give over that "Sir" wheeze. Call me Chuck, like Elton does. Or Al-Wazir, like Fouad and Mohammed do. Now, were you able to get good footage of the Burundi dancers and Croatian carolers and Dervish chaps for the cut-ins when the Archbishop goes all plodding?
Reg. Yes, er, Chuck.
Charles. And remember, none of that 'sacred' tosh. Make it go, man! Lots of billowing smoke, coloured strobe lights, that lot. Make sure the cameras pan over all the show biz celebrities in attendance, but watch that crowd, see to it that the ladies are all covered up with those berserkers or whatever you call them — no, now I think on it, dress them in that clobber with the face coverings and eye slits, and make sure they stand and walk well behind their gentlemen friends. I'm determined to show my Muslim mates we respect our women.
Reg (warming to the new dispensation). Hey, Al-Waz, way to go. Now as to music …
Charles. I say, can you play 'God Save the King' on the buzuq and tablah?

Post conservative turns post-conservative

Charles Krauthammer, heretofore essentially the only non-leftist on the Washington Post editorial pages (since George Will is nowadays just a Republican apparatchik), has announced he supports affirmative action for the office of U.S. president. He is touting Barack Obama for the job because — get ready — of Obama's race.

… The country hungers for a black president. Not all of the country, but enough that, on balance, race would be an asset. It is no accident that when, a decade ago, another attractive, articulate African American with no experience in electoral office went on a book tour, he was met not just with rock star adulation but with a loud national chorus urging him to run for the presidency.

The object of affection then was Colin Powell. Today it is Obama. Race is only one element in their popularity, but an important one. A historic one. Like many Americans, I long to see an African American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.

Of course there is racism in America. Call me naive, but I believe that just as Joe Lieberman was a net positive for the Democrats in 2000 -- more people were attracted to him as a man of faith than were turned away because of anti-Semitism -- there are more Americans who would take special pride in a black president than there are those who would reject one because of racism.

The country is "hungering" to elect a man to the most powerful office in the world because he is black? No, Charles; if anyone is, it's the racial preferences industry. Most Americans would be happy to elect an African American provided he represented their views better than any other candidate and so long as he didn't use his race, even tacitly, to score points with various groups — probably impossible in this day and time.

"A great milestone in the unfolding story of African Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life"? I don't know much about Mr. Obama, and maybe he is a good man and would be a good president, but there is no way I am ever going to pull the lever for him because of racial symbolism. I am astounded that Krauthammer would suggest such a thing. Has he gone mad?

After 30 years of racial preferences, government contract set-asides, corporate shakedowns from the likes of Jesse Jackson, and racial/ethnic "targets" enforced by the Equal Opportunitities Employment Commission, we are now in Krauthammer's view morally obligated to hand over the presidency to a black man to show we are not racists.

Et tu, Charles?

Conduct Hun-becoming

An unusually candid British military strategist foresees the distinct possibility of Western civilization breaking down as it is invaded by overwhelming masses of migrants from poor countries in a Camp of the Saints scenario … as early as the year 2012.

According to an article in the June 11 Sunday Times:

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

Mass immigration, even more than al-Qaeda-like Muslim terrorist groups, is the most overwhelming threat to the survival of orderly and prosperous First World cultures in the 21st century. Not that most immigrants are terrorists (although foreign enclaves do provide a backdrop and refuge for terrorist cells), but today's conditions nurture a kind of aggressive and self-serving form of migration that is indifferent to any values of the host society other than those the invaders can exploit. While today's and tomorrows Huns are far less violent (so far) than the originals, who laid waste to what was left of the western Roman empire, they may turn out to be just as destructive in their way.

[Parry] pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status.

This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas. The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.

Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.

Cut-rate plane flights, the Internet, cell phones that allow people to call the other side of the world almost as cheaply as across town, and other modern wonders smooth the way for "reverse colonization" of relatively healthy societies by the populations of the sickest. But the appalling alliance of the Liberal Establishment and the Corporate Establishment is by far the greatest enabler.

For both, national boundaries are a nuisance. In the degenerate form that liberalism has taken, the nation state is a hindrance to the ideal of one world ruled according to universal principles decreed by unelected bureaucratic mandarins, as in the European Union. Large-scale migration, by ignoring borders, is favored as a key to breaking down national identity. And, of course, the left's socialistic element believes that all wealth should be redistributed — not only within countries, but among them. And the easiest way to do that is to insist that anybody anywhere has a right to pack up their troubles in their old kit bag and move to wherever they think they can live off the fat of the land.

For international corporations, whose only ideal is profit, nations are a source of a few lingering trade restrictions, but more important, they're a threat to the now widespread system of importing a vast low-wage servant class to wherever they're needed, while passing on the social costs of their wage slaves to middle-class taxpayers. As of now, the corporations have bought out the President of the United States and the Senate, and in the House of Representatives it's going to be a closely run thing. A society that functions reasonably well because people have a language, traditions, and values in common is irrelevant to the Corporate Establishment: to it, people are simply units of production and consumption, a viewpoint popularized by numerous pundits, such as econo-twit Larry Kudlow, educated beyond their intellectual means in business schools that are vacuum-sealed against the cultures of individual nations.

Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China.

What should relatively successful countries do for the dysfunctional ones? First, they have a moral obligation to remain strong and capable. You can't help anyone else if your own house is being eaten up by woodworm. The worst thing the First World nations could do (which is what many among their academic, journalistic, and political stupidentsia want) is to open their borders to all comers. All that will accomplish will be to create horrendous problems of overcrowding, poverty, and perhaps disease in the host countries, sinking them to the level of the failed states they want to fix.

We have to recognize that countries in a state of permanent collapse are essentially victims of themselves, whether in the form of bad rulers, bad religions, bad value systems, bad economies, or all of those and more. Yes, some of them were colonized, although it's a toss-up whether that was a good or bad thing for them (mostly good in the case of the British empire, mostly bad in places ruled by other European and Asian powers). But it's been 40 years since colonialism bit the dust; today's death-wish countries have had plenty of time, foreign aid, and in some cases potential wealth from natural resources to sort themselves out.

If they don't, we can't do it for them.

Does that mean we must abandon them? In a few cases perhaps, realistically, yes. But a sane foreign policy, while maintaining the integrity of our own borders, could do a few useful turns.

We should refuse any economic aid, other than disaster relief, to the world's pathology zones until they institute serious programs for population stabilization and show that they're working. If that means a one-child limit, well, tough. It's better than mass starvation and desperation. Overpopulation eats up every bit of aid we provide and then some, and creates much of the pressure for migration.

We should knock off a sickbag dictator from time to time. Only, instead of following George the Unready's cracked plan for occupying and transforming the places thus liberated, we should immediately get the hell out and let the inhabitants make whatever they can of their new freedom.

It's not certain that Parry's nightmare scenario will come to pass. History is full of surprises, and you can't just extrapolate present trends indefinitely into the future. But his warning seems to me one that should be pondered very seriously. Will the nations that still have the luxury of choice take heed? I doubt it; more people would consider their future at risk if the Coca-Cola company announced it was reviving New Coke.

Still, there is one person who happens to be reading these words, understands the situation, wants to keep Western civilization from being overrun by mass Third World migration, and is willing to do something about it.

You know who that is, don't you?

Exodus in Orange

Residents who've lived a big chunk of their lives in a neighborhood of Orange, California, are moving out in mass because ... well, you are supposed to understand why from reading the newspaper report, but you aren't supposed to ask why or talk about it directly.

The Hills left East Vine Avenue two weeks ago. The Wigginses plan to leave in a month or so. And just last week, the Hansons put up a for-sale sign.

In a few months, most of Carol Fulton's longtime neighbors will be gone. And in a flash, summer barbecues, Fourth of July parades and baseball games at the East Vine cul-de-sac will become distant memories. Fulton sits on her front porch, pensive and surveying the neighborhood. It has changed drastically, she says.

The familiar smells and sounds of backyard barbecues are replaced by mariachi music and the honking horn of a shaved-ice cart. Fulton sees unfamiliar cars and people streaming onto the street. Overcrowding caused by boarding homes - more than two leases on the same property - is an issue that city officials and residents have grappled with for years.

The article goes on to talk about a "parking crunch" and a "more transient community" developing, "multiple families" and "day laborers."

Anyone who knows today's America understands the hints. But although the story allows as how Mrs. Fulton's neighbor didn't understand English, nowhere will you find the words illegal immigrants or Mexicans. It isn't proper, according to mainstream journalism, to state certain things directly. It might arouse the natives and then God knows what could happen.

Beginning slowly, then getting up to full steam in the '90s, the United States has come to resemble the Soviet Union in its strictures on what may be said in public or published. There's an orthodox Party line on anything to do with race or ethnicity. Violate it and you lose your job, and if you're important enough, the media turn on you. There are dissidents, but deviation from the orthodoxy can only be transmitted mouth-to-ear in private or through a samizdat network, mainly the blogosphere.

That this story was published at all, even if the key points have to be transmitted in code, is progress of a sort. It would almost surely have been spiked a few years ago. And it's hard to criticize the reporter for bad faith -- identifying the neighborhood vandals as Mexican illegals would have had the gangsters of La Raza screaming "Racist!" and probably would have been more than her job was worth.

But race is not the issue, Fulton says. She would be incensed at any neighbor who disrespected her privacy and property.

Those are some of the saddest words I've read in a long time.

Mrs. Fulton, who with her family has been forced out of the neighborhood she's lived in since 1986, sounds almost apologetic about it. She has to make sure no one imagines it's because of the, er, you know, that the area has been taken over by, well, you know.

She can expect no sympathy from the Liberal Establishment, of course. Everybody knows people are all the same, one great Family of Man. Even if they have different customs, who's to say there's anything wrong with mariachi music and pissing on lawns? America doesn't belong to any particular tradition or way of life. It's just an idea of freedom, and anybody on earth can jump in and boogie. Don't the taco stands and the signs in Spanish add their bit to the glorious mosaic? Celebrate diversity! Only a racist would move out because their neighborhood has been added to the Third World.

And that's how it will continue to go, until people in Mrs. Fulton's situation are willing to say, "We're leaving our home of 20 years because we can't stand to be surrounded by a bunch of low-life illegal immigrant Mexicans who've turned our town into a slum."

Not yet. Not quite yet.

The Da Versity Code

All political correctness, Allah the time.

Are you ready for this? (Tip of the hat to Michelle Malkin.)

In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."

Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

I'm getting tired of asking this: has our country gone stark staring bloody flipping crazy?

This ruling isn't, you understand, about a purely hypothetical case, which no court would review. It's about an actual part of "California's world history curriculum," according to the story in Investors Business Daily. The child abusers running The Loony State's school system are actually forcing the kids to go through this indoctrination.

Can you imagine if the poor little nippers were put through two weeks of "role playing" as Catholic priests, offering communion and lighting candles in front of statues of Mary? The ACLU would be all over them like a cheap suit. Actually, they'd offer a free (law)suit to the first Muslim plaintiff who picked up the phone.

What next? Teach about immigration by making the kids tunnel under a fence and forge Social Security cards? Warn about the dangers of drugs by giving them needles and having them do up for a couple of weeks? Study dental hygiene by encouraging them to dress as their favorite tooth?

We need a Devil's Island to send incorrigible educational bureaucrats to, where they could no longer prey on society.