Greatness Agenda

The Republicans Pushing a Mass Immigration Scheme Favoring China

Republicans―not Democrats―are leading the charge for a mass immigration scheme amid what we have been told is a national security, health, and economic crisis. Why?

As Americans struggle to stem the spread of the Wuhan virus, the Republican Party is considering bringing Wuhan to a suburb near you.

According to a Politico exclusive, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is leading an effort to increase the number of EB-5 visas offered to wealthy immigrants, supposedly to salve the economy as the crisis caused by the pandemic worsens. Between 2012 and 2018, about 80 percent of EB-5 visas went to Chinese investors. Jared Kushner reportedly is also heavily involved in this scheme.

Established by Congress in 1990, the EB-5 program strips the salience from American citizenship by reducing it to a pay-for-play scheme. It allows thousands of foreign nationals to obtain green cards and a path to citizenship in exchange for a minimum investment of $500,000―increased to $900,000 in 2019.

The spouses and children of EB-5 investors are also able to obtain “conditional green cards,” allowing them to work in the United States and attend school if they so please―usually in better ones than the average American proletarian can afford.

Some say money can’t buy everything. Congress says, “We’ve got a bill for that!”

If Republicans get their way, the number of EB-5 visas available annually would increase from 10,000 to 75,000, while the minimum investment required for legal residence will be slashed from $900,000 to $450,000―even less than the original $500,000 requirement.

Michelle Malkin exposed the EB-5 scam in her book, Sold Out. Malkin shows that this scheme does indeed sow a bountiful harvest of economic benefits―for lobbyists, bureaucrats, politicians, and mostly Chinese nationals.

Now, foreign money falling from the sky like manna may sound impressive, writes journalist Charles Lane, “until you realize that foreign investment in the United States totals $2.5 trillion and that the program’s fuzzy job-creation count includes jobs ‘indirectly’ attributable to the investment. EB-5 would be dubious policy even if it could claim five times that impact. Simply put, it is corporate welfare―yet another attempt to subsidize the flow of capital into politically favored channels.”

For the average American, however, EB-5 is a bad deal.

Using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, David North of the Center for Immigration Studies noted in 2010 that total foreign investment in the United States increased by $1.9 trillion. Based on the investors’ green card applications filed two years after the first investment, North estimated “that EB-5 investment that year was about $191 million, and that was a well above average year for the program.”

Put another way, “for every $100 of increased foreign investment that year, the EB-5 program contributed about one penny.”

Why, then, would Republicans make a push for EB-5 visas at all, let alone during a pandemic? In truth, Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to immigration because they veil their mass immigration schemes with legality. It was Mitch McConnell, after all, who worked closely with EB-5 architect Maria Hsia to create the program. If that name sounds familiar, it is because Hsia was a McConnell donor identified by the House Government Affairs Committee as “an agent of the Chinese government.”

A federal jury found Hsia guilty of laundering more than one hundred thousand dollars in illegal donations to the Democratic National Committee through the International Buddhist Progress Society in 2000. While Hsia was working for McConnell and others on drafting the EB-5 investor program, she also worked for a campaign fund-raising group called the Pacific Leadership Council.

“Hsia co-founded the PLC,” writes Malkin, “with Lippo Bank officials John Huang and James Riady, the chief figures in the Clinton-Gore Donorgate scandal convicted of financial crimes.” No fewer than six Lippo Bank officials reportedly benefited from the creation of the EB-5 program.

Graham is simply continuing a long tradition in the GOP: to lead the chant of “America First,” then quietly hang the red hat at the door.

Consider the actions of former Republican Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

In 2008, the Republican duo discreetly sent letters urging the Department of Homeland Security to approve Gulf Coast Funds Management to become a regional EB-5 center, according to documents obtained by a nonpartisan watchdog group in 2013. Regional centers function as hubs that pave the way for green-card status for foreign investors and channel foreign investment into America. But there is very little about this that is “American.”

Among the distressed domestic businesses that supposedly stood to benefit from EB-5 cash, an investigation by the Baltimore Sun found that rather than the investment minimums required by law in the hundreds of thousands, “only a small fraction of the total―often just $10,000 per investor―went to the struggling companies.”

The EB-5 program is seemingly designed for embezzling money. According to the Sun, former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)―the predecessor agency of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)―officials who “profited most from the visa vending business were instrumental either in formulating the program or lobbying for favorable interpretations of the program rules that aided their businesses, at times working with the same INS staff they once directed.” A weakness with EB-5 is that the rules seem plastic and therefore vulnerable to loose interpretation. This has made it difficult to terminate.

Although a December 2013 report by the Department of Homeland Security was “unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy,” it did find that the legal and regulatory framework of the EB-5 program prevented the termination of regional centers based on fraud or national security concerns. The DHS report concluded:

USCIS does not always ensure that regional centers meet all program eligibility requirements, and USCIS officials differently interpret and apply Code of Federal Regulations and policies. Furthermore, when external parties inquired about program activities USCIS did not always document their decisions and responses to these inquiries, making the [EB-5] regional center program appear vulnerable to perceptions of internal and external influences.

As a result, USCIS is limited in its ability to prevent fraud or national security threats that could harm the U.S.; and it cannot demonstrate that the program is improving the U.S. economy and creating jobs for U.S. citizens as intended by Congress.

Not long after DHS issued that report, Canada canceled its equivalent of the EB-5 program for the same reasons we should but apparently cannot.

The Canadian Ministry of Finance concluded that the program “undervalued Canadian permanent residence” and “showed little evidence that immigrant investors as a class are maintaining ties to Canada or making a positive economic contribution to the country.” According to journalist Sophia Yan, the foreign nationals “who used the program paid less in taxes than other economic immigrants, and were less likely to remain in Canada for a longer period of time. . . . In some cases, immigrant investors lacked official language proficiency.” For all the fun we poke at our neighbors to the north, they seem to have at least this figured out.

Insofar as the EB-5 program admits wealthy, mostly Chinese investors, it effectively imports a foreign elite that gradually has positioned our industries and institutions into a more favorable footing with China. People coming from China with piles of cash are almost certain to be close with the Communist Party, and, despite belief in the transformative power of our magic soil, these wealthy Chinese are not disabused of their allegiance upon setting foot here―as the Canadian experience shows.

The push within the GOP for more EB-5 visas should be considered as radical as the New Way Forward Act tabled by the Democratic Party. In a way, it is even more radical. Rather than importing impoverished masses, this would bring in a wealthy, far more resourceful and politically connected elite from an adversarial country.

Many Americans are familiar with the insidious influence of Confucius Institutes planted on American campuses across the country. “Confucius Institutes’ soft power encourages complacency towards China’s pervasive, long-term initiatives against both government critics at home and businesses and academic institutions abroad,” the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found. Soft power translates into intellectual self-censorship by Western institutions to avoid offending China.

In our media, it manifests as Bloomberg News suppressing criticism of Chinese political operatives in exchange for reporting access in China. As media analyst Jason Q. Ng recently pointed out at a talk with Google, China relies on “self-censorship by private companies,” internally and externally, to maintain the Great Firewall—the government’s censorship and surveillance apparatus.

What do we suppose might follow the proposed 650 percent increase in the number of available EB-5, Chinese-dominated visas?

Republicans―not Democrats―are leading the charge for a mass immigration scheme amid what we have been told is a national security, health, and economic crisis. They are attempting to sneak a Trojan horse into a bill to rescue Americans from a problem that originated in China, that will sell citizenship at a discount to investors with ties to the Chinese Communist regime—a regime that deliberately suppressed information about the virus and thus worsened the panic that has now brought the world to a screeching halt.

The GOP’s actions make us wonder whether the party is really that stupid, or if this crisis is not as bad as they say and is being used not only for the benefit of China, but for the members of our ruling class―from the marbled halls of power to news desks and lobbying firms―who have made fortunes by selling America out.

Greatness Agenda

Coronavirus Is America’s Chinese Wake Up Call

China may be a trading partner. But it is not a friend.

The worldwide panic over coronavirus has forced us all to think about how we live, work, do business, and interact. It might also give us a chance to rectify some serious lapses of judgment that we, as a country, have made. 

For instance, with China’s economy still reeling from the economic impact of the disease, maybe it’s time for America to rethink our insane over-dependence on China for everything from clothes, to computers, to smart-phones, to even the medicines we need to combat corona—which, despite politically correct howls to remain mute about it, started in China!

Yes, China makes things cheaper than Americans choose to make these days. Yes, China, when it is not busy imprisoning political dissidents and stealing our technology, has made huge advances in its manufacturing capabilities. And yes, it has proven to be a trading partner that takes advantage of us, but keeps pumping out the cheap consumer goods Americans love nearly as much as their freedom. 

Attention, America: that freedom is at risk. The massive shutdown of China’s industrial output in response to the corona scourge has demonstrated just how thoroughly we have outsourced our manufacturing might in the name of saving a few bucks. Right now, we need their economic engine to keep humming. Things we used to make for ourselves—cars, electronics, clothes, shoes, baseball bats—now have the “Made in China” logo dug into them so deeply we hardly notice whose economy we are propping up with each purchase.   

Crucially, an assortment of elements known as rare earths that are vital in the production of cars, digital devices (including your beloved iPhone), military aircraft, medical equipment, and even the protective gear our first responders wear as they treat suspected corona victims—are almost exclusively mined, refined, and produced in China. The United States used to refine most of the world’s rare earths at a plant in Mountain Pass, California. But when China stole our technology and began producing the same products cheaper, we closed Mountain Pass and signed deals with our “friends” on the other side of the world. It was one of the best-planned burglaries in history, and it occurred with America’s dim-witted, smiling acceptance.

China may be a trading partner. But it is not a friend. And our blissfully unaware willingness to depend on them for most of the products we need and use is insanity. Perhaps the coronavirus will wake us up if China doesn’t put us all to sleep first.

Greatness Agenda

From Wuhan to Washington State With ‘Love’

Suffer the innocent, helpless critters. Suffer the old and the infirm. God help us all.

U.S. travel restrictions came too late for the poor residents of the Life Care home in King County, Washington State.

Patient Zero, who very likely infected Washington State and beyond, arrived in my state, from Wuhan, China, on Jan. 15.

Thanks to the patient’s own diligence, he was tested on January 20 and diagnosed with COVID-19. However, CDC contact tracing fell woefully short. As is done in South Korea and Israel, the man’s whereabouts—not his identity—ought to have been made public. In this way, anyone who had come in contact with the Man from Wuhan could have been quarantined and taken the necessary precautions to prevent further transmission.

Genetic sequencing of virus extracted from infected patients allows scientists to pinpoint the virus’ origins and the timing of the “seeding event.” That the virus that continues to kill elderly people in homes for the aged and the infirm in King County came from Wuhan is indisputable.

Writes Trevor Bedford, a sequencing scientist at the Fred Hutch Research Center: “The first case in the USA was . . . from a traveler directly returning from Wuhan to Snohomish County on Jan. 15.” But there was another traveler whose virus was related to that of Patient Zero, and who had,

exposed someone else to the virus in the period between Jan. 15 and Jan. 19, before they were isolated. If this second case was mild or asymptomatic, contact tracing efforts by public health would have had difficulty detecting it. After this point, community spread occurred and was undetected due to the CDC’s narrow case definition that required direct travel to China or direct contact with a known case to even be considered for testing. This lack of testing was a critical error and allowed an outbreak in Snohomish County and the surroundings to grow to a sizable problem before it was even detected. [Emphasis added.]

Colleagues confirm that the “genetic diversity of the Washington State outbreak . . . suggests a scenario in which an individual infected [from] Washington State traveled to California, and, in particular, to the Grand Princess cruiser, instigating a chain of transmission there. The viral strain from a patient infected on the cruise ship off the coast of California is similar to the cluster circulating in Washington state.”

If only travel from China had been stopped earlier, the poor old people from the Life Care home might be alive, and the coronavirus would not be multiplying exponentially among us.

As for the country’s professional racism spotters, they wish only to uncouple coronavirus from Wuhan, a city in the Hubei Province of China, where it originated.

Naturally, the ossified CDC has been scathing about the intellectually nimble sleuth work done by scientists not its own, in the course of the viral RNA sequencing mentioned. But epidemiology obligates this creaky bureaucracy to trace the origins of the virus.

And so it has. Writes the CDC:

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with … with this new virus (named SARS-CoV-2).

The SARS-CoV-2 virus [has its] origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir.

Early on, many of the patients at the epicenter of the outbreak in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread. Later, a growing number of patients reportedly did not have exposure to animal markets, indicating person-to-person spread. Person-to-person spread was subsequently reported outside Hubei and in countries outside China, including in the United States.

In other words, coronavirus jumped first from animal to person and thereafter from person-to-person.

The deadly disease originated in one of China’s disease-breeding, barbaric, “wet markets,” as they are called. These “wet markets” are hell on earth for wild animals, which are tied up, stacked in cages and slaughtered on the spot, because the fiendish customers demand “freshness.”

As the Associated Press reports, “You’ve got live animals, so there’s feces everywhere. There’s blood because of people chopping them up . . . The messy mix raises the . . . odds that a new virus will jump to people handling the animals and start to spread.”

To its report, the AP has appended an image of a “wet market,” adjacent to an up-market Chinese mall.

Suffer the innocent, helpless critters. Suffer the old and the infirm. God help us all.

Greatness Agenda

America Needs to Protect Our Shores

Protectionism is not the right word for preventing authoritarian nations from using ill-gotten wealth to gain influence. The right word is patriotism.

In the age of the Internet, we often forget basic truths about commerce and prosperity. Behemoths of trade like Amazon succeed only because they can deliver goods to the right place at the right time. Delivery services like FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service are what make online trade possible.

We should remember that goods don’t deliver themselves. A little-appreciated fact is that 90 percent of world trade goes by ship. Maritime routes are the great conduits making global markets work. As Themistocles of Athens said back in 500 B.C. or so, “He who controls the sea controls everything.”

So if other nations control the seas, then America’s greatness suffers.

Sadly, some are claiming that we should let China and others dominate the waterways because they can offer lower prices. The Chinese can—but only because they  are using every scheme possible to undercut competition from the free world.

They’re applying another quote, this one from Vladimir Lenin, who taught that capitalists would sell the rope with which Communists would hang them.

Perhaps money is all that matters—for those satisfied with China’s Communism and human rights records. For those of us who cherish America’s values and imperfect-yet-great system of government, other issues are paramount.

At stake are the domestic waterways of the United States, which currently are closed to foreign competition due to the Jones Act, part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Essentially, the law requires vessels sailing within our borders or between U.S. ports to be American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed.

Big interests are pushing to repeal or weaken the Jones Act, claiming it would be cheaper to rent out domestic shipping to foreign interests. If they succeed, our shorelines and rivers could resemble the situation on the world’s oceans.

Thanks to subsidies, Asian nations today control the fleets that carry 90 percent of the world’s cargo. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that a mere 182 of 41,000 ocean-going cargo ships are American. The other 99.6 percent increasingly are from China or other highly subsidized shipyards in South Korea or Japan.

The impact of these subsidies on global shipbuilding is seen in the hard fact that of 2,995 new ocean-going vessels now under construction (as tracked by the shipbrokers BRS Group),China, Japan, and South Korea are responsible for nearly 83 percent of the outstanding order book. The United States? Only eight (ships, not percent).

It’s not accidental and it’s not due to free enterprise. China’s dominance is built on massive subsidies and the use of state-run enterprises. Beijing’s plan is to dominate the strategic area of ocean trade.

Years ago, China announced its “Belt and Road Initiative.” The country spends billions each year to subsidize shipbuilding and also to control ports all over the globe. The Chinese are slowly closing in on all the major global shipping lanes, taking over port facilities in Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean and of course the South China Sea. Their sole setback was when the Trump Administration forced China to divest itself of a major shipping terminal in Long Beach.

A Harvard study found that since 2006, “Chinese subsidies dramatically altered the geography of production and countries’ market shares,” giving them an estimated 13-20 percent advantage in ship construction costs. That advantage is widened further by lower wages and fewer regulations, as well as subsidies provided by the shipbuilder to offset the operating costs of these ships.

Without the Jones Act, China would be free to jump into the valuable U.S. domestic market, which now has 40,000 vessels like ore carriers on the Great Lakes, giant barges on the Mississippi and other rivers, and ships moving goods along our inland waterways. Their aggressive expansion in the rest of the world illustrates how eagerly they would move in on America’s domestic shipping.

Protectionism is not the right word for preventing authoritarian nations from using ill-gotten wealth to gain influence. The right word is patriotism.

In The Wealth of Nations, the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, wrote that his native United Kingdom was right to protect its maritime trade from unfair foreign competition. Americans today would do well to heed Smith’s counsel.

US President Donald Trump(C) leaves after speaking about the situation with Iran in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington, DC, January 8, 2020. (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Greatness Agenda

The Slow March to War With Iran Continues

Clearly, the Trump Administration is committed to positioning itself to attack Iran. It looks to be a matter of “when” and not “if.” 

Throughout American history, presidents have made public pronouncements about their desire to avoid war even as they also embraced conflict as a viable tool of national policy. This was the case with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s posture toward the Japanese Empire. And it could also be the case with President Donald J. Trump and Iran.

As Burton W. Folsom, Jr. and Anita Folsom point out in FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America, Roosevelt shocked his “brains trust” advisors during the transition between Herbert Hoover’s and his own administration when he expressed “strong personal sympathy” for the Chinese who had been subjugated by the Japanese. 

FDR soon became possessed of an anti-Japanese fervor that would define his foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific in the run-up to World War II. FDR even told his advisers that he favored war with Japan “sooner rather than later.” 

Roosevelt’s decision to relocate the U.S. Pacific Fleet from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor, argues Roberta Wohlstetter in Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, began Japan’s jog to war against the United States. FDR and his civilian planners assumed that moving the fleet would deter Japanese aggression. Many U.S. military leaders disagreed. They argued that the move was an insufficient deterrent and would likely provoke a confrontation with Japan before the U.S. military was prepared for the challenge. The military planners proved to be correct. 

Iran and America Are Already at War

Today, a similar state of affairs exists with Iran. 

A regional power possessed of extreme, religiously-inspired delusions of grandeur, the Iranians have been on an almost evangelical mission to spread their Shia Islamism and national influence by sword across the whole of the chaotic Middle East. They’ve gained undue influence in Iraq and have managed to place forces in dangerous proximity to traditional U.S. regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, thanks to their efforts to support the Houthi Rebels of Yemen (to target Saudi Arabia) and their support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria (thereby targeting neighboring Israel). 

Despite the president’s insistence that he has no appetite for new foreign wars, the Trump Administration consistently has opposed Iranian aggression across the Middle East.

Since taking office in 2017, Trump systematically has imposed economic sanctions and ratcheted up the military pressure on the rogue state. Notably, the president fulfilled his campaign promise of abandoning the Obama Administration’s ill-advised nuclear agreement with Iran, which merely delayed rather than denied the mullahs the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. 

All of these actions, much like FDR’s actions against Japan, make an actual war more, not less likely. 

The Iranian regime and the Trump Administration already have escalated the conflict—whether it be Iran’s insane attack on Saudi oil production facilities, or the U.S. killing of Iranian Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani, and the subsequent Iranian rocket attacks on American bases in Iraq that resulted in 109 traumatic brain injuries to U.S. service members stationed there, the two sides are escalating against each other.

For example, the White House recently approved plans to sell Israel eight KC-46A mid-air refueling planes that would make it easier for Israel’s air force to strike unilaterally against suspected Iranian nuclear weapons sites. Moreover, Israel has increased its military’s operational tempo against Iranian forces in Syria. Israel’s top think tank, the Institute for National Security Affairs, warned that Israel would face a war this year with Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Americans also have increased their naval patrols directed against illicit Iranian weapons shipments to Houthi Rebels and Assad’s forces in Syria. Meantime, a massive cyber war is underway between the two powers just beyond the sight of the public. Any of these actions could lead to open conflict between Iran and the United States. 

These actions mirror the escalation that occurred between the United States and the Japanese Empire in 1940-41. As the year progresses, the slow march to war will intensify—particularly as Iran presses ahead with their development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. 

The only saving grace here is that the coronavirus pandemic appears to be weakening Iran at a time when Iran’s economy and political situation were already deteriorating. Yet, neither a flagging politico-economic situation nor the presence of a novel pandemic likely is enough to deter Iran. 

A Real War In Very Near Future?

Clearly, the Trump Administration is committed to positioning itself to attack Iran. It looks to be a matter of “when” and not “if.” 

Perhaps such a conflict will begin after Trump’s reelection. Already, American war planners have spoken of designs to cleave bits of oil-rich and strategic territories along Iran’s coastline away from Iranian control. Ultimately, as it was for FDR, the goal of the Trump Administration appears to be to deprive Iran’s regime of its territorial expansion by protecting U.S. allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, while seeking regime change through nonmilitary and, potentially, military means. 

There will be disagreements on the Left and Right as to the efficacy of this policy. But everyone should agree that it’s irresponsible to let Iran acquire nuclear arms and use those weapons (or the threat of using them) to continue their reckless foreign policy in the region. 

Nevertheless, embroiling the United States in what would be another major war in the Middle East might not be the best thing for either the country or for Trump’s historic presidency. 

The American people must be allowed to have an actual national debate—precisely what we were denied in the run-up to the Iraq War. Before the Trump Administration potentially commits this country to war once again, Americans need the opportunity to be persuaded that it’s necessary.

At this point, though, it seems that a war with Iran is a foregone conclusion at some point within the next four years. With the coronavirus driving down demand for oil globally and the price of crude sinking to historic lows—some are even predicting we could reach $20 a barrel this year—a Mideast war might be appealing to all parties, since it would most likely lead to a spike in oil prices.

After Iranian-backed militias operating in Iraq launched a rocket attack that killed and wounded U.S. and British troops at a base in northern Iraq, American warplanes took to the skies over Baghdad and blasted the suspected base from which the Iranian-supported militia launched the attack. This is yet another round in a seemingly ceaseless cycle of escalation that will eventuate in greater conflict and regional destabilization. 

Don’t be fooled: just as conflict with Japan was a fait accompli by the summer of 1940, at this point, some direct conflict with Iran is on its way. 

Are you ready?

Greatness Agenda

What If Coronavirus Had Been More Serious?

There must be a new way forward that frees the United States from dependency on a country that seeks to harm us. We should seize the moment before it’s too late.

Whatever may be the outcome of the Chinese coronavirus outbreak, it has most assuredly highlighted multiple weaknesses in U.S. policy on immigration and manufacturing. As alarmism and panic grow, whipped up in part by those hoping to damage the president in an election year, the virus—though certainly serious—appears much less likely to be as devastating as people thought it might be.

But what if it was?

What if this had been a pandemic on the level of the 1918 Spanish Flu that infected nearly one-third of the U.S. population and killed between 500,000 to 675,000. For perspective, the U.S. population at the time was just over 100 million. The equivalent death toll in our present-day population would be 1.5 million at a minimum.

What would be the results if a virus of that potency hit our shores with our porous borders and manufacturing weaknesses? What would be the impact on our healthcare system? Would it be able to withstand the pressure? I don’t think so.

As I have written, if the barbaric Chinese Communists should decide to withhold antibiotics and other medications, we are in a precarious position.

With the overwhelming majority of our antibiotics and drug supplies coming from China, juxtapose that with the fact that nearly 50 percent of Americans depend on these medications every day. What would happen if the Communist Chinese decided to weaponize that dependence?

If you think the hysteria over the coronavirus has been overwhelming, imagine how much worse it would be in the face of a real pandemic with a quickly dwindling supply of antibiotics? Now throw real panic into the mix as drug supplies disappear. Our healthcare system might actually implode under the weight of that pressure.

Almost no one is talking about this, yet they should be. Sixteen years ago, our last plant producing penicillin shut down. A New York Times story highlighted the problem—in 2009. Nobody cared. As the United States shuttered its medicinal manufacturing plants, China, which had been making heavy investments into penicillin fermentation since the early 1980s, stepped in and took a massive market share.

The offshoring of the production of antibiotics and drugs was a combination of two factors: corporatism, yes, but also the regulatory state.

We’ve seen the abuses of power that have taken place over the last few years as administrative state actors decided they would use the surveillance state and law enforcement for political purposes to target opponents over policy differences. But here we see that there are other dangers posed to citizens from the overreach of the administrative state: Namely, a regulatory regime that makes domestic production so onerous it drives that production offshore and then undermines our national interests.

But just as coronavirus has demonstrated our weaknesses with regard to antibiotic and drug manufacturing, yet again we are reminded that we do not have an adequate handle on who is coming in and out of our country.

Political pundits should not question the president’s motives or heap scorn on his quick decision to restrict the entry of people in to the United States from countries fighting major outbreaks of the Wuhan virus. His decisiveness in January most certainly bought us time.

In fact, Trump could be, and should be, even more aggressive.

The president ought to limit the points of entry to merely five: JFK, LAX, New Orleans, Vancouver, and Buffalo. He should restrict travel to places like Italy and China until this outbreak is a thing of the past. But it also should be a chance for him to remind the American people that in the event of a truly devastating pandemic, our southern border in its current state poses a real hazard to the American people.

While the media is doing its best to undermine Trump’s handling of the Wuhan virus, the president can flip the entire narrative on its head. The media wants to induce panic. Fine, we’ll play that game if that’s the way it’s going to be. Let’s see Trump turn it against them and take the chance to show Americans the weaknesses this virus has displayed in our unacceptable immigration and manufacturing systems.

We need to bring pharmaceutical production home. Trump should insist on it and make it an issue in the campaign. We need to secure our borders. Again, highlight this need in the coming election while there’s even more evidence for it.

There must be a new way forward that frees the United States from dependency on a country that seeks to harm us.  We have been given a second chance to correct our foolish faults. We should seize the moment before it’s too late.

Greatness Agenda

Evidence: China Executes Political Prisoners to Harvest Organs

The Chinese Communist Party treats the question of transplant volume as a state secret. But evidence is emerging that suggests China’s ready supply of organs is related to the dwindling number of government dissenters.

China’s organ transplantation system appears capable of working miracles. Need a new liver? You can get one in 24 to 72 hours—for a price. To anyone familiar with the voluntary organ donation system in the United States, where the median wait time for a liver exceeds 300 days, such availability raises the question about organ sourcing.

How does the Chinese system locate, identify, and match a deceased donor within such a short timeframe?

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) on Tuesday released “Organ Procurement and Extrajudicial Execution in China: A Review of the Evidence,” a report by China Studies Research Fellow Matthew P. Robertson that examines the evidence underlying allegations of extrajudicial killing for the harvesting of organs by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The report, together with the final judgment of the China Tribunal charged with investigating the question of the criminal liability of the Chinese state with respect to forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, challenges international complacency on the topic.

The World Health Organization and the International Transplant Society simply accept the assertion of the CCP that the Chinese organ transplant system is both ethical and voluntary. World governments do not publicly challenge China as to the source of its organs, and international medical and human rights organizations fail to raise public concerns as to the scale of the PRC transplant system and the real source of organs.

Given the evidence of ongoing organ trafficking, the falsification of official datasets, and the signs that Uyghur Muslims may be the latest victims of this form of state predation, the necessity of coordinated, international action is clear.

Robertson found that starting in 2000, China rapidly constructed a world-class organ transplantation system that began performing tens of thousands of transplants annually.

At first, Chinese officials claimed that all organs were from voluntary civilian donors. When this claim became untenable, they stated that organs, in fact, were harvested from death-row prisoners.

The claim that even the majority of organs could have come from death row prisoners is contradicted by the well-established decline in death-row executions from 2000 onward.

A close examination of Chinese transplant activity indicates that hospitals have been performing at least several times more transplants than even the largest estimates of death-row prisoners. Given this, Robertson provisionally concludes that the Chinese had some other organ source apart from death-row inmates.

Robertson also found the number of emergency liver transplants (that is, transplants performed within 24–72 hours of a patient’s presentation at a hospital with liver failure) or on an “on-demand” basis (within days or weeks) expanded significantly post-2000. This is an extremely strong indication of a blood-typed pool of living donors able to be executed on demand.

If death row prisoners were not the source of the majority of transplants, Robertson contends the only remaining plausible explanation for a substantial portion of the organ sourcing since 2000 is prisoners of conscience.

China’s anti-Falun Gong campaign in July 1999 coincided with the rapid growth of China’s transplant industry six months later. Widely reported blood tests and physical examinations consistent with those required for organ procurement, telephone admissions by Chinese doctors, threats of organ harvesting by prison and labor camp guards, and participation in the anti-Falun Gong campaign by Chinese transplant surgeons all serve as evidence supporting this conclusion.

Since 2015 and due to international pressure, China’s organ transplantation system has claimed to source organs from voluntary donors only. Forensic analysis of the relevant data shows that it has been falsified. This appears to have been a deliberate attempt to deceive the international medical community as to the current source of organs in China. Given that transplants continue both at scale and on-demand, it appears that a secondary concealed organ source is currently also being exploited.

During the same period, the Chinese Communist Party has embarked upon a large-scale campaign against Uyghur Muslims. Part of this campaign has included blood-testing, DNA typing, and the reported shipment of Uyghurs from Xinjiang to the Chinese interior by rail. Former Uyghur detainees now in exile have reported blood tests and physical examinations consistent with those necessary to establish organ health.

The coincidence of the mass internment in Xinjiang, on-going rapid organ availability in Chinese hospitals, and blood and physical tests consistent with assessing organ health, is readily explicable by the exploitation of Uyghurs for their organs.

Chinese officials treat the question of transplant volume as a state secret. When asked about it, they deflect and obfuscate. At this stage, only the CCP is in a position to put these allegations to rest.

If the allegations of systematic state-sanctioned and supported murder for the purposes of selling organs are vicious slanders, one would expect the CCP to be transparent in demonstrating the legitimate and ethical source of transplanted organs. Instead, they have co-opted international medical elites, responded with propaganda to those making the allegations, and engaged in an elaborate scheme of data falsification, creating a Potemkin voluntary donation system while continuing to offer organs on-demand to paying clients.

In short, they behave like people with something to hide.

VOC published this report to bring attention to and careful consideration of these longstanding allegations, and to prompt not only a shift in the terms of debate on this issue but long-overdue American and international governmental investigation and action.

The price of a Chinese transplant is not paid in dollars and cents, but rather in the lives of the prisoners of conscience whose organs are harvested. The price is too high.

QUANZHOU, CHINA - MARCH 09: Rescuers help a woman and her son out of the rubble of a collapsed hotel on March 9, 2020 in Quanzhou, Fujian Province of China. A hotel building collapsed in Quanzhou city of east China's Fujian Province on March 6, and 71 people were trapped. At least 18 people have died and 12 remain missing as of 6:50 a.m. Tuesday, the rescue headquarters said. A 10-year-old boy and his mother were rescued on Monday night after being trapped for 52 hours.
Greatness Agenda

Bullsh– in a China Shop

Nothing in China is as it seems.

For good people to believe in the innocence of evil people, for true believers to believe in the goodness of evildoers, for extraordinary claims to refute extraordinary evidence of evil, that takes religion—the religion of the Chinese Communist Party. 

The party rewrites the gospel in real-time, turning ruins into relief missions and missionaries into martyrs. 

In the ruins, beneath the remains of a hotel built in 2018, beneath seven stories of glass and concrete, lie martyrs to the ultimate lie: that China is not only alive but awake, shaking the world with the strength of its economy and the size of its military, when in fact this giant is sick.

The giant sleeps beneath the lies that bind, able to open its eyes but unable to endure what it sees.

What the world sees is the fast undoing of China by the coronavirus.

The virus is both the cause of a currency crisis and a crisis of confidence involving China’s government. Because even if the People’s Bank of China were to confiscate every banknote and convert every denomination to dollars, it would still be powerless to erase the words—three words—that serve as a warning label to the world: Made in China.

By forcing a doctor of science to speak like a minister of propaganda, by deleting his pleas for action and demanding that he plead guilty to lying, by ignoring his prescription and proscribing news about his death, the party reveals its corruption to the world.

Nothing in China is as it seems. 

Not in the cities, where terraces contain parapets and towers house battlements, nor in the countryside.

The entire country, from the Korean Peninsula to the Khunjerab Pass, from the Silk Road to the South China Sea, is a mask of uncertainty in a haze of misinformation.

The mask continues to crack, despite lies about its health and appearance, despite appearances by the general secretary of the party and all assertions to the contrary. 

Whether China’s leader shows his face or wears a face mask makes no difference because the coronavirus and what it has exposed is more contagious than a lie.

The truth—the truth about China—travels faster than a lie. It gallops even as other falsehoods fly, getting halfway around the world before another doctor renounces his story.

The truth, once given air, is fatal to the survival and the success of tyranny.

The truth is on every circuit board and sheet of particle board, on every suitcase and garment bag, on every tube of toothpaste and bottle of shampoo.

The truth is a massive recall against China.

Greatness Agenda

Teasing the Tiger

A Spanish lesson and a warning for the American Right.

It is impossible to understand Spain today without using the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) as a guide to everything that has happened since. “Spain’s present starts in 1936,” declared author Javier Cercas Mena. With this in mind, we have no option but to begin there as well.

With the abdication of Alphonso XIII in 1931 Spain was thrust into a modernity it was ill-prepared to confront. Riven by ethnic, class, regional, economic and above all, ideological divisions, the next five years saw three governments composed of ever-diverging motley assortments on both its political Left and Right. 

The Left had seized the initiative in the wake of the abdication to form a progressive government that immediately sought to strip landowners of their property and redistribute it to the landless peasants (campesinos), and to separate the all-powerful Roman Catholic Church from the state in order to eliminate what they perceived as its “medieval influence.” Driven by an increasingly extremist wing informed both by Marxism and anarchism, this loose coalition lost popular support as a reaction swung Spain once again to the right, this time under the Catholic banner of the Spanish Coalition of Autonomous Rights (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas, or CEDA coalition).

The return of the conservative Right to power only saw the political temperature immediately rise as the mining-rich region of Asturias openly rebelled against the new government (which was put down by a rising young general named Francisco Franco). The Left, having tasted power, sought to collapse the regime through the use of political violence which was met tit-for-tat by the increasingly-radical nationalists opposing them. 

Similar to how the current American political scene is divided by “different truths” and where honest engagement between Left and Right has been rendered all but impossible in a hyper-social media environment best-described as “toxic,” Spain was by this point ungovernable. Asked in a brilliant 1983 Granada TV (UK) documentary series called “The Spanish Civil War” why conflict was inevitable, Francoist-era Spanish politician and one-time young conservative military officer Tomás Garicano Goñi poignantly replied, “We couldn’t stand each other.

Closely monitoring the unfolding disaster was the privileged Spanish military officer class. Imbued with the motto “Dios, Patria y Libertad!” (God, Fatherland, and Liberty), they felt it their duty to be the custodians of Spain, reserving for themselves the right to interfere in politics should the politicians let things get too out of hand. A poorly organized coup attempt was put down by the liberal-leftist government in 1932, but the situation had changed so drastically for the worse by 1936 as the CEDA-led government lost to the Left in a new election that the generals were certain to launch another one. Political assassinations on both sides, murders of priests and nuns, looting of churches, physical attacks on landowners, all combined to force the generals’ hand, leading to a half-successful coup d’etat in July of that year.

The Spanish Civil War deserves a much longer treatment than I can give here so we will have to content ourselves with some broad brushstrokes. 

The coup d’etat was only partially successful as anarchist and Marxist trade unions in places like Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia managed to convince authorities to hand them weapons, alongside significant portions of the various police forces that stayed loyal to the new government. The loyalists, known as Republicans, had in their tent liberals, Marxists (Stalinists and Trotskyites), nationalist Basques seeking self-rule, Catalonian separatists, socialists, campesinos, tens of thousands of foreign volunteers (almost entirely Communist, including the Abraham Lincoln Brigade from the United States) and unique in Europe at the time, anarchists. 

As the coup failed to install military rule across Spain, the country was divided in half between the Republicans and the Nationalists. In places like Barcelona and Aragon, anarchists spearheaded a social revolution. One could fairly describe them as proto-social justice warriors. They killed landowners who hadn’t escaped to the Nationalist side, collectivized land through campesino-led councils, torched and looted churches (anti-clericalism led to the left-wing politics typical in the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna today), murdered bishops, priests, and nuns (7,000 in total by the end of the conflict with some help from the Stalinists), eliminated marriage to promote “free love,” and introduced abortion on demand. Dissent was deemed counterrevolutionary, and massacres of class enemies began in earnest.

The Nationalists gave no quarter to the Republicans. An alliance of the top military brass, industrialists, landowners, the Catholic Church, nationalists, and fascists, they quickly consolidated power in their half of Spain, arresting all those associated with the Republicans, annihilating labor unions, and also engaging in massacres of perceived enemies. 

Thanks to support from Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, the Nationalists were able slowly to begin squeezing the Republicans whose only aid came from Stalin’s USSR. The Soviets had flooded Republican Spain with their own GRU agents (the forerunner to the KGB) and this resulted in a “civil war within a civil war” as Stalin’s henchmen not only sought out anti-Stalinist Trotskyites but eliminated the Anarchists as a rival force as well. George Orwell, targeted by the GRU for being part of the quasi-Trotskyite POUM militia, barely escaped with his life as the Reds took over Barcelona in the May Days of 1937.

From Anti-Communist Bulwark to Political Anachronism

With Spanish leftists mortally wounded by this internal conflict, General Francisco Franco, now head of the Nationalist forces, was able to finish off the Republicans in the spring of 1939. Known as “The Sphinx” because he rarely, if ever, offered up his opinions on politics, Franco ruled Spain for the next four decades with the proverbial iron-grip. Having the wisdom and foresight to opt out of World War II, he bought grace from the victorious allies who saw in him a dedicated anti-Communist. 

Buttressed by the “Spanish Miracle,” an economic boom that lasted from 1959-1974, Franco’s regime saw little serious challenge to its rule. Spain became the sunny playground for vacationers from Western Europe while it turned into a political anachronism as World War II and the Spanish Civil War faded in the distance.

Yet problems were bubbling under the surface. 

Basque separatists engaged in political violence and terrorism were growing in confidence. The entrenched regime was weakening due to nepotism, corruption, and a weakening of its cadres as unscrupulous opportunists increased in number. 

Alongside this, the liberalization in much of the West began to seep into Spain by proximity and osmosis. How could the U.S.-led “Free West” be attached to an authoritarian and dictatorial regime that repressed its political opponents? This was an internal contradiction (albeit not the only one, as Pinochet’s Chile and the Junta’s Argentina exemplified) brought to the fore with the death of Franco in 1975.

Spanish liberals and leftists are teasing the tiger, and the tiger is finding its footing. Is the American conservative tiger made of paper? Or is it real?

Transition and Liberalization

Franco’s body, entombed in the Valley of the Fallen alongside thousands of civil war dead, was still warm when those charged with perpetuating the regime immediately started to work to reform it either out of principle or self-interest. Juan Carlos began his reign as monarch and blessed a democratic transition that took form in the 1978 Constitution under Prime Minister Adolfo Suarez

Motivated more by selfishness than by philosophical principles, nepotistic and corrupt products of the Franco regime chose sides to solidify its prospects in the new democratic constellation. Moving too quickly for reactionary elements to react, these liberalizing reforms saw the return of the socialists and even more disturbingly, saw the homecoming of the dreaded Communists, including civil war butchers like General Enrique Lister and arch-propagandist Dolores Ibarruri, a.k.a. “La Pasionaria.” 

All the ghosts of the past were returning as if the Franco era was merely an intermission.

Despite a last-ditch (and pathetic) effort by a tiny group of Franco-era nationalists to overthrow this New Spain, liberal democracy began to take root on its hard soil. In 1982, the socialist PSOE managed what was once thought impossible and returned to power in a landslide election victory. 

Defeated and demoralized, devoted Francoists were now a marginalized remnant as Spain’s future belonged not only to the PSOE but also the PP, the center-right party that rejected Franco’s legacy. The two parties traded governments, with their duopoly characterized by increasing corruption and the immediate reality of Basque terrorism from ETA. After joining NATO and the European Union, Spain’s transition into a modern liberal-democratic state was complete.

Throughout this new era of freedom Spanish society was changing. The Catholic Church’s privileged role in Spanish politics and culture quickly subsided as Spaniards secularized. Never a homogeneous country, regionalism beyond that of the Basques began to shout out its names, with Catalonian autonomists leading the pack. Free-market politics led to construction booms, while tourist development continued its brisk pace. Immigrants began to arrive in ever-increasing numbers, with Moroccans the most prominent. Spain now resembled France, Italy, and Germany where once it was the odd man out. 

Many observers began to ask the question: “Who really won the Spanish Civil War?”

Photo by Keystone/Getty Images

Economic Shock and Secessionism

On my way to a wedding in Valencia in 2011, I decided to take a leisurely drive from Barcelona, hugging the coast the entire way. The impact of the 2008 banking crisis was on display as I drove past dozens of uncompleted large-scale construction projects that dotted this part of Spain. 

Spain’s banking sector was significantly exposed to bad loans, with sky-high youth unemployment creating a class of cynics and pessimists, seeing no future for themselves. It is a truism that bad economic times lead to political radicalism and Spain is not only not an exception to this rule, but can be seen as its poster child in light of its tumultuous 20th-century history. 

The ghosts of the past were being disinterred. Now-institutionally entrenched political liberals and leftists declared war on history, seeking a symbolic victory by demanding that Franco’s remains be removed from his tomb (which they succeeded in doing in 2019). 

History would have to be rewritten in order to control the present narrative so as to determine the future course of events. Much like the attacks on “dead, white males” in U.S. history (as with the removal of Confederate statues, renaming of schools, and the leftist influence on the Common Core state standards), the Spanish Left moved to erase all reminders of the Franco era. Yet by doing this they also resurrected old political conflicts that belonged to that same past. Wanting to rid the country of Franco, Spain’s liberals and leftists also opened the door to the old cry of Catalonian Independence.

Scoring concession after concession from Madrid in the new democratic era, Catalonian separatists began to make moves to secede from Spain. 

The great fear among anti-secession Spaniards is that Catalonian independence will result in a Spanish “domino effect,” whereby granting Catalans the right to leave would eviscerate any argument insisting that Basques, Galicians, Valencians, and Andalusians remain united in one country. Riven by increasingly hostile polemics between the PSOE and PP, the ruling duopoly has continued to act meekly (in the minds of many Spaniards) toward the separatism emanating from Barcelona.

A sputtering economy, high youth unemployment, Catalonian secessionism, a significant immigrant population that not only had terrorist elements embedded within it but also alienated many of Spain’s have-nots and middle class, the country’s political scene quickly began to resemble the turbulence of the 1930s. 

Without charismatic leaders of their own, challengers to the ruling duopoly’s right and left began to appear. Podemos appeared on PSOE’s left, protesting against what they saw as the latter’s corruption and adherence to neoliberal economics. Vox appeared on PP’s right, disturbed by the perceived weak response to Catalonian secessionism, and as a reaction to what they saw as PP’s inherent wimpy behavior and broken promises, mirroring the populist movement supporting President Trump against the Republican Party establishment.

It’s Political War—and They Want Your Children

Until recently, there has been a de facto gentleman’s agreement in U.S. politics between the GOP and Democrats in terms of the tone of discourse. This has been upended due to the arrival of the 24/7 news cycle with its focus on sensationalism, and exacerbated by the emergence of social media. 

The sunny optimism, deference, and politeness associated with U.S. politics by outsiders such as myself made America seem unique to many. Yet like the tragedy of the commons, the democratization of information and media has witnessed a race to the bottom in polemics and discourse, unmasking the true intentions of many across the political spectrum. 

Frustration with those failing to adapt to this new manner of communication is why President Trump steamrolled his way through the Republican presidential primaries in 2016 and why Spain’s Vox is now that country’s third-largest political party, having scored 15 percent at the polls in November. 

Led by the photogenic Santiago Abascal, Vox represents the rightist objection to the neoliberal consensus. Soaring on its hardline toward Catalonian secessionists (which then saw the government co-opt some of its language and imprison some of secession’s leading proponents) it also took aim at the PSOE’s social policies. However, despite the perceived softness of PSOE towards Catalonian secessionists, the party continues to cement its social policies as if 1936 never happened. 

The history of Europe since the medieval period has been one where the royals (and later the state) sought the monopolization of power by reducing that of the Church, which acted as a rival center. This cycle of history was completed for the most part by the turn of the last century. 

The appearance of Marxism on the political scene diagnosed another center of loyalty, the family unit, which stood in the way of total state power. Spanish leftists used the freedom of action achieved during their civil war to implement anti-family policies, declaring marriage a “reactionary institution,” free love as “freedom,” and abortion on demand as a “fundamental right.”

The PSOE and the Spanish Left as a whole didn’t miss a beat despite the Franco era interregnum, working to reintroduce and institutionalize their anti-family policies so as to transform Spain once and for all. Wholly uncompromising, the PSOE is now pushing to force Spanish children to be taught gender studies (including transgenderism) as young as the age of 6. Does this sound familiar to you Americans? Religion, deemed retrograde, hateful, and beyond the pale, is rejected as a defense. Religious liberty cannot trump “sexual liberation” and “identity.”

Typical of the Left, they intend to overplay their hand and invite a reaction. This reaction now has taken form in Vox. 

Pursuing a policy that allows parents to have a veto on education that violates their ideological, moral, or religious views, Vox is threatening to vote down a proposed budget in the Spanish region of Murcia where it holds the balance of the vote. Rejecting the claim that children belong to the state, they have been ironically denounced as “authoritarians” and “fascists.” 

We are now seeing a replay of CEDA versus Spanish Socialists and anarchists/Communists from the 1930s. Hostile polemics, aggressive denunciations, and uncompromising attitudes towards all those not aboard the progressive train are wrenching the country back to a bloody era. Spain already has experience in this type of internal ideological conflict and its right-wing, absent from the scene for four decades now, is roaring back with a vengeance, ready to defend its people, nation, and families. 

Spanish liberals and leftists are teasing the tiger, and the tiger is finding its footing.

In the United States, there are striking similarities between the civil war era in Spain and American politics today. One important lesson to be learned is that progressives cannot tolerate compromise and they view politeness as weakness. They have a religious fervor in their stated social and political goals as we see with PSOE in Spain today, who are trying to implement changes that led to their country spilling the blood of half a million of its own people.

The state is coming after your children and politeness, fairness, and compromise are all demanded of you, but not of them. Is the American conservative tiger made of paper? Or is it real?

Greatness Agenda

As U.S. Pressures Beijing, the U.K. Kowtows to Huawei

Through several administrations, the United States has bent at the knee to Communists in China. We should not be surprised when the United Kingdom compromises with them.

It seemed so logical: once the “Brexit” from the European Union finally concluded, the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States would strengthen. This appeared even more likely in the wake of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party’s electoral landslide.

But never underestimate the power of European “nuanced” diplomacy to make the wrong decision.

Despite the piratical trade practices and patent intentions of Communist China that spurred the United States to sound the espionage alarm, Britain hit the national security snooze button. The British government this week it would collaborate with Huawei Communications on its 5G mobile network.

Per Jacob Knutson of Axios:

The U.K. government said Huawei will have access to “non-core” parts of the country’s network but will be banned from “sensitive locations” such as military or nuclear sites. Huawei’s overall share of U.K.’s 5G market will be capped at 35%. The cap will also “be kept under review to determine whether it should be further reduced as the market diversifies.”

That Huawei might be more technologically advanced and adaptive in its potentially malicious use of technologies than the maladroit British bureaucracy seems to be is ironically inconceivable to its nominally pro-business conservative government. Hence, an unworried Boris Johnson promised Britain’s allies, notably the United States, that his country’s collaboration with Huawei would not endanger its security relationships.

This could well prove the least reassuring promise from a British prime minister since “peace in our time.”

Why did Johnson wave off the espionage concerns of the United States—and members of his own Conservative Party, for that matter—regarding the security risks of collaborating with Huawei?

The American and international Left carp that it is the fault of—you guessed it—the Bad Orange Man currently occupying the White House. Almost gleefully, they insist that the U.S. campaign to prevent Huawei collaborating on our allies’ emerging 5G networks is failing for no other reason than that some Europeans hold Donald Trump in such low regard.

These Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers actually believe the British government’s own security establishment would forsake their sworn duty and imperil their nation because they may dislike Trump personally. Talk about insulting! 

It’s insulting, too, to America’s intelligence establishment. Whatever President Trump may think about parts of the intelligence community in relation to himself, its assessments in some areas remain credible and its relationships remain solid across the pond. Clearly, the warnings about Huawei have not fallen completely on deaf ears. Hence, Boris Johnson’s hedge that Huawei will be barred from sensitive locations and have its market share capped at 35 percent with the prospect it could be ratcheted down lower.

Blaming Trump for the Brits’ decision once more shows the TDS Left being disingenuous, naïve, or both. As for the Brits, no one has ever called “Perfidious Albion” naïve.

As at so many other times in our nations’ “special relationship,” American common sense has run headlong into British nuanced diplomacy. Trump and Johnson aren’t some new version of the Reagan and Thatcher trans-Atlantic dynamic duo, viewing China in the same way the earlier pair viewed the Soviet Union—as an evil empire. This is not to say that Trump and Johnson don’t share a similar view of Communist China and, thus, grasp the potential threat of Huawei’s espionage.

When it comes to Communist China, Trump and Johnson have distinguished security concerns from economic concerns, and in practice subordinated the former to the latter. Both leaders prefer to deal with Beijing in the sphere of economics. The big difference is that Trump views Communist China as America’s economic competitor while Johnson views Communist China as Britain’s economic partner. Our interests differ.

In this, Johnson is perfectly in line with other European leaders. Consequently, not only with England but with the entire European Union, the United States faces an uphill challenge to get them to share our concerns about Huawei.

As the Trump administration has witnessed, Huawei holds a special relationship of its own with the Beijing regime. Like his European peers, Johnson is willing to chance “managing” the national and international security risk of Huawei, given the certainty that boycotting Huawei would be met with swift economic retaliation by Communist China.

In the post-Brexit United Kingdom, this is something Johnson believes his island nation can ill-afford.

The economic consequence of a Huawei boycott would be particularly acute for the British. For Johnson, then, the equation is elementary: he needs (at minimum) to offset any losses to the British economy (and honor his party’s promises for increased domestic expenditures) that will be brought about by the loss of E.U. trade by increasing trade with the United States and Communist China.

As a result, the U.K. is going to walk the Huawei tightrope between national security and economic growth.

Domestically, this does have a further advantage for Johnson, as he can point to this decision to refute Labour’s claims he is Trump’s lackey. (Of course, he may wind up Xi Jinping’s lackey, but it’s early days.)

Doubtless, Johnson is aware this Huawei decision harms the U.K.-U.S. special relationship. But he considers the damage reparable—nothing a good trade deal with the former colonies couldn’t fix.

Likely, Johnson also believed the Trump Administration would complain about the Huawei decision, though perhaps less strenuously than many would expect.

If the initial American statement about the U.K.’s Huawei decision is any indication, Johnson is correct not to fret. According to Axios, a senior Trump Administration official explained:

The United States is disappointed by the U.K.’s decision. There is no safe option for untrusted vendors to control any part of a 5G network. [But] we look forward to working with the U.K. on a way forward that results in the exclusion of untrusted vendor components from 5G networks. We continue to urge all countries to carefully assess the long-term national security and economic impacts of allowing untrusted vendors access to important 5G network infrastructure.

This administration official’s statement is less a complaint than a concession speech. But, after all, it is in keeping with the administration’s helter-skelter approach to sanctioning Huawei out of security concerns, then backing off due to economic concerns.

A better approach would be to alert the British that our special relationship isn’t a one-way street, regardless of whichever side of it one drives. The first step would be to put the U.K. on notice that we are going to severely restrict intelligence gathering and sharing with them. And maybe Trump should pump the brakes on discussions of a free-trade agreement with Johnson.

But the truth is, the United States is neither well positioned nor disposed to do so, as it would be a clear case of expecting more from our allies than we are prepared to do for ourselves. Through several administrations, the United States has bent at the knee to Communist China. We should not be surprised when the United Kingdom kowtows to them.

Greatness Agenda

A Very British Goodbye

Democracy still works. Why bother voting? That helpless cry seems so silly now. Not only does voting matter—it has changed history.

Perhaps the penny has dropped. All 50 of them. In just a handful of hours, Great Britain leaves the European Union. Plagues of locusts, pestilence, and lepers wait patiently in the wings.

From where I’m sitting, though, all looks rosy. No marauding gangs of mottled malcontents seething in the streets. A distinct lack of killer bees, no super-gonorrhea—shame. The local sozzlers sink into the same cider-sodden slump.

To mark the occasion? A new 50 pence coin commemorating Brexit bearing the phrase, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations.”

My first thought: how novel. I haven’t held a coin between my fingers since the Millennium Bug.

The Brexit Coin, as it is now known, has enraged those still unreconciled to a reality ticking away its final hours.

Remainers are cheese-melting. And I’m beginning to worry. They’re raging about . . . heptagonal slithers of metal popular with men named Harold who still buy news printed on paper.

The detractors took to Twitter. So brave. They’ll refuse to use the coin. One said it was a symbol of “pure populism,” and can “only serve to divide further.”

Another chirped that the coin symbolized colonialism, fascism, and ableism. Or something.

Sir Phillip Pullman, a grown man who pens fantasy novels about armored polar bears, called for “all literate people” to boycott the 50 pence piece. The offense? Its (admittedly saddening) lack of Oxford comma.

So, all is well and good here. Nothing has changed. People on Twitter are still beguiled by lunar cycles. At 11 p.m. London time on Friday, we leave the European Union.

Not that some will notice. They’re still fighting the referendum. It’s been four years, yet hardcore Remainers refuse to clamber down from the trees.

It’s not about that. Those who tangled so vociferously against Brexit have been unknotted by its simplicity. Brexit is done. What was once the preserve of the nutter, the pub bore, the mustard-of-trousers is now the will of a majority. Populism, it appears, is popular.

Which explains the meltdown. Democracy only counts when they win. Yet they keep losing. Now, all they have is this impotent rage—an identity rendered, in a matter of hours, meaningless.

Still, they cling. To have voted Remain means one is open-minded, international, and can say “garçon!” without the reddening of cheek.

Nigel Farage summed it up. His farewell address to the European Parliament a moment he’s worked three decades to realize.

A scene that crystallized our desire to leave. A jovial goodbye, a waving of the Union Jack, stung by an astringent humorlessness from the dignitaries at the EU to which we are all too accustomed.

Farage promised that we won’t be back. And we won’t. The European Union has learned little from Brexit. They dare not allow the Italians or the French, their own referenda: they know the likely result.

They used to laugh at Nigel Farage. They’re not laughing now.

The fanatics put up a good fight. The philosopher-kings had two elections, three dead Brexit votes, and four years convincing themselves they are right and that the wrong will be overruled.

They took us to court. They demanded a second referendum. They warned of economic catastrophe.  All of which led to naught.

Nope. Boris Johnson’s crushing win put paid to all that.

And now we are done. Democracy still works. Why bother voting? That helpless cry seems so silly now.

Not only does voting matter—it has changed history. We have left the European Union against the counsel of virtually every sinew of power—the establishment, the media, the banks, the think tanks, the judiciary, celebrities, experts—the little people have won.

The psychology of this victory is tremendous. Had the establishment got its wish, the majority would never have voted again. What would have been the point?

For the last thirty years, the majority has not mattered. You think unlimited immigration, sending good jobs abroad, and unfettered globalism was the wish of the many?

Those were the desires of the philosopher-kings. They knew, and still know what is best for us.

Which is why, even as the hours dissolve into minutes, they still cannot quite believe what is happening to “their” country.

Democracy is alive and well. Brexit is a victory of the ordinary over the elite. The many over the very few. And it tastes better now than it did on the morning it first broke.

This is just the start. Those Remainers will morph into Rejoiners. Every economic flutter will serve as “proof” to head back. You think it is over? Not quite.

Just cast your eyes to President Trump’s impeachment trial. His high crime? He beat Hillary Clinton. Democracy counts only when the right people win.

Or at least it used to. It might have taken four years, but the wrong people this time have won. And the wrong people must again win in November. Or this very British revolution will count for nothing.


Greatness Agenda

Democracy Dies In Diverse Societies

By using their police powers to swamp their already fractious populations with alien nations, governments have undermined existing ethnic balance in Western democracies and the fellow feeling so essential to democracy’s endurance.

“Dissatisfaction with democracy within developed countries is at its highest level in almost 25 years,” say researchers at the University of Cambridge. “The UK and the United States had particularly high levels of discontent.”

No wonder. Certainly, America is a severely divided country. “Severely divided societies are short on community,” and “community is a prerequisite for majority rule,” argues Donald L. Horowitz, a scholar of democracy, at Duke University.

Having studied “constitutional engineering” in divided societies like South Africa, Horowitz has concluded,

In societies severely divided by ethnicity, race, religion, language, or any other form of ascriptive affiliation, ethnic divisions make democracy difficult, because they tend to produce ethnic parties and ethnic voting. An ethnic party with a majority of votes and seats can dominate minority groups, seemingly in perpetuity.

The Democratic Party has morphed into such a political organ. It’s responding to the fact that minorities in the United States will soon form a majority. This rising majority, as polling trends indicate, will speak in one political voice, for most immigrants to the United States are not from Europe and Canada, but from Latin America and Asia, south and east. And this cohort of immigrants is reliably progressive: It votes Democratic.

Likewise, the poor and the unskilled are well-represented among our country’s immigrant intake. It’s the way we roll. Poor immigrants favor the rearranging of the income curve in their new home.

The policy establishment preaches well-meaning pieties. Our ruling idiocracy, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, claims that all these energetically imported, fractious minorities will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles, and adopt our U.S. constitutional design and “our values.”

Democrats know better. Oh, the founding population, they expect, naïvely will hitch its existential survival to a political dispensation called liberal democracy.

The duped, historic majority of the United States willingly will cede political and institutional dominance in return for the constitutional safeguards—for the abstractions—offered by democracy. This, Democrats know only too well.

Moreover, being pushover-passive on matters domestic, many legacy Americans are generally pro-immigration, the more exotic and culturally incongruent, the better. It gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling about ourselves. But while Americans don’t see race; the people they’re importing see nothing but race.

Take Indian-Americans. They’re a relatively new addition to the United States’ top-down, state-planned, multicultural mess of pottage. Most Indian-Americans have “arrived in America over the past two decades.” But they are highly aggressive politically and reliably Democrat.

By the Economist’s telling, “Capitol Hill, for example, is crammed with staff and interns of Indian-American heritage. They also appear to be ‘over-represented’ in academia, the media and other influential posts.” And, it is their indisputable habit to deploy and grow “informal networks, as well-connected Indian-Americans find jobs for each other’s offspring.”

Caste and ethnicity: It’s what the scrupulously candid English magazine is here hinting at, ever so genteelly. As many in the corporate world know all too well—once an individual of South-Asian descent gets into a position of power, he is inclined to hire others of the same persuasion, talent be damned. Meek Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. They don’t seem to have that screw-or-be-screwed DNA to do battle with such flinty duplicity.

This mercenary, extractive approach to politics prevails among the immigrants being imported at a furious rate by the immigration-industrial-complex. Asians, aforementioned, are especially primed to seek, and aggressively extract, advantage from positions of power.

Take Kamala Harris. Although she “rarely mentioned the Indian side of her family while campaigning,” the senator’s mother migrated to California from Chennai, in southern India. Angry, anti-white, and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world—Kamala and those who share her way of thinking cannot be trusted to relinquish race as an organizing principle, in favor of a complete commitment to a constitutional design, in the America she and her progeny hope to inherit.

What about that seething Somali, Ilhan Omar, the representative from Minnesota? Who will be the loser in her brave, new, tribal America?

In the context of democracy and its discontents, Anglo-American elites and policymakers have courted and engineered their own demise. No other group expresses such incontinent exhilaration at the prospects of turning their historic populations into minorities.

“The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world,” states Pew Research. “Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population,” says the American Community Survey (ACS). According to the Migration Policy Institute, “One in seven U.S. residents is foreign-born.”

As stated, the foreign-born are, for the most part, from alien, often-hostile cultures.

“A century ago, more than 80 percent of [America’s] foreign-born population came from Europe; now the figure is only 10 percent. . . . America is becoming less European,” bewailed the Economist in one issue, inexplicably.

“Inexplicably,” because this (superb) news magazine usually glorifies the ethnic transformation of European societies through exotic immigration.

Confusion born of contradictions peaks in the next issue, where Robert Guest, of the same open-borders Economist, lectures and laments that, “The simplest way to make the world richer is to allow more people to move. Yet the politics of migration has never been more toxic.”

D’oh! While extolling endless migration to the West, the very same, November 16th-22 issue of the magazine depicts a world beset by unrest:

It is hard to keep up with the protest movements under way around the world. … only the global unrest of the late 1960s was similar in scope.

After much dissembling, it is eventually conceded that the global unrest is engulfing “well-functioning democracies” big time, too.

In fact, “a related phenomenon [in the unrest equation] is the weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy—that losers, who may represent a majority of the popular vote, will accept rule by the winners until the next election. The millions on the streets do not accept the patience that trade-off demands.” (Emphasis added.)

“A weakening of the bargain at the heart of Western-style democracy”? I wonder why?

Because flooding western democracies with non-western people has created societies without social capital; societies that share no enduring bonds other than the quest to extract as much power and possessions possible from the political process.

Western nation-states are now imperiled entities. Their central authorities have worked to erode delicate sectarian and ethnic balance within, and thus hope for lasting comity among disparate communities.

By using their police powers to swamp their already fractious populations with alien nations—where are the referenda on mass immigration?—governments have undermined existing ethnic balance in western democracies, and, with it, the fellow feeling so essential to democracy’s endurance.

Consider: Before Comrade Ted Kennedy’s coup of 1965, America was, by and large, a biracial nation. To quote author Ann Coulter, “From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable. . . . The country was about 85 percent to 90 percent white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10 percent to 15 percent African American.” In other words, America was largely a biracial compact; never a multicultural “nation of immigrants.”

Blacks and whites were only just beginning to come to terms with each other and with a shared, painful past.

Arguably, by opening the floodgates to mass, Third-World immigrants, the government of the day forever upset the teetering biracial balance within America.

Greatness Agenda

Does the Coronavirus Outbreak Tell Us That China Is Bad or Evil?

A compelling case could be made that the Chinese miracle is built on lies. It’s Enron times a billion.

There were 7,711 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in mainland China on Thursday. The number of confirmed cases has grown by about one-third per day for the past several days—a disturbingly steep growth curve for a highly contagious virus that is said to mutate rapidly. And that is already more than the 5,327 infections that happened during the SARS outbreak of 2003—also in China. Now there are also confirmed cases of coronavirus in every province of China and in 18 other countries, including the United States.

Despite quarantining Wuhan, a city of 11 million people (by comparison, New York City has 8.6 million residents), Chinese authorities have not been able to control the spread of this virus. As a result, the World Health Organization is considering declaring the coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency.

As we consider the frequent outbreaks of deadly, highly contagious virus epidemics originating in China and spreading to the rest of the world; their slow, ineffective responses; and the curious circumstances surrounding the origin of this particular virus, in the context of China’s increasingly aggressive geopolitical ambitions, it’s time for the rest of the world to ask some hard questions.

Let’s start with just one: Is China merely bad (as in incompetent) or is it evil (that is, full of malevolent intent)?

This much is becoming clear: China is a public health threat to the rest of the world.

According to Penn State University biologist Edward Holmes, the primary strains of flu “appear to arise every year from a ‘reservoir,’ perhaps in the tropics.” A report by Reuters adds. “Many experts have long believed Asia, and specifically China, to be the source of most influenza viruses.” Whether or not China is the source of all or most flu viruses, it is certainly the source of many of the most dangerous ones.

The internet has been rife with memes about the current outbreak beginning in a live animal food market where people eat soup made from contaminated bats. Bats carry the virus but are not themselves infected by it.

But with China now widely understood as having ambitions to become the world’s hegemonic power, many people are wondering what they are up to, especially as information has come to light about the Wuhan Institute of Virology from which some people speculate that the coronavirus might have escaped. The Institute is a Level 4 microbiology lab (the most secure type that handles the most dangerous pathogens) operated by the Chinese government and it has been working on SARS, Ebola, and various strains of coronavirus. It is one of four labs in China that are believed to work on biological weapons. This is at the root of the “evil” thesis.

It’s worth noting that just last year, two Chinese nationals, husband and wife Dr. Keding Cheng and Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, and an unknown number of their students (also Chinese nationals) were removed from the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as part of an intellectual property theft investigation. The NML is Canada’s only Level 4 microbiology lab, which is to say, it’s the type of lab the Chinese operate in Wuhan. Dr. Qiu is known for working on the Ebola virus, while her husband has published studies of SARS. The RCMP investigation noted that both made frequent trips back to China every year.

Does this mean that they were stealing intellectual property and sending it back to China? That’s not public information, but we do know that Chinese growth has relied upon the twin pillars of cheap labor and technology theft from the West. From semiconductors to software, power plants to pharmaceuticals, the Chinese are dependent upon espionage to keep up with the developed world. This is bad business for America and has led to stagnant wages, a shrinking middle class, and hollowed-out towns across the interior of the country.

When China steals technology, Americans lose jobs—that’s bad enough—but incompetence or malevolence in handling pathogens can lead to viral outbreaks that can kill you. That’s worse.

This leads to obvious questions without obvious answers:

1) Did the virus originate in the Wuhan lab?

2) If so, was it being developed as a bioweapon?

3) If it was being developed as a bioweapon, was it released intentionally? There is currently no public evidence that it was, but the Chinese government delayed reporting the outbreak to the WHO by several days. Again, this reasonably gives rise to the “bad or evil” question.

4) If the virus came from the Wuhan lab and was not released intentionally (we certainly hope not) why was the Chinese government unable to contain the virus at what should be a highly secure facility?

Occam’s Razor is a problem-solving principle that says “entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” It could be fairly reframed as “the simplest answer is usually right.” In practice, that means it’s usually incompetence rather than conspiracy. Incompetence is easy—just do nothing!—while successful conspiracies are hard to get moving as they require the cooperation of multiple entities.

So if this is incompetence, it speaks directly to the strength of the Chinese state which is currently spending vast resources around the globe in a largely successful attempt to buy influence and prestige, in short, to replace the United States and Europe in global leadership. The population of China (1.386 billion) is a potential source of strength—while also presenting governance challenges—that makes American dominance more difficult. After all, it was the ability of 18th century England to produce and export surplus population due to advances in agriculture that allowed them to quickly supersede their rival trading and exploring power of Portugal and Spain, even though that power had a substantial lead.

Chinese predominance clearly would be bad for American interests, though some Europeans (led by Germany’s Angela Merkel) have taken actions that suggest a decision on their part to realign with China against the United States. It’s worth noting the Trump Administration’s attempted rapprochement with Russia in 2017, in part, was about building relationships to counter the Chinese threat. But Democrats sacrificed that wise geopolitical effort for short-term political advantage.

Leaving aside American interests for a moment, what if China just isn’t up to it?

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 was a sign that the Soviet Union, though possessing a massive military bristling with nuclear weapons and remarkably, destructively active all around the world, was actually built on sand. In fact, it would last barely three more years before crumbling almost overnight.

Viewed in hindsight, the incompetence and apathy that led to Chernobyl were telling us something about the strength and stability of the regime. Perhaps, China’s inability to effectively control viruses and maybe—maybe!—even their inability to control high-value, high-security government laboratories tells us more about the Chinese regime than Xi Jinping would like us to know.

A compelling case could be made that the Chinese miracle is built on lies. It’s Enron times a billion. History supports this thesis. Throughout history, Han China has attempted hubristic expansion and then been defeated by much smaller regional rivals: the Manchu, Tibet, Mongolia, and Japan.

So as China continues pursuing its neo-imperialist political agenda and neo-mercantilist trade policy, buying local elites on the cheap, and impoverishing country after country, we should remember that powerful as China looks, the veneer is thin and the regime may be more brittle than we imagine. Social unrest is certainly something that concerns Chinese leadership. A broad-based virus epidemic could break the state.

Yes, China can build entire cities from scratch in the span of a few years. But then buildings collapse because of shoddy work. They are the world’s workshop but they also have the dirtiest air on the planet. They even export seafood around the world, but it’s poisoned by their own filth and often unhealthy to eat. In other words, it’s based on fraud and degradation.

So is China bad or evil? Maybe both. And perhaps the bad will save us from the evil.

Greatness Agenda

Identity Politics for Good

In the spring of 1996, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” appeared in the academic journal Social Text. Published by Duke University Press, the journal set for itself the mission of “forging creative connections between critical theory and political practice,” with an emphasis on race, sexuality, and gender studies.

Written by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University, the essay contended that quantum gravity and the associated forces of physics are merely social constructs and linguistic phenomena. “Transgressing” appeared in the “Science Wars” issue of Social Text, which featured a compilation of essays by leading postmodern scholars of the day.

Amid the back and forth between scientific “realists” and postmodernists during the 1990s, Social Text’s editor at the time, Andrew Ross, claimed the charges of the realists amounted to conservative reactionism.

The realists took the position that some things are true regardless of how they may be interpreted by an individual, a culture, or a society. Gravity, for example, is “true” regardless of whether one understands or accepts it. The postmodernists, on the other hand, asserted that everything is a social construct, rejected objectivity, the scientific method, and empiricism.

The “Science Wars” issue was supposed to be a hard-hitting salvo aimed at the realists—but Alan Sokal killed it in the crib.

Upon its publication, Sokal revealed that “Transgressing” was a hoax intended to show that left-wing institutions will consume anything and everything with their notions of “the proper leftist thought” and deconstructionist conclusions.

Would a leading academic journal of cultural studies publish an essay “liberally salted with nonsense” if “(a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”? The answer was a resounding yes.

In the piece, Sokal claimed that concepts such as gravity represent “an external world whose properties are independent of any individual human being,” insofar that they are based on oppressive “dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook.” He argued that “it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality’ [is] a social and linguistic construct.”

“Transgressing” championed postmodern social sciences as “counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities.” Sokal went so far as to declare that “physical ‘reality’ [with reality in the crosshairs of scare quotes] is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.” Not merely our theories of physical reality, wrote Sokal, but reality itself.

The Sokal hoax provided the clearest indication that the Left was then, as it is now, not so much concerned with truth as they are with the “long march” through our institutions. That was in 1996.

The Intellectual Roots of Subversion

By 2016, professors identifying as left-wing outnumbered conservatives on average 12-to-1 across American colleges and universities. A study published by Econ Journal surveyed 40 leading universities and found “out of 7,243 professors, Democrats outnumber Republicans 3,623 to 314, or by a ratio of 11 ½ to 1.” In history departments that ratio was revealed to be 33 ½-to-1.

To these more or less ideologically homogeneous institutions, then, we can trace the myriad of cancers plaguing virtually every aspect of our society; which can be called by the general name, “identity politics.”

In “Transgressing,” Sokal made references to “counterhegemonic” narratives. Nonsense to most, but perhaps familiar to those acquainted with the work of early 20th century Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Sokal, probably unintentionally, alluded to what Gramsci called “cultural hegemony.”

Hegemony, according to Gramsci, can be defined as the cultural framework and dominant ideology of a society. Gramsci believed, long before Andrew Breitbart, that politics are shaped by culture.

In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci observed that in Western societies “there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state [in the West] was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks.”

Culture, Gramsci found, forms the ramparts that protect both the ruling class and the dominant ideology. Gramsci’s observations can perhaps be corroborated by another European Marxist, Werner Sombart.

Sombart believed that a socialist revolution never took hold in the United States because of the existence of a powerful and extensive middle class. Not just a literal economic middle class, but the dominant bourgeois ideology espoused by the middle class and internalized by the masses, so forming “an essential part of the American national character.”

Counterhegemonic movements, narratives, and modes, then, are deliberately designed to dislocate and topple existing cultural and social institutions (“fortresses and earthworks”) so a new order can be ushered in.

Gramsci proposed two methods to dislocate and destroy an existing hegemony: war of movement and war of position.

The war of movement employs violent direct-action to achieve an end. The war of position, on the other hand, involves the identification, pursuit, and seizure of “switch-points of social power” by nonviolent and often legitimate means. Colleges and universities, for example, fall into this category.

These “switch-points” are positions that offer the means to shape the norms by which a society lives; by defining one set of activities as “normative,” others as violating cultural norms, thus conferring or denying legitimacy to certain kinds of behavior, language, and thought.

“The press is the most dynamic part of the ideological structure,” wrote Gramsci, “but not the only one” that can preserve, defend, and develop the ideological “front” of the ruling class. “Everything that directly or indirectly influences public opinion”—thus culture—“belongs to it: libraries, school associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture, the layout of streets and their names” all form the “fortifications and trenches” of the ruling class and its hegemony.

Gramsci believed the war of position—which manifested as the long march through our institutions—was the only way to terminally subvert developed Western societies. Gramsci was mostly correct in his estimation. Though it must be said that violence, such that is characteristic of the war of movement, is increasingly becoming a reality in the United States—typified by “anti-fascist” organizations that are not infrequently composed of students and professors.

Revolution and Revolutionaries in Victory

But to be clear, I do not claim that every Leftist has read Gramsci. Instead, I submit that Gramsci identified and articulated general principles that constitute viable modes of social change, and thus revolution. These manifest in the community activist, in the postmodern literary critic, in the violent black bloc—all of which instinctively follow patterns of behavior that confirm Gramsci’s assertions. And who can say that the Left has not been devastatingly effective, or behaved in just the way Gramsci said they should?

But the success of the Left has placed it in the precarious position of acting as a “conservative” force, insofar that it now struggles to conserve and consolidate its hegemony for which liberalism and its useful idiots provide a nice window dressing. “What conservatives are conserving,” according to David Frum, “is a liberal order.”

Effective Thinking for the Counterrevolution

Knowing Gramsci helps us to know the Left, true, but simply knowing is not enough now that we are the “dissident or marginalized communities.” Before the Right can execute its own cultural anabasis, it needs to formulate a new theoretical or ideological front. That is, it must conceive of its own identity politics if it is to conquer the future.

A predictable response might be that we should not resemble the problem that we are attempting to solve, and to even consider such a prescription un-American. We can turn to James Madison for rebuttal.

For the problem of faction that is inherent in democracy, Madison proposed a republic so extensive that the sheer number of factions would ensure that no one faction could dominate the rest. For the problem of oligarchy that often begins in democracy as demagoguery, Madison proposed rule by an elected few, or representative government. Madison’s genius was to formulate solutions that essentially were vaccines—they contained an agent that resembles the disease in order to stimulate antibody production.

For the problem of a fundamentally divisive identity politics, then, I propose a pro-American strain; one that is everything the existing hegemony is not. Therefore it would be explicitly Christian to start. If America has a legacy of religious toleration, it is precisely because that tolerance is the product of Christian ethics.

It must as well be grounded firmly in the tradition of Western civilization; the cultural and social institutions cultivated by America’s European settlers, into which non-European people have assimilated and thrived. It must emphasize the centrality of family, church, and nation.

So far as the Left abides by a universalist cosmopolitan ethic, ours must be particular. As Wayne Isaac has said: “Invading foreign countries to defend other people’s rights leads only to disaster.” The same is true for inviting masses of foreigners with no intention of becoming American in this sense.

It must not, moreover, be ideologically capitalist and certainly not socialist, but economically nationalist. America is not an “economy with a country,” but a country with an economy.

There are more, but these are just a few ingredients to begin. Many Americans have an affinity for these things already. They are deeply skeptical of a system that enables a transnational elite for whom national sovereignty, borders, and constitutions are but quaint obstacles to their designs. Americans watch in horror as Christianity is simultaneously attacked from without and subverted from within; just as the family and the nation are.

Forming Counterrevolutionaries

Once a theoretical basis for a pro-American identity politics has been developed, what follows next Gramsci called a “counter-hegemonic force,” such that is independent to the dominant social and cultural institutions. This parallel force would challenge not only the existing cultural hegemony, but the ruling class; i.e., the exponents of hegemonic values and norms, while constructing its own authority in accordance with a pro-American ideology.

But what does all of that mean, or even look like in practice? Consider Ohio.

“The Heart of It All” is taking concrete steps to strip Planned Parenthood of state funding, thus issuing a blow against one of the most powerful ideological fixtures of the Left: abortion. Ohio is also pushing to enact “constitutional carry” and to enforce a crackdown on sanctuary cities and school districts. If successful, this will be nothing less than a full rejection of the anti-Second Amendment, pro-illegal immigration, diversity narratives of the Left.

Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky, several other states, and even smaller regions within deep blue California, are taking steps or have attempted to issue their own denunciations of the existing hegemony.

Elsewhere, bold steps have been taken to create new institutions of learning, while the Center for American Greatness and The Charlemagne Institute represent genuinely independent intellectual forces—all of which are laying the groundwork for a cultural awakening.

A pro-American strain of identity politics already exists. It is made up of these “little platoons” all over the country fighting their own battles. What’s missing is the infrastructure to connect and arrange these parts of a dissident movement into a coherent phalanx capable of pressing on and crushing the Left. Organizations like Turning Point USA may come to mind here. TPUSA, however, is essentially Reagan boomerism shoved into a Millennial body, therefore ineffective and even counterproductive.

But with President Trump in the White House, there has never been a better time than now to find or make a new way.

If we are to execute our own march through the institutions of power, the first thing we must understand is that all politics are identity politics—be it cultural, political, territorial, religious, social, economic, or ascriptive. Yet this need not be divisive. As Edmund Burke put it, “To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ, as it were) of public affections. The love of the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality.” The second, that, like Gramsci, we are primarily fighting to overthrow, not conserve the “old order.” We would do well to learn from those who conquered the past, if we are to salvage something of the future.

Greatness Agenda

How Progressives Killed Birthright Citizenship

Progressives may very well have set the table for the end of birthright citizenship by executive order or legislation during the 1990s. This was not their intention, of course, but in their unprincipled pursuit of political power, they unwittingly might have choked off all attempts to cover birthright citizenship in a constitutional mantle.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Michael Anton cut to the heart of the birthright citizenship farce: “Why do bureaucracies typically, in our country anyway, act without authority? Usually, it’s to serve the interest of liberalism. When the administrative state is doing something that it’s not authorized to do, and that no one has ever told it to do, you can bet it’s not doing so for conservative reasons, or for reasons that benefit American citizens.”

Anton’s point is illustrated by efforts in the 1990s to bar illegal aliens from accessing public provisions and services.

Proposition 187, a California initiative championed by then-Governor Pete Wilson, appeared on the November 1994 ballot. The measure sought to stem illegal immigration by removing a major incentive: state-administered services, including healthcare, public education, and welfare benefits. Those certainly are incentives. Why else would current Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom so explicitly dangle the prize of universal healthcare for illegal aliens?

Democrats, however, haven’t always marched in their current lockstep on immigration.

President Clinton, though he argued against Prop. 187, told Californians “it is not wrong for you to want to reduce illegal immigration.” Clinton implored Californians to reject the measure and trust the federal government to “keep working on what we’re doing—stiffening the border patrol, stiffening the sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, stiffening our ability to get illegal immigrants out of the workforce, increasing our ability to deport people who have committed crimes who are illegal immigrants.”

Clinton was joined by Mexico’s president, Carlos Salinas, in opposition to Prop. 187. “Mexico affirms rejection of this xenophobic campaign,” said Salinas, “and will continue to act in defense of the labor and human rights of our migrant workers.” And here American citizens maintain the quaint idea that their government should serve their interests, rather than the interests of foreigners.

Despite the efforts of Clinton and his progressive allies, California voters passed Prop. 187 by a landslide: 59 percent to 41 percent, with a 60 percent voter turnout.

“We the People” won—but only temporarily.

The measure was challenged by several lawsuits, but a major blow came when activist-judge Mariana Pfaelzer slapped a permanent injunction against the proposition, deeming it unconstitutional. Yet here is where opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens might find a silver lining.

Pfaelzer affirmed that Prop. 187 was unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringed upon the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration, an “exclusively federal domain.

“California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration,” Pfaelzer wrote. “It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits.”

Pfaelzer’s twisted logic surrounding public benefits and their connection to immigration may have sent Prop. 187 to the gallows, but her reasoning in the case incidentally affirmed an opinion of Justice Horace Gray, author of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that declared a man born to parents who were lawfully and permanently residing in the United States at the time of his birth was an American citizen.

In that earlier case, Gray affirmed that matters regarding immigration and naturalization are the exclusive jurisdiction “of the legislative and executive branches of the national government.” In the words of Pfaelzer, this is an “exclusively federal domain,” thus within sights of an executive order, such as the one President Trump has proposed, or congressional legislation along the lines of what Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to introduce.

Still, progressives will be unwilling to admit defeat. The Wall Street Journal, for example, appeals to the authority of a great body of “legal scholars” who have denounced the president’s “plan for an executive order unconstitutional.”

To be clear, when Americans worked their will through the machinery of democracy by referendum to demand reform of our immigration laws, it was unconstitutional. Because according to Judge Pfaelzer, who affirmed Justice Gray, the legislative and executive branches of the federal government alone have jurisdiction over immigration. Now that the legislative and executive branches of the national government see fit to redress a decades-old farce, it is also unconstitutional. Confused? Don’t be. Progressives have appointed themselves as the masters of our institutions, and as such, they insist they alone have jurisdiction over our nation’s fate.

Against such maniacal foes, for whom all things outside their progressive projects are “unconstitutional” by default, “It falls, then, to Trump,” as Anton wrote in the Washington Post in July. Only our president can land a blow against the birthright citizenship chimera unleashed by the subverters of national sovereignty.

If the president is successful in restoring salience and sanity to the concept of citizenship after decades of abuse, progressives will have only their insatiable drive for power in the name of liberalism to thank for it.

Greatness Agenda

Birthright Citizenship and Its Allies

In 1989, an illegal alien being escorted back to the border gave birth in an Immigration and Naturalization Service van. That child was an American, thanks to our granting citizenship to children born on U.S. soil—a generosity that also extends to children born on any one of 15 islands between the Philippines and Hawaii.

Our promiscuity with citizenship, however “generous” it may seem, effaces the salience of an institution central to the concept of nationhood. That is doubtless what President Trump had in mind when he told reporters from Axios that he intends to sign an executive order that would put a stop to America’s birthright citizenship policy.

The United States and Canada are the only two “developed” countries that retain unrestricted birthright citizenship laws. While many Latin American and Caribbean nations also maintain lenient naturalization laws, it is important to understand them in their historical context. Those laws came about not out of a liberal exigency to bestow citizenship onto foreigners, but rather as a mechanism of empire-building designed subdue indigenous populations by growing the number of Europeans in their midst. “The birthright laws in South America have remained due to low immigration numbers,” explains John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego.

In other words, if Scots-Irish Americans began caravanning to Mexico, demanding jobs and welfare, and driving up crime rates, odds are good that Mexico would turn “nativist” and amend its constitution to decrease the liberality of their naturalization laws. Indeed, every other Western country that has experienced mass immigration has amended or repealed their naturalization laws in response.

The British did so beginning in 1962, responding to the mass migration of Indians, Poles, and Ukrainians. Parliament in 1981 passed the British Nationality Act, which made it “necessary for at least one parent of a United Kingdom-born child to be a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen or ‘settled’ in the United Kingdom or a colony (a permanent resident).”

Similarly, the French responded to mass migration of Muslim North African immigrants by changing the law to require French-born children of immigrants to apply for citizenship before their 18th birthday. The law has since been eased somewhat thanks to liberal policymakers, but the French still restrict citizenship to children of foreign parents who, at the age of 18, have lived in France for five of the previous seven years.

It is progressives in America, however, with their singular obsession with unrestricted birthright citizenship and unrestricted immigration who make the Europeans and our neighbors to the north (who actually have prohibitive immigration laws) seem conservative.

Supreme Confusion

Tony Mecia of The Weekly Standard claims that the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark provides a defense of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, while the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh asserts there is “little legal debate over the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Not true. Not true at all.

Nowrasteh glosses over part of the amendment that specifies about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and takes it to mean that “immigrants, both legal and illegal, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government, jurisdiction being a fancy legal word for ‘power.’ Any other interpretation would mean that the U.S. government didn’t have legal power over tourists or illegal immigrants here, a crazy notion.”

Is that crazy? The citizenship clause, adopted in 1868, was never meant to extend to those with allegiances to another nation, i.e., non-citizens. It was the Wong Kim Ark case that expanded the constitutional mandate at the end of the 19th century to confer citizenship unto the children of legal, permanent residents.

Nowrasteh quotes Republican Senator Jacob Howard, the architect of the citizenship clause, saying that it “will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” But Nowrasteh leaves out important remarks that would clarify meaning.

Then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull, who endorsed Senator Howard’s reading, said “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means, ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’” Jurisdiction, then, is not merely a fancy legal word for “power,” like Nowrasteh claims. “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” said Trumbull. “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Howard agreed with Trumbull’s reading, stating:

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Senator Reverdy Johnson clarified further: “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

This reading was understood and affirmed in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, when the Supreme Court said, “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” During the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court never referred to Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Taliban fighter born in the United States, as a citizen, nor did the Supreme Court declare in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen. Hamdi was born on American soil to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Consequently, when Nowrasteh claims that “we need to defend” this nation against a “president who seeks to undermine a great and exceptional American institution,” the problem is that the “institution” in question never existed, because the Supreme Court never ruled that children born in America of illegal aliens or temporary visitors are citizens.

Illegal vs. Legal Still Matters

Likewise, Mecia’s claim that advocates of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens can “largely point to Ark’s story” for rebuttal is incorrect, because the Supreme Court never held that the clause confers citizenship on the children of illegal aliens or temporary visitors, and the Wong case itself does no such thing. Because Wong dealt with a man born to parents who were lawfully and permanently residing in the United States at the time of his birth. Still, for the unconvinced, there is one more precedent that puts the proverbial nail in this coffin.

In the 1892 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States case, a Japanese woman sued immigration officials for denying her entry to the U.S. on the grounds that she might become a public charge. The man who rejected her claim, and chastised the courts for even entertaining it, was Justice Horace Gray—the author of the Wong decision. There are two relevant quotes from Ekiu by Justice Gray:

  1. “It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions. . .“
  2. “It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government.”

Birthright citizenship, as current federal policy stands, was neither the holding of Wong or the intent of Justice Gray’s decision, thus it cannot and does not operate as binding precedent on the Supreme Court—a point that the Hamdi case illustrates. Moreover, the claim that Trump is out to “reverse centuries of American tradition,” asserted by the likes of John Yoo and Angelica Alvarez, is bunk. As far as anyone can tell, unrestricted birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil began sometime in the mid-1960s, not “centuries” ago.

An institution that does not exist cannot be undermined, nor can such a farcical practice that is younger than the president himself constitute “centuries of American tradition.”

The open-borders cult demands that we tear down our borders and do nothing to guard ourselves against abuses. They will couch their language in hollow cries for “liberty,” “opportunity,” and “tolerance”—but tolerance least of all for Americans. If the nation that has offered so many people so much is to survive, securing its borders and ending the farce that is birthright citizenship are monumental steps in the right direction.

Greatness Agenda

America Is Not a Nation of Immigrants

America is a nation of immigrants. It’s a commonplace among the political class. Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), emergent leaders in the open-borders vanguard of the Democratic Party, never tire of saying so. Both object to the Trump Administration’s hard line on border control and have buttressed their calls for an “immigration reform” that would in effect re-open the floodgates of migrants from south of the border. The reason, they say, is that immigration is the defining characteristic of the nation.

It isn’t.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Curiously, yet another Kennedy understood this and might have a thing or two to say in protest against the “nation of immigrants” myth, even if he didn’t quite mean what he said.

During the U.S. Senate debate of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, Ted Kennedy, young Joe’s great-uncle, promised: “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Today, with far more than a million new arrivals per year, it seems Ted’s words did not age well.

The liberal lion also promised that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset,” and America would not be flooded “with immigrants from any one country or area.” Yet in 2014, the number of Latinos in California finally overtook the number of whites. This, too, did not age well.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” Kennedy assured his colleagues and fellow citizens. He was disingenuous at best. None of it worked out the way Kennedy promised in 1965.

The Emma Lazarus Myth

All of this is not presented simply to take a jab at young Joe, who is simply parroting the liberal line of the moment, but to highlight certain implicit truths—now disregarded by the progeny—in the assurances of his forebear.

If America has always been a nation of immigrants, why then did Ted Kennedy and others feel the need to reassure Americans that this nation would not be inundated by foreigners? This suggests that America was not, in fact, a nation of immigrants in the 1960s, and politicians aware of this spoke in this way to reassure a public equally aware of it and certainly unwilling to see America become a nation of immigrants.

Similarly, implicit in Ted Kennedy’s rhetoric is some recognition of the fact that mass immigration has the potential to change the country in ways that citizens might not like—such as by driving down wages and hurting native workers. Joe Kennedy, however, has suggested immigration is always a net good. Which Kennedy do we believe? (“Neither” is a perfectly acceptable answer.)

Then there is Kamala Harris. The freshman senator from California took the Independence Day holiday as an opportunity to claim the Declaration of Independence was signed by “immigrants” and performed the obligatory shout out to Emma Lazarus, who many liberal politicians believe wrote our immigration laws. Although Lazarus’ poem was added to the Statue of Liberty nearly two decades after the structure was dedicated, her belated verses became, at least to the Left, of more importance than the statue itself and the nation for which it stands. The idea of immigrants as all helpless “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse,” as Lazarus conceived, plays to the Left’s patronizing narrative of foreigners and citizen-subjects alike. But the problem with this conception of America’s immigrants, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) argued, is it’s a myth—and a bad one, at that.

“The 20 million-odd immigrants who arrived between 1870 and 1910,” said Moynihan, “were not the wretched refuse of anybody’s shores.” Rather, the fiery New York liberal concluded, they were an “extraordinary, enterprising and self-sufficient folk who knew exactly what they were doing and doing it quite on their own, thank you very much.”

Moynihan was right. America’s early immigrants were, with some exceptions (such as the Irish fleeing famine), Jewish tailors, Italian masons, German shopkeepers, skilled craftsmen, and artisans. It was not uncommon for these immigrants to make their fortunes in America and remigrate, either because they had never intended to stay or were induced by hardship. Those who stayed did so because they truly wanted to be American.

Lawbreaking Carries Huge Costs

To say that most of today’s immigrants do not have the qualities Moynihan adumbrated is not racist but rather an objective statement of facts, especially when 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant—legal or illegal—use at least one welfare program per year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Immigrants from Central America and Mexico, the bulk of today’s arrivals, have the highest rate of welfare use. Accordingly, the Left has shifted its politics to dangle a generous welfare-state before immigrants and illegal aliens.

Indeed, in 2017 the combined cost of education, medical, justice, and welfare expenditures attributed to illegal aliens alone amounted to $116 billion—up from $113 billion in 2013. That figure accounts for total taxes paid by illegal aliens. Moreover, it’s worth noting that amnesty for illegals would only exacerbate this problem, because amnesty would make available to them more forms of means-tested welfare benefits, and in turn increase the fiscal drain on American taxpayers.

While exceptional immigrants certainly still do arrive in the United States, progressive policy in the form of a generous welfare state has made it so immigrants no longer need to have the qualities of which Moynihan spoke.

But were America’s Founders immigrants, as Harris claims? Perhaps the simplest answer is found in the evolution of the English language in America. The term “immigrant,” Samuel P. Huntington informs us, did not come into usage in America until the 1780s—to distinguish new arrivals from the founding settlers.

Prior to the American Revolution, the English and the Dutch, according to historian John Higham, “conceived of themselves as founders, settlers, or planters—the formative population of those colonial societies—not as immigrants. Theirs was the polity, the language, the pattern of work and settlement, and many of the mental habits to which the immigrants would have to adjust.” If the Founders were immigrants, as some have mendaciously claimed, it would have been a tremendous surprise to them, because they certainly did not conceive of themselves as such.

By 1790, the population of the United States was 4 million. With the exception of a black minority and Indians, America was 60 percent ethnically English, 80 percent British—with Germans and the Dutch making up the remainder—and 98 percent Protestant. In 1797, John Jay noted specific attributes of American identity. In doing so, Jay did not simply adumbrate what “makes an American,” but made a distinction between settlers and immigrants. These are language (English), manners and customs (Anglo-Protestant), religion (Christianity), principles of government (British).

“We must,” Jay said of newcomers, “see our people more Americanized.”

Drawing from Huntington’s exhaustive demographic research, we find that while European wars kept immigration to a crawl, the overall American population increased by 35 percent between 1790 and 1800, 36 percent between 1800 and 1810, and 82 percent between 1800 and 1820. Huntington attributes the population explosion to high birth rates and fertility rates among the native-born population.

What Immigration Numbers Really Mean

Although it should be clear by now, the Left will never admit their claim of America as an historically multicultural-immigrant society is unsupportable, because that would damage their devil’s bargain with identity politics.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

The Right Way to Live

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

“The most important fact to keep in mind when studying political changes in America is that the United States is a product of a settler society,” writes historian J. Rogers Hollingsworth.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here . . . substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Certainly, the Left (and a great many neoconservatives, for that matter) pays lip service to the principles that constitute what we call the American Creed: liberty, representative government, individualism, and equality. The principles of the Creed are transcendent of race and ethnicity, and it is for this reason that America has the capacity to assimilate foreigners into its society in a way that is unique to the rest of the world. One can become an American in a way that it is impossible to become a German, for example.

But the principles behind the Creed are universal because they are largely abstractions. As such, they do not tell us anything about the society that actually attracts the immigrants, nor do they tell us anything about the people whose culture fostered the Creed. This is generally as far as civic nationalists are willing to go. Either out of political expediency or for fear of being condemned as racists for merely stating that this nation has an historic demographic; upon whose culture the societal scaffolding of our nation was built, and thus laid the foundations of a Creed by which all men can live.

The “crucible in which all the new types are melted into one,” said Teddy Roosevelt, “was shaped from 1776 to 1789, and our nationality was definitely fixed in all its essentials by the men of Washington’s day.” These “essentials” are derived from the historic Anglo-Protestant, Middle American core of the nation, in whose culture we find the British traditions of law, justice, and limits upon government power, the English language, a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music, Protestant moralism, and an ethic of self-control, self-reliance, and self-assertion.

In the Anglo tradition, Americans will find their customs, prayers, precepts, and political ideas; the bicameral legislature, the division of government powers, a legislative committee system, and so on. In the Protestant tradition, Americans find responsiveness of government to the people, their work ethic, individualism, a zeal for religious and cultural restoration, and a deep skepticism of centralized state power.

What the Multiculturalists Can Teach Us

The Creed did not appear spontaneously, it is the product of the culture of this nation’s historic Anglo-Protestant demographic. Millions of immigrants and their children attained prosperity in America because they Americanized and adopted Anglo-Protestant culture. There is no question that this is precisely what historically has been the case, and we can find affirmation in the words of the critics of Americanization.

Will Kymlicka, a multicultural theorist, argued in 1995 that before the 1960s, immigrants “were expected to shed their distinctive heritage and assimilate entirely to existing cultural norms.” This process of Americanization Kymlicka grudgingly labeled the “Anglo-conformity model.” “Anglo-conformity” is on target, and it is precisely this process that has benefitted both the nation and the immigrants who have embraced it. Moreover, there are two implicit truths in Kymlicka’s words: America was never a multicultural society, and Americanization was in full effect until the 1960s.

How effective? Prior to waves of sustained immigration from Latin America after the 1960s, the United States was a land of 200 million people virtually all speaking English.

The Left has fully rejected this older approach to assimilation as “un-American.” It is, to the Left, un-American to ask that foreigners respect our laws and, if they are so fortunate as to be admitted to this great nation, embrace the culture that made it all possible. According to the Left, America’s historic demographic is the only thing wrong with America at all, and if these native-born Americans will not acquiesce their forced obsolescence, then they should simply leave the country to make room for more “good Americans” who are not American at all. America, however, is “not the common property of all mankind,” as Anton has so correctly noted.

There are no patriots among those who have slandered or misconstrued the history, culture, and principles of this nation in an effort to subvert and destroy all that we call America. There are no patriots on the Left. America belongs to no one but Americans. It does not belong to the foreign masses of the world and it does not belong to the Left who, having rejected the American way, cannot count themselves among its patriots.

Correction: This article was edited slightly on July 12 to reflect that California’s Latino population overtook the white population in 2014; California did not become a majority Latino state. According to U.S. Census figures, the Golden State’s Latino population is 38 percent.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Getty Images

Greatness Agenda

No, White Communities Aren’t Less Safe than Diverse Ones

The Los Angeles Times last week published a provocative claim for our “woke” era: “White people should be more afraid of other whites than they are of people of color.” So argues Mike Males, a senior research fellow at the San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

On the face of it, Males’ assertion is perfectly reasonable, even mundane. America remains a majority-white country, therefore it’s more likely that whites will fall victim to crimes at the hands of other whites.

But that isn’t what Males is saying at all. Using his own analysis of U.S. Centers for Disease Control data between 2011 and 2015, Males wants us to conclude that whites are in far greater danger of being victims of violent crime than Latinos, blacks, Asians, and Native Americans, and moreover, whites living in counties that supported President Trump in 2016 are in the most danger of all. He makes more than a few dubious claims to reach that conclusion.

Males says he examined CDC “statistics on murder, gun killings and illegal-drug overdoses among white Americans,” but later writes the data pertains to “rates of homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities.” The column focuses on this claim: “Rates of homicides, gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities are highest in counties where nine in 10 residents are white and where President Trump won.” Word choice is important here. Males initially writes “murder,” then writes “homicide, gun killings”—yet gun killings are not necessarily murder.

Males provides just one link to the CDC WONDER database, which most readers wouldn’t bother figuring out how to use. It is difficult to know, then, what Males means by “homicide, gun killings” if this category terms can encompass manslaughter, suicide, killing in self-defense, police-involved killings, accidental death, and murder. By prefacing his analysis with the mention of murder, readers take “homicide, gun killings” to mean murder simply. This may not necessarily be the case.

In addition, it matters little if nine in 10 residents are white. What matters is who is committing the crimes; that is, are nonwhite minorities inflating crime rates? Males relies on the reader not thinking this through.

In 2014, the Washington Post compiled a list of the “five large counties (with populations above 10,000) that are whitest.” The same year, The Atlantic made a list of the most and least diverse counties in the United States. Males for his part, names Boone County, West Virginia, Washington County, Utah; Baxter County, Arkansas; and Brown County, Ohio.

Many of these white majority-least diverse counties are rural, including those listed by Males, and some compete either for the least populous or second-least populous counties in their respective states. As the Los Angeles Times has noted in its crime data, “in areas with relatively low populations, a small number of crimes can generate a large per capita rate.” More to the point, rural, white-majority regions are where we will find the highest rates of suicide and high rates of addiction—correlating with blue collar job loss—or “gun killings and illicit-drug fatalities.” Oklahoma has one of the highest rates of suicide, while West Virginia is ranked fifth in the nation for gun suicides. Males gives the impression that these regions are rampant with white violent crime, but the reality is much more tragic.

Shrinking job opportunities and crumbling social structures, coupled with the “associated stress that leads to physical or mental effects on health,” have all fueled gun-involved suicides and drug use.

I reached out to a team director with County Health Rankings (CHR), a program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, that also draws data from CDC WONDER. According to the team director, homicide in CHR’s data is synonymous with murder, while “firearm fatalities,” or gun killings, means “all firearm-related deaths are included in our measure, both intentional and non-intentional, self-inflicted or other.” This is where Males the Semanticist is revealed.

Using CHR, I examined the homicide and firearm fatalities data in the largest county Males mentions, Washington County, Utah.  It shows a low homicide rate (among the nation’s lowest) but a significantly higher firearm fatality rate. Washington County is located in Southwestern Utah, part of a region known as America’s “Suicide Belt.” Utah’s suicide rate consistently ranks in the national top 10 and ranks the highest in the nation for “prevalence of suicidal thoughts, at 6.8 percent, almost twice the national average.” Thus, “gun killings”—Males’ word choice—reflects the suicide rate of Utah, not the murder rate—although Males clearly seeks to give a different impression.

Boone County, the second largest of the counties Males mentions, shows firearm fatalities three times higher than the homicide rate. In a state with one of the highest rates of suicide, Boone’s is higher than the West Virginia average. In homicide rates, McDowell County far surpasses Boone County. McDowell, although also heavily white, is more racially diverse than Boone. Thus, the question of who is committing the crimes in areas with a predominantly white population is more pertinent to examining the truthfulness of Males’ conclusions than is white predominance by itself. Males adds:

Correspondingly, the white Americans who are safest from such deaths are those who live in racially diverse areas such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, where two-thirds of residents are nonwhite, where millions of immigrants live, and where voters favored Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nonwhites also are safer in these areas overall, though rates vary by location.

What Males omits, of course, is the fact that those cities are ethnically and racially fragmented. Although the cities themselves are “diverse,” the neighborhoods aren’t necessarily, because people cluster into homogenous communities. According to the Los Angeles Times, Bel-Air and Century City, predominantly white, are among the safest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Conversely, where there are virtually no whites, Chesterfield Park and Harvard Park are L.A.’s most violent neighborhoods.

Based on data compiled by the Times, Los Angeles County is 52 percent white and consists of 265 neighborhoods. Sixty-one of these neighborhoods are greater than 66 percent white, while 131 are less than 33 percent white—these can be considered “not diverse” due to the strong majority/minority dichotomy. Meanwhile, just 73 neighborhoods are between 33 percent and 66 percent white, or “diverse,” where there’s a slim racial majority or plurality.

So, yes, although L.A. appears “diverse” from afar, it’s actually segregated along clear ethnic and racial lines—the units of segregation are simply smaller than the city itself. The irony, then, is that these neighborhoods end up to be just as ethnically homogenous as the white Republican regions Males seemingly despises. This pattern appears in Chicago and New York as well. (And in San Francisco, for that matter.)

When we examine homicide statistics exclusively, the counties and independent cities—i.e., county equivalents matched up to those used by the U.S. Census Bureau—with the highest murder rates follow the pattern of increased diversity. CDC WONDER mortality data from 2010 through 2016 on murder rates confirm this.

Using CDC data, CHR compiled a list of national rankings for murder rates by county. The top 10 counties for number of murder deaths per 100,000 people are: Orleans, Louisiana (41); Baltimore City, Maryland (35); Coahoma, Mississippi, and St. Louis City, Missouri (34) (tied); Petersburg City, Virginia and Phillips, Arkansas (31) (tied); Dallas, Alabama (30); Washington County, Mississippi (27); and Macon, Alabama (26). All 10 of these cities and counties have a black plurality or majority, and are thus “diverse.” This trend can be observed on a city level as well.

Using FBI data on murder from 2016, NeighborhoodScout compiled a list of the cities that constitute America’s “murder capitals.” The top 10 are: East St. Louis, Illinois; Chester, Pennsylvania; Camden, New Jersey; St. Louis, Missouri; Gary, Indiana; West Memphis, Arkansas; Flint, Michigan; Detroit, Michigan; and New Orleans, Louisiana. Although Chicago is noticeably missing from that list, it is among 30 across the nation that have experienced rising murder rates. All 30 cities are “diverse,” with a black plurality or majority.

So, how does Males make his claims? Mostly through careful word choice and by relying on reader ignorance.

For example, much of Males’ argument hangs on the fact that “according to FBI data for 2015, when whites are murdered anywhere in the country, the murderer is five times more likely to be white than nonwhite.” And, my favorite, the “more white and Republican a county is, the greater the risk for white Americans.”

Males clearly presents this as damning evidence of a white (and Republican) proclivity for murder, but this is sophistry. “In reality, murder is an overwhelmingly intra-racial phenomenon, as whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks,” writes criminologist Scott Bonn. Additionally, the claim that there is a connection between Republican predominance and murder is hard to reconcile with the fact that the mayors of the top-10 most murderous cities in America are Democrats. Likewise, in 14 of the top 15 most dangerous cities in America, the mayors are Democrats.

When Males claims whites are less likely to be murdered in more diverse regions, he is partially correct, in the sense that whites are less likely to be murdered by other whites. Males takes a partial truth and stretches it into a whole lie, as FBI data shows 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings in 2015. Here Males, again, relies on readers not taking the time to check his facts. Males’ claims about crime are ultimately the inverse of the truth. According to an exhaustive report by Heather Mac Donald at the Manhattan Institute:

. . . white violence against blacks is dwarfed by black on white violence. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites (excluding homicide), and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence (excluding homicide) against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author. Blacks, in other words, committed 85 percent of the non-homicide interracial crimes of violence between blacks and whites, even though they are less than 13 percent of the population. Both the absolute number of incidents and the rate of black-on-white violence are therefore magnitudes higher than white-on-black violence.

Beyond misinforming readers, Males’ deceit plays into a much larger problem, what LAPD Captain Lillian Carranza has called a “systemic pattern of under-reporting certain crime statistics.” The Los Angeles Times has documented numerous such instances.

Carranza said she has found errors “in categorizing violent crimes that were never fixed” that resulted in LAPD “under-reporting violent crime for 2016 by about 10 percent.” Carranza said she believes “staff members may have falsified information,” or engaged in “cooking of the books . . . in order to get promotions, accolades and increased responsibility.”

Worst of all, Carranza charged that inaccurately reporting crime “affects the way we deploy resources, the support we get from federal grants, and in my case and in my officers case, who gets the support of discretionary resources and who doesn’t.” Males, then, is accomplice to a systemic issue that results in communities being underserved.

Males believes that President Trump is exploiting “macabre” concerns over immigration and therefore demonstrates his sympathy with racist elements in American society. Yet it stands to reason that whites living in areas where nonwhites commit disproportionate amounts of violent crime will support a president who campaigns on law and order—though this is tantamount to bigotry as far as Males is concerned, another way to view it is concern for your community and common sense.

Males stoops to deceit through biased presentation of data, exploiting suicide and addiction rates in regions hit hardest by globalization, for the purpose of generalizing about whites and Republicans as murderers, racists, and debauches. Males abuses the trust of his readers and makes light of the tragic deaths of so many Americans in order to make his false claims. Shame on the Los Angeles Times for enabling him.

Greatness Agenda

The Myth of American Racism

Two dozen skinheads turn out for a rally in rural Georgia, and the New York Times suddenly takes an interest in what goes on in the Bible Belt—if only to spite its denizens. Jacey Fortin writes:

A neo-Nazi rally outside of Atlanta on Saturday drew only a few participants and did not last very long.

But the event still upended Newnan, Ga., a city of about 38,000, for an afternoon as downtown shops closed and counter-protesters gathered. Hasco Craver, the assistant city manager, said more than 700 law enforcement officers were present from 42 agencies.

Were the 700 officers there to protect the 100 counter-protesters and Antifa from the two dozen skinheads? The event didn’t last long and few people showed up, but the media wants Americans to believe that this is proof of a thriving white supremacist movement, resurgent ever since President Trump took office. Why?

Because white supremacy and Nazism are political nonfactors in America today, but reports about the ongoing but not really expanding activities of these few losers, fuel the impression that mass media seeks to create of a resurgent racist America.

In a reasonable world, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declaring that the “face of the future of our country” shall have “brown skin and brown eyes,” or the fact Keith Ellison is deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee—despite his support for left-wing extremists, and his black nationalist and Islamist connections—would be proof enough that racial politics are acceptable when the peddler and the audience are not white.

But these are not reasonable times.

Racial and Ethnic Pride Selectively Decried

At a 1998 Gold Cup soccer game between Mexico and the United States, 91,255 fans were immersed in a “sea of red, white, and green flags,” and they booed when “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played. American players were assailed with “debris and cups of what might have been water, beer or worse.” A few fans who tried to raise an American flag were attacked with “fruit and cups of beer.”

“The match didn’t take place in Mexico City but in Los Angeles. Most of the fans were Mexican or Mexican-American,” writes John J. Miller. “Something’s wrong when I can’t even raise an American flag in my own country,” mused a fan. “Playing in Los Angeles is not a home game for the United States,” one Los Angeles Times reporter agreed.

Today, such reporting on a story like this would result in mass outrage, perhaps even violent demonstrations, and the development and implementation of new techniques to address the spooky, systemic racism . . . of the reporters. Herein lies the pernicious double standard of the much vaunted tolerance in “multicultural” America.

Nazism and white identity movements are deemed unacceptable pretty much across the board in America today. But they are decried nowhere more loudly than in media and academia, and among progressive politicos. The lonely calls for racial unity, purity, and pride in whiteness are deemed “fascist” or worse—which is fair enough, as far as it goes—but it reflects an amazing lack of self-awareness on the part of those progressives leading the charge against this fringe.

If ethno-racial pride is bad and movements based on those terms are unacceptable, it is difficult to see upon what grounds progressives condemn them since they are all too happy to applaud the same when the participants are brown.

It is strange, for example, that the manifesto of the Brown Berets is proudly touted at a place like Mesa College in San Diego. The first point of the Brown Beret 13-point program is: “Unity of all of our people, regardless of age, income, or political philosophy.” Now, don’t let charlatans like Gustavo Arellano fool you; “all of our people” is a code for ethnic nationalism, at the very least for racial-ethnic consciousness, as expressed by La Raza’s motto: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Compare it to Benito Mussolini’s: “Everything within the state; everything for the state; nothing outside the state.”

Mesa College, like most other colleges in the United States, partners with the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan), is MEChA’s blueprint for a brown ethno-state:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. . . . Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. . . . We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.

Indeed, Mesa College, UCLA, UC Irvine, and many others, hold “Raza Grad” celebrations. These graduation ceremonies are designed to venerate “Chicano/Hispanic/Latino” students, although participation is open to all students. Does this mean that traditional graduation ceremonies are not inclusive enough? Might we see a “Race Grad” ceremony that venerates students of European descent and their culture? (To ask that question is to answer it.)

By virtue of this blatant double standard, American racism—as construed by the media and academia—is a myth. It’s a myth that can only survive by being pushed onto America’s youth through colleges and universities, where they learn to become receptive to the narrative of an ongoing white race war against non-whites.

Assigned reading for a political science course in the San Diego Community College District (one of the largest community college districts in the nation) warns students, “it is clear that right-wing extremism is a powerful force in politics today.” The author supports this broad claim by citing her own expertise as a person who has studied trendy fascist, white supremacist metal music. This is not a joke. She then goes on to equate concerns over terrorism in the wake of 9/11 as comparable to a fascist ploy: “Not surprisingly, liberal democratic states have constructed political ‘enemies of the people’ to maintain political support; in this respect, antiterrorism parallels anticommunism and anti-Semitism.”

Fascist ideology persists, according to the author, because “it appeals not only to a few pathological individuals, but also to large numbers of democratic citizens in the United States and Europe.” This might explain why so many students leave college conditioned to think they will find a white fascist under every bed.

If You’re White, You’re Not Right

When Scottish comedian Mark Meechan was convicted of a hate crime for teaching his dog to perform the Nazi salute, Sheriff Derek O’Carroll said the act was “grossly offensive.”

On the other hand, Latino gang members (often comprised of illegal aliens) in California have a penchant for “terrorizing and killing blacks.” This problem became so prevalent at one point that authorities declared it “ethnic cleansing.” Even the Southern Poverty Law Center called it, “racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.” Still, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck persists in calling the sanctuary state laws that protect criminal aliens a “[display] of courage.”

When Latino gang member Ulysses Ocampo approached a dark-skinned man and asked, “You’re not one of those Crip or Blood faggot niggers, are you?” then said, “We don’t want no niggers in our ‘hood,’” before punching his new neighbor in the face, a judge failed to charge Ocampo with a hate crime. The judge argued Ocampo treats everyone “very badly” and dismissed three “hate crime” allegations. Of course, most anyone capable of punching random strangers in the face on the street is likely to the sort of person who treats everyone “very badly.” But a white man would have been charged with a hate crime, anyway.

After Latino gang member Louis Vasquez stabbed two random black men while shouting racial slurs, in what a police sergeant called a “hate-motivated” crime, prosecutors “did not substantiate a hate-crime allegation” and dropped that charge. “We have a serious interracial violence problem in this county involving blacks and Latinos,” said Lee Baca in 2008, addressing mounting brown-on-black crime. “The truth is that, in many cases, race is at the heart of the problem.”

If you are white and you teach your dog dumb tricks, you are a hate criminal (in the U.K., anyway). If you are brown and you terrorize and kill blacks, you are rewarded with sanctuary cities and special social status.

In fact, believing that whites violently terrorize and kill non-whites to the extent mass media and academia claim, would require utterly denying all available data. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald reports:

. . . white violence against blacks is dwarfed by black on white violence. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites (excluding homicide), and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence (excluding homicide) against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author. Blacks, in other words, committed 85 percent of the non-homicide interracial crimes of violence between blacks and whites, even though they are less than 13 percent of the population. Both the absolute number of incidents and the rate of black-on-white violence are therefore magnitudes higher than white-on-black violence. There is no white race war going on.

Interracial killings ticked up between blacks and whites in recent years, but the ratio at which it occurs has remained more or less consistent. FBI data show: 454 black-on-white killings and 209 white-on-black killings in 2009, 447 black-on-white killings and 218 white-on-black killings in 2010, 448 black-on-white killings and 193 white-on-black killings in 2011, 431 black-on-white killings and 193 white-on-black killings in 2012, 409 black-on-white killings and 189 white-on-black killings in 2013, 446 black-on-white killings and 187 white-on-black killings in 2014, 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings in 2015.

Police officers killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015; 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. Between 2015 and 2016 there was a 53 percent increase in gun murders of police officers, committed “vastly and disportionately” by black males. “The percentage of blacks arrested for crimes is consistent with police reports,” writes Aaron Bandler, citing data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and a study from 1985. Bandler says “the data disproves the notion that racism is what drives higher rates of arrests among the blacks than among whites or broader America.”

In 2016, “[a]mong all homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only 243,” so, “[i]f there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites,” Mac Donald concludes.

If there is “no white race war going on,” why does the media insist otherwise? Maybe because there is no better winning political formula than victimhood in this era.

Victimhood is profitable and in vogue, it means a perennial readership, applause from academia, political endorsements, and revenue for publications willing to manufacture a “white race war.” For politicians, it means crafting an adversarial white “other,” with which they can cow nonwhites into forming a permanent electorate.

The sad fact is, no other demographic finds themselves at the unique disadvantage whites in America do today. Not only are whites academically, politically, and economically disadvantaged by affirmative action policies that favor non-whites, but they are now subject to incessant attacks by the elites of our society and are strictly forbidden from defending themselves. Consider the claim by P. L. Thomas, a “Black Voices” columnist at the Huffington Post, that “Humanity Has A Serious White Man Problem”:

White men, often themselves mediocre, have parlayed their amassed wealth (typically begun in eras characterized by the very worst of human nature) into assuring that the general public has developed a skewed system for evaluating self-worth: white men are forgiven for any and every flaw because “he built this,” but everyone else cannot survive even one flaw, unless he is conveniently associated with the right white man.

Frank Joyce writes for Salon, “White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it.” Whites, according to Joyce, have for “500 years . . . exploited their fellow man and plundered the planet. It’s time they rein themselves in.” Brian Stauffer writes in Politico, “Donald Trump’s appeals to working-class white Americans have no doubt stoked racial tensions.” In an article for the New York Times titled, “Should I Give Up on White People?” Emory University psychology professor George Yancy asserts that to be “haunted while awake by a teratology of whiteness is far more frightening” than any nightmare. Again for the Times, Cardozo Law professor Ekow N. Yankah asks, “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?” His answer is almost identical to the one that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review a few years ago, with one crucial difference. Yankah says he will teach his children “to be cautious [of white people], I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.” Meanwhile, Professor Joseph Kuilema of Calvin College wrote in the school’s paper:

I, Joseph Kuilema, am certainly a racist. As a white male, I benefit tremendously from institutions and systems that have been built by and for people like me. This is how the social sciences define racism, not as merely the product of prejudice, explicit or implicit bias, but a system of power based on the invention of the “white race” by people in power.

Is that self-abasing enough? Not for Noel Ignatiev, the founder of Race Traitor, a journal with the motto, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Years ago, Harvard Magazine carried an excerpt from When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, which details the the journal’s mission:

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Of course we expected bewilderment from people who still think of race as biology. . . . Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, “Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

Note, “virtuously oppressed.” Persecution of whites is therefore justified as virtuous. Ignatiev is a professor of history at Massachusetts College of Art and Design and a fellow at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute—a prominent “black studies” department. The executive editor of Harvard Magazine, Christopher Reed, defended Ignatiev: “He’s arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness.”

“White genocide would not only be good, it is necessary and even unavoidable; that is, if we are interested in the survival of the planet, humanity, and all life forms,” writes Roberto D. Hernández in, “Why ‘White Genocide’ is Key to the Earth’s Survival.” Hernández, an assistant professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies at San Diego State University, claims that by “genocide” he is referring harmlessly to “the concept of collective mass ‘white’ ontological suicide.” Oh? This mass suicide will bring an end to “white supremacy,” which can be defined as whatever is inconvenient to this narrative. By writing this article as a dissenter, I am promoting white supremacy. Of white people in general, Trinity College Professor Johnny Eric Williams writes, “Let. Them. Fucking. Die. And smile a bit when you do. For you have done the universe a great service. Ashes to ashes. Dust to bigots.” The original post on Medium was met with much praise.

“Suppose ran a headline ‘Abolish the Black Race’?” asks David Horowitz. “What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is ‘Whither the Art Museum?’” Horowitz says that “[r]ace hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture.” Institutional racism exists after all, but it is exclusively codified against whites.

Horowitz is right. This narrative could not be carried out against any other group, not without untenable reprisal, whereas it is encouraged against whites. Our schools preach the evil of the white man, our media rationalizes and justifies their extinction, our politicians champion their annihilation. And if the soaring rate of suicide among white men and the media’s utter indifference to their plight tells us anything, it’s that whites have decided it’s time to acquiesce in their fate.

When two loiterers were arrested for refusing to make a purchase or leave a Starbucks, Karen Attiah wrote in the Washington Post, “Calling the police on black people isn’t a Starbucks problem. It’s an America problem.” America’s problem is that it has made every nonwhite group a protected class. In Who Are We?, Samuel P. Huntington notes:

President Clinton explicitly set forth this challenge when he said that America needed a third “great revolution” (in addition to the American Revolution and civil rights revolution) to “prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture.” Attacks on that culture undermine the [American] Creed it produced, and were reflected in the various movements promoting group rights against individual rights.

America’s problem is that mass media and academia are so concerned with revising history in a way that confirms their biases, that they ignore, downplay, or spin existing social and cultural problems that contradict their narrative. Liberal paternalism toward nonwhites and identity politics have cultivated a society and culture that viciously resents the European Christian Westerners who fostered the American Creed, and thus the very principles that made this nation one that provides more legal protections and more opportunity to more people of color than any other—including all the nations of Africa and Latin America.

The white race war on nonwhites isn’t real, but Huntington warns that the “various forces challenging the core American culture and Creed” might someday lead “white Americans to revive the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identity and to create an America that would exclude, expel, or suppress people of other racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.” What comes next is “a racially intolerant country with high levels of intergroup conflict.”

I generally agree with Huntington, but I don’t think we have to wait for the Anglo-Protestant core of America to awaken to hate in order to see evidence of race hatred. The days of “a racially intolerant country” have arrived, and it’s nonwhites leading the charge.

Greatness Agenda

Why Ben Shapiro Is Wrong on Free Trade

Isaac Newton was a genius—perhaps the most intelligent man ever to walk this earth. It was he who uncovered the laws of motion, he who unraveled light’s mysteries, and he who first invented calculus. His work underpins modern mathematics, physics, and engineering.

And yet Newton lost his entire fortune in the South Sea Bubble—the 18th century’s great stock market crash. Newton was dreadfully overconfident. He thought his genius in mathematics would make him a genius investor. He was wrong. He had no idea what he was doing, and he paid the price.

That Newton made this mistake is unsurprising: expertise, knowledge, and even intelligence are often domain-specific and compartmentalized. In his book Moonwalking with Einstein, the former American memory champion Joshua Foer notes that chess masters can often recall every competitive game of chess they’ve ever played—piece positions and all. And yet, their memories are no better than average when it comes to memorizing poems or phone numbers. Their memory skills are domain-specific. Importantly, domain-specificity applies to all manner of expertise.

Sometimes the epistemic divisions are obvious: no one would take medical advice from a banker, neither should they take financial advice from their surgeon. But it isn’t always so clear-cut. For example, where do we draw the line between politics and economics? Can we even make a valid distinction between the two? In these circumstances, we tacitly assume that someone knowledgeable in politics is likewise knowledgeable in economics, and vice versa. This is often false.

Consider Ben Shapiro. In addition to being one of America’s most popular Republican commentators, Shapiro is a well-educated, articulate, and intelligent man. Likewise, Shapiro is an expert in a number of subjects including political science and law. And because of his obvious competence in these fields, his audience assumes his competence in others—particularly economics.

That assumption is wrong. Shapiro has a fairly shallow understanding of economics and lacks the historical knowledge to put what he does know into context. For that reason, his economic commentary is only as good as the source he parrots. Nowhere is this more obvious than in his opposition to President Trump’s tariff agenda.

Never Joust Scarecrows

Ben Shapiro recently released a now-viral video in which he claims to have “debunked tariffs” in three minutes. I suggest watching the video before proceeding.

Shapiro begins by saying that President Trump does not support tariffs on economic grounds because it is impossible to do so. Instead, he thinks Trump wants tariffs for cultural reasons—tariffs are just a part of the political narrative. Nonsense.

Trump has called for tariffs on economic grounds since the 1980s, and to claim now that Trump is lying is unnecessarily dismissive, patronizing, and profoundly unhelpful. Rather than straw-man the president and proceed to joust his effigy, Shapiro should address the arguments head-on. He needs to tackle the economic case for tariffs.

Eventually, he attempts this, noting that richer countries often run trade deficits—therefore trade deficits are good (or at least not bad). Shapiro states that Iran has a very large trade surplus, but it is fairly poor. Conversely, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have the world’s largest trade deficits, and yet these nations are among the world’s richest. “Where would you rather live?” he asks. Also, developing countries like India often run large trade deficits—clearly surpluses aren’t needed for economic growth.

Trouble is, Shapiro cherry-picked his examples to prove his point—the totality of the data shows quite the opposite, that countries with trade surpluses are both richer and grow faster than those with deficits.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the average per person gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) for the 20 countries with the largest trade surpluses is 48 percent larger than those 20 countries with the largest trade deficits. That is, the average GDP per person in the countries with the biggest trade surpluses is $49,941, while the average GDP per person in the countries with the biggest trade deficits is only $25,787. Countries with big surpluses are richer than those with big deficits. That’s the opposite of what Shapiro claimed.

Further, according to data from the World Bank, those countries with large trade surpluses grew faster than those with large deficits. The average annual rate of GDP at PPP per person growth between 1980 and 2014 for the above trade surplus nations was 5.46 percent. Meanwhile, the trade deficit nations grew by an average of just 3.99 percent. Essentially, nations with trade surpluses grew 27 percent faster than those with deficits over a 25 year period. Most importantly, these data account for changes in population—we’re talking about real growth here.

When Shapiro picks Iran as his representative trade surplus nation, you must remember that he did not pick Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden or China. Likewise, when he picks Canada as a representative of a trade deficit nation, remember that he did not pick Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Oman, or Brazil.

On balance, nations with trade surpluses are richer and more technologically advanced than deficit nations—but you wouldn’t get this impression from Shapiro’s video. His argument is nothing but sophistry.

Banana Republics Export Bananas, and Other (Obvious) Truths About Trade

Shapiro bases his understanding of international free trade on David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states that countries get richer when they specialize their production in things they are relatively good at making, and trade the surplus for things they are relatively bad at making. Essentially, trade makes all parties richer because it ensures that labor is used more efficiently.

Comparative advantage is an elegant theory, but it too is domain-specific—it only works when certain preconditions are met. For example, capital must be immobile for the theory to apply. Shapiro ignores this crucial limiting factor, and applies comparative advantage to just about everything. This is his root error.

Just as bad branches bear bad fruit, so, too, do incorrect presumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. For example, comparative advantage suggests that the key to getting rich is to specialize production, regardless of what you produce. That is, a country with a comparative advantage in growing soybeans should focus on growing more soybeans, while a country with a comparative advantage in manufacturing semiconductors should focus on manufacturing more semiconductors. In either case, this supposes, their relative wealth will correlate with the degree of specialization, as opposed to the complexity of their production.

This is objectively wrong.

In a 2006 paper titled “What You Export Matters,” economists Ricardo Hausmann, Jason Hwang, and Dani Rodrik found that that sophistication of a nation’s exports is highly correlated with that nation’s wealth and growth potential. Essentially, countries exporting things like cars and computers were richer and grew faster than countries exporting things like bananas and iron ore. Not only is this perfectly consistent with the above findings, but it makes logical sense when you understand how economic growth really works.

Contrary to what the theory of comparative advantage suggests, not all industries are created equal: some have high growth potential, others have very little.

A 2002 paper by Stephen Redding of the London School of Economics found that economic growth is contingent upon technological innovation, and is therefore path-dependent. In other words, the majority of economic growth occurred in those industries most likely to generate or benefit from new technology, and that these industries build on those which came before. They are predicate industries, which could not exist without their respective anchor industries.

A Tale of Two Cities, Understanding Path-Dependence

This is complex stuff, but an example should clear it up.

There are two states, Athens and Sparta. Both are equal in every way. One day, an Athenian invents the pottery wheel, which allows potters to make amphorae 10-times faster than they could before. The Athenian pottery industry grows by a multiple of 10 over the next year. Likewise, the rest of Athens’ economy benefits due to the plentiful supply of cheaper pottery.

Meanwhile, something similar happens in Sparta. A Spartan mechanic invents the bellows, which allows Sparta to smelt iron as opposed to bronze. Thereafter Spartan tools are made of iron, and thus stay sharper longer. Sparta’s entire economy benefits from better tools. In both cases, economic growth was driven by technological innovation.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The next year an Athenian invents the flywheel, which allows potters to power the wheel by pumping it with their feet, rather than spin it by hand. Likewise, the Spartans invent the blast furnace, which allows them to smelt steel. This makes their tools even more efficient. Again, economic growth in Athens and Sparta was caused by technological innovation—innovation that was path-dependent.

Path-dependence recognizes that innovation builds on what came before, and that later innovations are impossible without the necessary foundation. In our fictional example, Sparta could not have invented the blast furnace without first being familiar with the bellows. Likewise, with Athens and the flywheel. The lesson: technological innovation, and thus economic growth, is path-dependent.

Although this point is somewhat tautological in nature—of course, there would be no Boeing 747 without the Wright brothers—it is nevertheless ignored by political pundits and economists alike.

Buying the Future We Should be Building

Ben Shapiro seems to think international free trade is in America’s best interests because it lets us maximize our comparative advantage, and therefore use our labor most effectively. The problem is our comparative advantage is in agriculture and resource extraction, by virtue of our relatively low population density and plentiful natural resource deposits.

Likewise, what comparative advantage America does have in high-tech industries is diminished by the fact that foreign governments heavily subsidize their advanced industries, steal our intellectual property, and benefit from nominally cheaper markets. Under such conditions, many otherwise competitive American industries either cannot compete, get bought out by foreign (often government-backed) rivals, or are forced to move abroad to reap the cost-savings.

As a result, America’s advanced industries—those most likely to generate new technologies, and drive long-run economic growth—are waning. Detroit is moving to Mexico City, Boston is moving to Bangalore. Data from the Brookings Institute confirm this: some 36 percent of America’s advanced industries have already moved abroad, and that the number of “innovation capitals” located in America has dropped by two-thirds since 1980. Bottom line: more and more key technological advances will be made abroad, rather than here at home.

Without high tariffs to level the playing field and reverse this process, America will soon be on the outside-looking-in, buying the future we should have been building. Ben Shapiro would be wise to revisit his presumptions, before advocating the intellectually bankrupt political ideology that is global free trade.