"On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium … and was smothered in boos. Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns …
" 'Obviously … the support that Mexico has on the night like tonight makes it a home game for them,' said U.S. Coach Bob Bradley, choosing his words carefully. 'It's part of something we have to deal with on the night.'" [In Gold Cup final, it's red, white and boo again, By Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2011]
U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard was not so wimpishly Politically Correct (although note that, in the article cited below, he did praise the Mexican team in a display of what used to be called sportsmanship):
"If Howard and his teammates weren't happy with the result, they certainly weren't enamored with what transpired afterwards. Howard cursed tournament officials because the post-game ceremonies were in Spanish…
"'CONCACAF should be ashamed of themselves,' Howard said after the U.S. lost to Mexico, 4-2 in the final on Saturday. 'I think it's a [expletive] disgrace that the entire post-game ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your ass if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn't be all in English.'" [Tim Howard Tirade on Spanish Post-Game Ceremony After Mexico Storms Back to Beat U.S. in Gold Cup Final, Fox News Latino, June 26, 2011. VDARE.com links added]
Typical of the MSM and PC sportswriters, Michael Lewis smeared this as a "tirade". Ask him why).
There are multiple layers of irony here, although the MainStream Media is too obtuse to notice it.
Obviously, there is a huge demand for this kind of autobiographical story from illegal aliens. So why don't we get more of them?
One key reason: despite the vast numbers of illegal aliens, they don't comprise much writing talent.
And that lack of competition makes illegal immigrants popular among American journalists. Nobody from Chiapas is going to take their jobs.
The broad lack of white collar talent among illegal immigrants (and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) is a massive problem for America in the long-run. But it's not a short-run problem for people who work in media, so they can't understand what everybody else is complaining about.
My own first reaction was: This guy sounds gay. And the first picture I saw of Vargas looked awfully gay. Not surprisingly, of course, he is gay.
Why did I suspect that? Because in my corporate career, most of the tiny number of white-collar Mexican men I worked with were homosexuals. Office work (and the schooling that precedes it) isn't very macho. So it doesn't appeal much to straight Mexican men.
But the single biggest joke: Jose Antonio Vargas, the self-proclaimed poster boy for illegal immigration, isn't even Hispanic. He's Asian. He's from the Philippines. After decades of trying, the MSM couldn't up with a real Mexican!
A photo caption read:
"With census figures in April showing one million Asian New Yorkers, leaders like Steven Choi, second from left, are trying to translate numbers into political power."
As always, the NYT describes racialist political organizing in broadly positive terms:
"As the number of Asians has soared, scores of groups that have long operated independently, and sometimes at odds, have begun pulling together into pan-Asian coalitions in recent years, particularly as younger generations and newer arrivals see the advantages of unifying."
You see, there's nothing disreputable about racialism— as long as white people aren't doing it.
In fact, it's to be encouraged. Racialists like Mr. Choi get their picture in the paper as "leaders". The only drawbacks the New York Times can see to Asian racialism in politics are purely practical ones:
"But making that happen is not easy, because the population that calls itself Asian is extremely diverse. … the poverty rate of Filipinos, for instance, is one-sixth that of Bangladeshis, according to 2009 data from the American Community Survey."
Evidently, diversity isn't strength for nonwhites.
Asians are prodded by the MSM to unite as a race to pursue power in America, just exactly as the U.S. ruling class has created and kowtows to Latin American immigrant solidarity:
"That milestone, in turn, has become a rallying cry for Asian New Yorkers who have been working for years to win more political representation, government assistance and public recognition. Many leaders have seized on the one-million figure as a fresh reason for immigrants and their descendants who hail from across the Asian continent to think of themselves as one people with a common cause—in the same way that many people from Spanish-speaking cultures have come to embrace the broad terms Latino and Hispanic."
The reality, of course, is that the only people who have embraced "the broad terms Latino and Hispanic" are self-appointed racial rent-seekers, such as Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, of Puerto Rican descent. They are responding, rationally if contemptibly, to the goodies handed out by the American governments, and by white Establishment institutions such as the New York Times. Ordinary Mexicans living in the U.S.—such as those yelling obscenities in the Rose Bowl Saturday—don't naturally call themselves "Hispanics". They proudly call themselves "Mexicans".
But for four decades, the American ruling class has in effect pursued a sort of "consolidate and capitulate" policy with immigrants— incredibly, the direct opposite of the Romans' famous "divide and conquer" policy.
One un-PC question that's never raised in the MSM (which is why we have VDARE.com): Who are the Asians supposed to be racially organizing against?
Political power is a zero sum game. So power has to come from somebody. But who does the conventional wisdom expect this united Asian power to come at the expense of?
Of course not! It will come from whites!
White elites are like airhead newscaster Kent Brockman in the 1994 "Deep Space Homer" episode of The Simpsons. Mistakenly convinced that Earth is about to be conquered by "a master race of giant space ants," Brockman famously announces:
"[Grimly] One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. [Suddenly ingratiating] And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."
Similarly, our white elites have jostled each other to be the first to announce: "I, for one, welcome our new immigrant overlords".
Of course, none of the white elites have offered to give up their own perquisites. Instead, the price will be paid by future generations of Americans.
Whites are the majority, silly—so they can easily afford to give up clout and money to these vanishingly tiny minorities!
Read on again.
Of course, this is not news to VDARE.com readers. You'll recall President Bill Clinton celebrating the onrushing end of the white majority in America.
" … Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by midcentury."
But nobody has ever explained how America is supposed to work when this happens. For decades, the reigning assumption has been that the majority should sacrifice for minorities because it's so numerous. But we've also been told repeatedly over the last dozen years that the majority should stop being the majority.
In the present, all we have is just white v. white jockeying for status. But, unfortunately, policies have consequences in the future.
For example, Brookings Institution demographer William H. Frey is quoted by AP's Yen as saying: "… Our future labor force is absolutely dependent on our ability to integrate and educate a new diverse child population."
Oh, that's all we have to do!
But the 2008 study by sociologists at the UCLA Chicano Studies Center, Generations of Exclusion, found that Mexican-Americans whose grandparents were born in the U.S. had only a six percent college graduation rate—compared to 29% for American whites.
What does that say about our ability to "integrate and educate"?
Needless to say, we will be writing about the consequences about the displacement of the historic American nation a great deal in the future. (For Brimelow's preliminary reflections, when it looked like the first Bush Amnesty would pass, see here).
But meanwhile, three points:
The latest federal report summarizing birth certificates, Births: Preliminary Data for 2009, still shows 53.5 percent of babies are born to non-Hispanic white women.
Of course, the NYT's Yen went on: "Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire, noted that much of the race change is being driven by increases in younger Hispanic women having more children than do white women …"
But this is old news by now. The newer news: the total number of Hispanic births dropped by 4 percent from 2008 to 2009.
What has become apparent to the handful of observers paying attention is that the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. soared in the middle of the last decade because of the subprime mortgage fiasco.
The zero-down payment loans demanded by George W. Bush at his 2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership spurred both an influx from south of the border and also a fertility frenzy.
The peak of the demographic disaster, not coincidentally, was 2006—the apogee of the housing bubble, which both dragged in illegal immigrant construction workers and encouraged resident Hispanics to have more children than they could afford. From 2005 to 2006, the number of illegitimate births to Hispanics soared 10 percent in a single year, while the number of births to married white women dropped.
Like the high IQ couple at the beginning of Idiocracy, married white couples tended to look at the price of houses and be discouraged from having children. But unmarried Mexicans look at the zero down payment and got excited.
In other words, the size of the Hispanic immigrant population in the U.S. is really sensitive to government policy. The Bush Administration pushed policies that bloated immigrant Hispanic numbers. Wiser leadership could do the opposite.
Laws making clear the high cost of "cheap" labor—for example, by making employers absorb health and education costs—would lead to lower Mexican birth rates in the U.S. and to more Mexicans going home.
Despite all the attention-grabbing severed heads in Mexico, life expectancy there is now up to 76.5 years. There is no humanitarian justification whatsoever for Mexicans crowding illegally into America just to have larger families than they can afford in their own country.
It's always the same: the only hope for the survival of the Republican Party (or GAP) is to put many millions of illegal immigrants on the road to voting.
Obviously, for the GOP, this makes no long-term demographic sense.
And it makes no short-term tactical sense either. You don't win at politics by losing battles. That just makes your party look like losers.
Right now, Rep. Gutierrez, with his constant whining about how Obama is betraying Latinos by being afraid to push hard for amnesty, looks like a loser.
With the whiny, ineffectual (and Puerto Rican) Rep. Gutierrez as the face of Hispanic Democrats in 2010, and Republicans fairly firm against him on amnesty, Mexican-American voters largely stayed home.
And a historically decent 38 percent of the few who showed up to vote actually cast their ballots for a Republican House candidate.
But if Republicans fall for the old Bush-Rove-McCain conventional wisdom, and make a deal with Obama on "comprehensive immigration reform", they'll put Gutierrez in the history books as the Hero of His (synthetic) "People".
And the Republicans will deserve "the curses of those who come after".
[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]