Foreword to The Way Life Should Be, by John Q. Publius

The Way Life Should Be? The Globalists’ Demographic War on America, with Maine as a Microcosm 
John Q. Publius
Ostara Publications, 2020; $16.95

The power of the pro-immigration lobby is well known and often written about. The vast majority of this writing is concerns events at the center of American political culture, at the federal level. There is good reason for this. Most immigration policy is produced at the federal level, and states such as Arizona and California that have attempted to enact legislation limiting immigration in one way or another have been slapped down by the judicial system.

In general, the pro-immigration forces have gotten their way. The main players are well known: the ethnic lobbies seeking more of their people as immigrants, leftist activist organizations seeking to alter the demographic and political balance of the U.S., together with big business interests intent on importing cheap labor.

The uniqueness of John Q. Publius’s The Way Life Should Be? is that it delves into how the pro-immigration forces have penetrated down to the state and local level. It focuses on what may seem like an unlikely target—the state of Maine which, as of this writing, remains around 95 percent White. It is also the most rural state east of the Mississippi, with a population of around 1.4 million.

But Maine is nevertheless the target of an extensive network of NGOs and various other religious and secular groups masquerading as charities that have focused their efforts on importing as many Third World peoples into the United States as possible. In this effort the NGOs are joined by business, political, academic, and media elites. Maine is thus a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of the country. The only group left out in all this are white middle-and working-class Americans who bear the burden of this onslaught in terms of increased taxes and a deteriorated social fabric.

Before embarking on all the detailed workings of these interlocking interest groups and their effect on immigration, Publius provides an excellent overview in the Introduction. It is an unequaled portrait of the big picture of how the neoliberal establishment has operated since the 1970s. The main trends are clear: the transformation of the economy from a focus on manufacturing to finance, outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, free trade, the decimation of labor unions, importing a new underclass from the Third World, and a decline in an ideology of economic or political nationalism. This has had the effect of enriching those at the top of the economic pyramid—Wall Street and those who own or manage multinational corporations able to take advantage of these trends. But it has devasted the working class: Wages have stagnated beginning in the 1970s.

These changes have especially impacted the white working class. Not only have their wages stagnated, but they have less political power because of the decline of unions that had been a central constituency of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party had been the party of the white working class but in the decades since the 1965 immigration law it became the party of diversity as intellectuals increasingly adopted the now-dominant “diversity is our greatest strength” stance that was clearly not in the interests of the white working class. Whereas unions had staunchly opposed immigration because of its effects on jobs and wages, the Democrats welcomed immigration as the future of the party—as indeed it is given that non-whites vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Without political representation at the national level, the white working class drifted to the Republican Party—the party that often gave lip service to immigration restriction but in fact welcomed immigration because it was the party of big business and cheap labor. The political genius of Donald Trump was that he tapped into the political frustration of the white working class by adopting a populist, anti-immigration rhetoric that went beyond the moribund class basis of American politics by appealing to an implicit sense of whiteness and the interests of the working class in repatriating manufacturing and lowering immigration. The Republican Party would be refashioned to be the party of white Americans, and the white working class became the largest constituency of the GOP. Of course, Trump’s actions since becoming president have not lived up to his pre-election rhetoric—due at least partly to being stymied by investigations, threats of impeachment, a unified and extremely hostile Democratic Party, and some Republicans who are not on board with his policy proposals.

A focus of my work, particularly my book, The Culture of Critique, is the rise of a new Jewish-dominated elite in America after a huge increase in the Jewish population resulting from immigration beginning in the late nineteenth century and continuing until immigration restriction was enacted in the 1920s. The Jewish rise to power and influence was gradual but even in 1911 Jewish activism was responsible for abrogating the U.S.-Russia trade agreement despite opposition from President Taft. By the 1920s Jews had developed important strongholds in the media (Hollywood, The New York Times, CBS, NBC) and in academia (particularly in departments of anthropology because of the influence of Franz Boas). Jewish influence increased markedly after World War II and anti-Semitism, which had been quite widespread in prior decades, declined dramatically.

However, the 1960s was a watershed decade that saw the eclipse of the previously dominant White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite with its power emanating from Ivy League universities and dominating business and professional societies. As Eric Kaufmann noted,

By the 1960s, as if by magic, the centuries-old machinery of WASP America began to stall like the spacecraft of Martian invaders in the contemporary hit film, War of the Worlds. In 1960, the first non-Protestant president was elected. In 1965, the national origins quota regime for immigration was replaced by a “color-blind” system. Meanwhile, Anglo-Protestants faded from the class photos of the economic, political, and cultural elite—their numbers declining rapidly, year upon year, in the universities, boardrooms, cabinets, courts, and legislatures. At the mass level, the cords holding Anglo-Protestant Americans together began to unwind as secular associations and mainline churches lost millions of members while the first truly national, non-WASP cultural icons appeared.[1]

As Kaufmann notes, a key piece of legislation during the 1960s was the immigration law of 1965 that ended the national origins bias of U.S. immigration law that had favored northwest Europe. In retrospect this law should be seen as a sort of coming out party for the new Jewish elite. Culture of Critique documents the role of Jewish activism in bringing about this sea change in American immigration policy. While the law did not immediately alter the demographic balance of the country, it did open the door, and in the ensuing decades activists, and, in particular, Jewish organizations, continued to press for greater numbers, with the result that the white population has declined from around 90 percent in the 1950s to less than 65 percent today. These non-White immigrants and their children vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party which has championed immigration in recent years to the point that there is a very real possibility of one-party rule by a decidedly left-wing party. Democrat presidential candidates called for an end to border enforcement, abolishing the Immigration and Customs enforcement, and making all immigrants—legal or illegal—eligible for medical care, voting rights, and driver’s licenses. Any calls to limit immigration are greeted with cries of “racism,” and attributions of Nazism are common. Publius documents the continuing Jewish influence on immigration policy throughout, the interlocking network of NGOs, activists, media owners and producers, and wealthy donors.

With all that as background, Publius details the incredibly elaborate and incredibly well-funded pro-immigration infrastructure in the present. Immigration advocacy organizations are funded by a class of wealthy capitalists. For example,

Pueblo Sin Fronteras is just one of a huge number of NGOs that are part of the vast refugee resettlement network. This network has virtually unlimited resources and is backed by some of the world’s wealthiest individuals, not to mention multi-national corporations, banks, private equity firms, and national governments. Their synergy has produced the terrible globalist monstrosity known as “neo-liberalism” confronting us today.

He then describes how Pueblo Sin Fronteras is connected to a whole host of other non-profits and to donors like George Soros. And of course, Soros supports a wide range of leftist activist organizations and politicians. The districts of politicians who are not completely on board with the immigration agenda are pinpointed for refugee resettlement. These are overwhelmingly white districts. The point is to destroy white enclaves and the high-trust societies that developed in traditional America.

Publius does an excellent job describing the costs of this onslaught. Crime: Somalis “are almost solely responsible—along with the Congolese—for all of the crime in the city” of Portland. There are also huge costs for welfare benefits and public housing, which push up property taxes. Public housing is stretched to the point that there is an increase in homelessness for native Mainers, “yet the political class has prioritized the comfort of these migrants who have the backing of the entire globalist establishment.” Most remain unemployed or in low-wage, part-time unskilled labor.  Academic achievement is predictably poor. Thus Maine is importing an underclass, but it’s an underclass that will reliably vote for liberal politicians and provide cheap labor for Maine’s businesses. All of this is justified by corrupt politicians bought and paid for by powerful economic and diversity-related interests who intone about Maine’s “values”—the moral imperative that justifies this assault on the traditional population of Maine. Needless to say, these same processes are at work throughout the rest of the U.S.

The Way Life Should Be provides a highly detailed picture of what is going on in Maine. It’s really a reference source for those wishing to understand the interlocking, lavishly funded infrastructure that is destroying America. It’s conclusion is exactly right:

The many service providers and NGOs described in this book are absolutely essential to the vast matrix of “philanthropic capitalism,” and it should be abundantly clear by now that all of these organizations from the “charitable” to the state- and corporate-sponsored are inter-connected and their machinery is geared toward first splintering and then eradicating the native populations of the Western world, indeed all unique races, ethnicities, and cultures under the heel of the neo-liberal oligarchy. Understanding these mechanisms is absolutely essential in counter-acting the Establishment’s destructive agenda.

[1] Eric Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 2–3.

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XVI: Serf’s Up!

It is not hyperbolic to state that the neo-liberal establishment is looking to create a globalized, mobile, de-racinated, and compliant serf class. They are already well on their way. The rhetoric is at this point well-understood, and as we enter what the ruling class believes is the end-stage in their consolidation of permanent power, they have become more brazen, in many instances not even bothering to hide their true intentions. One example is in Lewiston, Maine, where city officials explicitly state that their importation of Somalis is in no small part to become cogs in the service sector economy. They provide English classes to these imports “in order to improve their chances for employment. The goal is to compress the usual multi-generational English-acquisition process to one generation so that the Somalis can get jobs in the service economy.” With an average IQ of 68, two points below the threshold for mild mental retardation, we are not talking about the engineers of tomorrow, but that’s the beauty of a globalized workforce from the perspective of the multi-nationals. Somalis serve the dual purpose of working at McDonald’s and destroying social cohesion with violence and sheer alienness, whereas Asia, especially India, has been a vast resource for cheap tech sector workers. 70.9% of all H-1B applicants in 2015 were from India, with China in second at 9.7%.[1]

The burgeoning tech sector in the 21st century has been instrumental in destroying American labor rights and the middle class, and severely undermining national sovereignty. In many ways, it is the catalyst for the accelerating dissolution we are presently witnessing. First, the major players of Silicon Valley worked to violate the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, and then they lobbied for extensive replacement labor via H-1B visas. As Mark Ames reports:

In early 2005, as demand for Silicon Valley engineers began booming, Apple’s Steve Jobs sealed a secret and illegal pact with Google’s Eric Schmidt to artificially push their workers’ wages lower by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees, sharing wage scale information, and punishing violators. … eBay and its former CEO Meg Whitman, now CEO of HP, are being sued by both the federal government and the state of California for arranging a similar, secret wage-theft agreement with Intuit (and possibly Google as well) during the same period…A class action lawsuit [was] filed [by the Department of Justice] on behalf of over 100,000 tech employees whose wages were artificially lowered—an estimated $9 billion effectively stolen…to pad company earnings. Confidential internal Google and Apple memos…clearly show that what began as a secret cartel agreement between Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt to illegally fix the labor market for hi-tech workers, expanded within a few years to include companies ranging from Dell, IBM, eBay and Microsoft, to Comcast, Clear Channel, Dreamworks, and London-based public relations behemoth WPP. All told, the combined workforces of the companies involved totals well over a million employees.[2],[3]

As mentioned above, in addition to this domestic collusion, Silicon Valley—just like the rest of big tech’s co-conspirators in the Partnership for a New American Economy (NAE)—is uniform in its support for unlimited foreign workers visas. The “conservative” Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch,[4] makes the claim that there are “many upsides and no downsides,” which, if you’re Jeff Bezos or Salil Parekh, is true. Foreign scab labor is essential to your swollen profits and to maintaining lordship over your would-be serf class. As Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy state:

Employers decide whether to apply for an H-1B visa and select the candidates. Employers also have the power to decide whether the H-1B worker can remain in the country. As a result, employer motivations and behaviors are the primary drivers of the outcomes of the program. Nearly four in five H-1B applications approved by the US Department of Labor were for the lowest two wage levels, far below the average US worker’s wage. But, the costs savings run much deeper than just lower wages. Employers have enormous leverage over their H-1B workers, who are, in effect, indentured. A number of economists have recently described how rising monopsony[i.e., where there is only one buyer] power in the labor market is an important factor in explaining US wage stagnation. One of those economists, Princeton University’s Alan Krueger, who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Barack Obama White House, has described how the executives of Silicon Valley technology firms were especially eager to use their monopsony power to keep their engineers’ wages low by limiting their opportunities to leave. The executives—including Google’s Eric Schmidt, a vocal advocate of H-1B expansion—went so far as to collude with one another by agreeing not to poach each other’s engineers. So, especially in the technology industry, employers see limiting worker mobility as an important human-resource strategy to keep wages low. The H-1B rules provide even greater ability for employers to exercise monopsony power over workers. H-1B workers have limited labor-market options, since only a subset of employers is willing to sponsor a work visa. Further, like many others, H-1B workers are subject to noncompete agreements and, in some cases, are even subject to employment bonds. They are afraid to complain of violations, and can be sued for liquidated damages if they leave, even by employers found to violate H-1B rules.[5]

As discussed in Volume XII regarding Nestlé, an individual or organization’s prior conduct and violations have no negative bearing on their present status unless the ruling class needs a sacrificial lamb. Speaking of Nestlé, under the pretense of spreading “social justice” globally and “empowering women,” corporations such as Nestlé endeavor to work with NGOs and governments to produce the kind of semi-literate, cheap workforce they thrive on across the Third World. The stated aim is to, “Strengthen women’s economic capacity as entrepreneurs, employees, and producers, and invest in women’s leadership development.” Nestlé is also a founding member of the UNHCR Council of Business Leaders, which “aims to encourage private sector commitment, in programmes on health education…enhancing water delivery systems, promoting sports and education, especially for girls, as well as training skills and access to computers.” SwissContact [a joint project between the Swiss government and Nestlé] operates a program of Skill Development, including secretarial or beautician skills, as well as in construction, agriculture, energy, tourism, or media. SwissContact focuses on Asian, African, Latin American, and Central European countries, with the overall objective to “strengthen the private sector, facilitate the generation of sustainable employment for both men and women, and, ultimately, reduce poverty.” This faux-philanthropy is aimed at training a cheap, compliant workforce who will be loyal consumers and not ask questions. Nestlé also has a number of “global partnerships” and Development Programs:

·         Jamaica: “On-the-job” training for school leavers and apprenticeship programs in Nestlé operations, e.g. mechanics, industrial and electrical maintenance, welding, etc.

·         Brazil: An initiative of the government and with GR FoodServices, “First Job” creates 2000 working posts (over 2 years) in the catering field.

·         Philippines: Cut and Sew Livelihood Project provides jobs to community workers for factory orders for uniforms, hairnets, shoe covers, etc.

·         Kenya: Ndenderai youth generate income by producing banana-fibre boxes for Nestlé product displays.

·         Thailand: The “T-Bird” or Thailand Business Group for Rural Development, aims to harness and utilise private sector resources for underprivileged villages in remote areas, via loans to new businesses or contributions for education or infrastructure.

·         South Africa: More than 1 million SA Rand invested in the Apprenticeship Programme, situated Eastern Cape East London Factory which, in 2004, enrolled 12 people from a nearby disadvantaged community.

·         Dominican Republic: FORJA Project Training of young farmers, in collaboration with Swiss Association for International Cooperation, to develop business acumen and give technical and practical training in agriproduction techniques, while financing feasible micro-business potential. Includes scholarships to children of farmers and offers on-the-job practical training.[6]

They will be expected to be grateful for being lifted from abject poverty to relative poverty.  Meanwhile, in Western countries, the “externalities” of neo-liberalism force young people to flock to urban environs to pursue work, where they will be swiftly molded into hedonistic or sexless economic cogs, failing to reproduce and staying on the white-ish collar/barista treadmill to oblivion. The economic and taxation realities artificially depress White birthrates and “necessitate” the importation of huge numbers of non-Whites to fill the labor “needs” of the host country, as one line of propagandistic “reasoning” goes. As Paul Craig Roberts writes:

The rule of law is dead throughout the West. Democracy is a scam. There is oligarchic rule.  Everything is done for organized interest groups.  Nothing is done for the people…The number of white children, that is, the group of the next generation of parents, is not only declining relative to the populations of non-whites but also absolutely.  During 2010-2018 the number of white children shrank by 2.2 million. The American middle class, which is largely white, bears the brunt of income taxation which means that white Americans bear the brunt of the cost of the welfare support systems. The white middle class also bears the brunt through property taxes of the public school systems. Many middle class members pay again in private school tuition for the education of their children in safer and more ordered environments.  The cost of university education is exorbitant. All of these costs are rising faster than middle-class incomes, and this limits white procreation. The decline of people of European descent as a percentage of the US population can only accelerate as the child-bearing ability of the white population evaporates.[7]

All of this is by design. Maximizing profitability means the willful neglect of other considerations such as ethics, which includes commodifying the very misery created by neo-liberalism and marketing and selling it back to the alienated, disaffected population produced by the current system in the first place. What is vital to understand is that when we have the Democratic Socialists of America and the Libertarian Party essentially running on the same platform, the public-private binary is a false dilemma. The spectrum of options for American voters is either cultural degeneration and racial erasure with a “social justice” paint job, or one that masquerades as “individual liberty.” Though they may couch their ulterior motives in so much rhetoric, just as with the elephant and the jackass, the leadership’s eyes might as well be represented by those cartoon dollar signs. The nexus of venture capital and big tech has proven profoundly damaging to any notions of nation, but for executives, major shareholders, the various “compliance” cottage industries, advocacy groups, and the like it has been a financial bonanza.

The American Bar Association is keenly aware of the need to provide services—and reap the financial windfall—navigating the complex international framework of labor laws and corporate restructuring, especially as private equity firms have increasingly become involved in mergers and acquisitions—described by Market Realist as “a frenzy.” Tali Orner writes:

For companies that employ foreign nationals, that task is even more complicated as there are significant immigration-related consequences that must be addressed prior to sealing the deal on a merger or acquisition. Because most work visas are employer-specific, changes in a company’s structure could affect the validity of a foreign national employee’s nonimmigrant visa status or pending green card application…It is critical for in-house counsel to be aware of immigration-related issues that may arise as a result of a restructuring between companies that employ foreign nationals. Companies should work with competent and experienced immigration counsel early on in any transaction to ensure that they are in compliance with immigration regulations and to ensure that foreign national employees remain authorized to work in the United States.[8]

While parasitic in nature, these parasitic entities have their own kind of symbiosis that allows them to flourish and generally escape scrutiny while they scrap our nations for parts. They are all deeply dependent on each other, and their enmeshing—often collusion—provides for mutual benefit. It is vital to understand that this is how the neo-liberal model continues to perpetuate itself and accelerate the accrual of capital and resources to its beneficiaries at the expense of the many through its predication on exponential growth and its maintenance of a mutually-reinforcing network of inextricably intertwined universities, NGOs, think tanks, various media outlets, governing bodies, corporate boards, law firms, financiers, and the like.

One example of this type of relationship is exhibited by Ropes & Gray LLP, advisors to Kohlberg & Co. in connection with obtaining financing for the acquisition of CIBT Global, Inc., a provider of travel visa and immigration services to corporations, travel management companies, and individuals. They also make big money advising charitable foundations, and they work closely with Silver Lake Partners. Ropes & Gray also work closely with Bain Capital, which is very much invested in this particular model. On October 20th, 2016, Greg A. Shell, managing director of Bain Capital Double Impact Fund, gave the keynote speech at the Leading by Example conference hosted by The Boston Foundation, Boston College, and Ropes & Gray. This conference is one of the premier conferences of its kind where leading figures in this burgeoning industry—and yes, it should be abundantly clear by now it is an industry—compare notes and network. The 2018 edition featured a lot of kvetching about diversity, which will surely be reflected where you live and work and not where these people do. One major point of discussion was the nexus of “civic engagement” in “inner city communities” with economic output—so here you get the perfect twofer of Democrat votes and Chamber of Commerce GDP! Another point of discussion was why it is much more advantageous to lobby under the pretense of philanthropy as opposed to direct lobbying, and that is for several reasons, not least of which are avoiding “registration and disclosure requirements” and “restrictions imposed by sources of funding.”

Of the CEOs polled in “The Future of Foundation Philanthropy” (December 2016) sponsored by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, many stated that their philanthropic endeavors were necessary to circumvent the “political climate and structure that is hostile to advancement in our mission areas,” and “political gridlock, especially at the federal level, which makes it almost impossible to address critical long-term issues in an informed manner.” That’s all well and good if the causes being advanced were not terribly destructive and totally self-serving, but they are. And the government—at least in theory accountable to the people—is constrained in ways the private sector is not. Other salient points included (and as always, you need to read between the lines):

The majority of foundation CEOs interviewed—almost 60 percent—identify climate change or the environment as a pressing issue. Several comments stress the importance of climate change in particular… Several CEOs suggest that “federal government interference with philanthropy” or “governmental efforts to more tightly regulate foundations and endowments” may pose challenges and heighten restrictions for foundation philanthropy in the future. Some CEOs specifically mention a “backlash against tax deductions” or “potential changes to IRS tax laws related to foundation giving.”… On the topic of race, a number of CEOs contemplate what the future holds. Several believe that a “majority-minority shift in U.S. demographics” and “the browning of America” will have implications for foundation staffing and leadership—namely, in a needed “transition to multiethnic leadership” and a greater focus on “diversity in leadership.” Some note the importance of diverse staffing, governance, and leadership for foundations overall for “achieving better results.”… Others note that foundations can take risks and test ideas without the constraints or ramifications that business or government might have.

As a second example of the kind of neo-liberal incestuousness that would make Gellius blush, the entire political enterprise of “liberal democracy” is only so much corporatized oligarchic rule. Let’s consider major private equity firm Silver Lake Partners. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s former chief of staff—replaced by Dan Meyer of the Duberstein Group[9]—Barrett Karr is now a managing director and Head of Government Affairs in Washington, DC at Silver Lake Partners, assuming many of the duties of departed CFR member and international security adviser to the United Nations secretary-general Gordon M. Goldstein. Karr’s position entails coordinating with lobbyists, trade associations, media contacts, government agencies, and local, state, and federal government officials, working to see to the implementation of policy proposals and ensuring a generally favorable environment for Silver Lake to continue to grow its $43 billion in assets.

One of Silver Lake’s founders is Maine native and Lewiston High School graduate David Roux. Bristol Seafood, Inc. in Portland is now positioned for “exponential growth” in the international market, according to former CEO Darrell Pardy, after Roux’s decision to invest in the company and provide it with an infusion of capital. With the much-discussed addition of another facility and a consequent spike in its demand for cheap labor, Bristol will likely be using the same Hancock, DeCoster, Wyman, and company playbook.[10] For his part, Roux will likely see to it that Silver Lake’s private equity model be applied to Bristol’s seafood harvesting, which will have predictably disastrous consequences affecting wages, demographics, social cohesion and trust, and the Atlantic ecosystem.

Silver Lake Partners is emblematic of the private equity model so pervasive in driving America’s transformation from nation to economic zone. Silver Lake co-founder and CFR and NAE member Glenn H. Hutchins is on the New York Federal Reserve Board of Directors, co-chairs the Brookings Institution and Harvard University’s capital campaign, and is a director of AT&T and Virtu Financial—there is of course no conflict of interest. As a case-in-point, speaking of the Brookings Institution, their Hamilton Project is yet another outlet publishing policy papers and memoranda advocating for “a twenty-first century immigration policy.” There is a near-uniformity in the policy positions of these pro-immigration, GDP-centric organizations like the Hamilton Project or the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), which has featured Hutchins as a speaker at its conferences in the past. Organizations partnering with NABE include Facebook, Google, Netflix, IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Zillow, Brandeis University, Wells Fargo, Haver Analytics, Ford, Thomson Reuters, the US Census Bureau, Fidelity Investments, Fannie Mae, the McKinsey Institute, FedEx, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, once again clearly signaling the beneficiaries and supporters of unfettered non-White immigration. Many of those names are very familiar to us by now. What does their “twenty-first century immigration policy” entail? From the Hamilton Project’s May 2012 framing memorandum “The US Immigration System: Potential Benefits of Reform”:

The United States is a nation of immigrants…Even as immigration to the United States continues to rise after a midcentury dip, most agree that America’s immigration policy has failed to keep up with changing circumstances. The current system does not meet U.S. economic needs, no longer reflects the historic humanitarian goal of reuniting families set out in the landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, undermines the confidence of Americans in the rule of law, and has produced divisive and fragmented policy responses at the state level…While there are many ways in which both immigrants and U.S.-born citizens benefit from immigration, few are as stark as the fact that when a non-European college-educated immigrant moves from her native country to the United States, her annual productivity and compensation leaps by $57,000.[11]

Right. In the realm of per-capita GDP, immigration does have benefits—98% of which accrue to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.[12] The presumption that natives will experience a net gain is wholly theoretical and is also predicated on wealth re-distribution, that is to say an increased concentration of wealth in the hands of business owners at the expense of workers. This particular idea has been thoroughly discredited and yet remains the staid talking point of Koch Brothers types—out of the GDP growth through immigration of $1.7 to $2 trillion a year, the size of the redistribution will be much larger (about $531 billion) than the net gain (about $54 billion).[13] Furthermore, as Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies reports:

The National Academy of Sciences’ comprehensive look at the economic and fiscal impact of immigrants (taxes paid minus services used) found that the net fiscal burden immigrants create (taxes paid minus services used) is actually larger than the immigrant surplus…Whenever the impact of immigration on the labor market is discussed the argument is often made that immigration can fix the problems associated with our aging society, in particular the decline in the share of the population who are workers. However, this is not the case. For example, if we remove the 17.3 million immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in 2000-2014 and their 3.9 million U.S.-born children from 2014 Census Bureau data, 66 percent of the U.S. population would be of working age (16 to 65); if they are included, 66.2 percent are of working-age—a miniscule difference…Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants…In the fourth quarter of 2015 only about two-thirds of working-age native-born Americans actually had a job; as recently as 2000 about three-fourths were working. American does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs.[14]

The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that globally over 200 million people are unemployed and 1.44 billion people are in vulnerable employment. Both numbers are projected to continue to get worse. Trends in labor force participation also indicate a decline, and wage growth has been suppressed, contributing to a long-term decline in the labor share of income.

Then there is the erroneous historical claim of America’s wealth being mostly generated by generous immigration (let alone slavery, but that is a topic for another time). Immigration, which is taken as sure as death and taxes these days, is by no means necessary, and as we’ve seen post-1965, far from being beneficial, even slightly as was the case in the 19th and early 20th centuries, has proven to be a major detriment to the country at large. I’ve dedicated ample space elsewhere to further debunking these dubious claims of economic benefit, to say nothing of the litany of other fallacies—the “nation of immigrants” trope, the acceptance of the 1965 Immigration Act as “humanitarian” in aim, the conception of America as a contract, etc.—so let’s look behind the curtain to see who might lend their support to such deeply erroneous claims. Cui bono? Below is the Hamilton Project’s Advisory Council with accompanying position(s) at the memo’s time of publication:

George A. Akerlof, Koshland Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; Roger C. Altman, Founder & Chairman of Evercore Partners; Alan S. Blinder, Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics & Public Affairs at Princeton University; Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer at Ripplewood Holding, LLC; Jonathan Coslet, Senior Partner & Chief Investment Officer, TPG Capital, L.P.; Robert Cumby, Professor of Economics at Georgetown University; John Deutch, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Karen Dynan, Vice President & Co-Director of Economic Studies, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution; Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law University of California, Berkeley; Blair W. Effron, Founding Partner, Centerview Partners LLC; Judy Feder, Professor & Former Dean, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University; Roland Fryer, Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics, Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs; Mark T. Gallogly, Cofounder & Managing Principal, Centerbridge Partners Advisory Council; Ted Gayer, Senior Fellow & Co-Director of Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution; Richard Gephardt, President & Chief Executive Officer, Gephardt Group Government Affairs; Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Chuck Hagel, Distinguished Professor, Georgetown University; Glenn H. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Silver Lake; Jim Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC; Lawrence F. Katz, Elisabeth Allison Professor of Economics at Harvard University; Mark McKinnon, Global Vice Chair, Hill + Knowlton Strategies; Eric Mindich, Chief Executive Officer, Eton Park Capital Management; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Richard Perry, Chief Executive Officer, Perry Capital; Penny Pritzker, Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of PSP Capital; Meeghan Prunty, Senior Advisor, The Hamilton Project; Robert D. Reischauer, President Emeritus of The Urban Institute; Alice M. Rivlin, Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University; David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder & Managing Director of The Carlyle Group; Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations and Former U.S. Treasury Secretary; Leslie B. Samuels, Senior Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; Ralph L. Schlosstein, President & Chief Executive Officer, Evercore Partners; Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.; Eric Schwartz, 76 West Holdings; Thomas F. Steyer, Senior Managing Member, Farallon Capital Management; Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University; Laura D’Andrea Tyson, S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Greenstone, Director.

Yes, mass immigration really is great if you’re on this list. A lot of Jews on there, too. Must just be a coincidence.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] Kenneth Rapoza reports: “The H1-B visa…is the hallmark of every Indian IT company operating in the U.S.  Infosys, Wipro. Tata Consultancy, Tech Mahindra and HCL Technologies are the top Indian-owned companies importing foreign workers. In fact, of the top 10 companies that petition for the 85,000 H1-B visas issued annually, five are Indian. Cognizant, Accenture, Amazon, IBM and Deloitte are the biggest U.S. users…Indian IT firms fear Trump will either stop Indian companies from importing workers temporarily, or make it harder to provide evidence that Infosys is hiring from Bangalore because it cannot hire from Boston.”


[3] Ames writes: “The realities of inequality and capitalism invariably lead to mysticism of this sort, a natural human response to the dreary realities of concentrating so much wealth and power in the hands of a dozen interlocking board members at the expense of 100,000 employees, and so many other negative knock-off effects on the politics and culture of the world they dominate…One of the more telling elements to this lawsuit is the role played by ‘Star Wars’ creator George Lucas, who emerges as the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the wage-theft scheme. It’s almost too perfectly symbolic that Lucas — the symbiosis of Baby Boomer New Age mysticism, Left Coast power, political infantilism, and dreary 19th century labor exploitation — should be responsible for dreaming up the wage theft scheme back in the mid-1980s, when Lucas sold the computer animation division of Lucasfilm, Pixar, to Steve Jobs. Jobs held to this agreement, and used it as the basis two decades later to suppress employee costs just as fierce competition was driving up tech engineers’ wages.”

[4] Corporate partners and donors include McGraw-Hill Financial, Facebook, Google, the Walton Family Foundation, Koch Industries family foundation, eBay, Microsoft, Walmart, General Motors, ExxonMobil, Time Warner, Verizon, Visa, and Comcast. The Cato Institute in turn finances organizations such as the Maine Heritage Policy Center.





[9] Founded by Kenneth Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff to President Reagan and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Duberstein Group is a lobbying firm whose services have been retained by the likes of United Airlines, Pfizer, Northrup Grumman, Estee Lauder, Comcast, Hasbro, Bank of New York Mellon, British Petroleum, General Motors, Pepsi, McGraw-Hill Financial, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, Kellogg’s, DeBeers, Lenovo, Sara Lee, Fannie Mae, and Lockheed Martin. During the bailout, the Duberstein Group made in excess of $600,000 lobbying for Fannie Mae and $2.3 million lobbying for Goldman Sachs. The Duberstein Group regularly rubs elbows with previously-discussed firms such as Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hoauer, and Feld LLP and Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand, as well as the Wexler Group.

[10] Hancock Foods, along with Coastal Blueberry Service Inc., recently settled a suit over the mistreatment of eighteen Haitian migrant workers who had been recruited by contactor Carol Paul in Florida to come to Maine to pick blueberries in 2008. The suit alleged hundreds of violations of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act involving Paul’s promises to the workers. As evidenced elsewhere, these practices are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to these companies.



[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XIII: Ideological Stop-and-Frisk

Politicians largely serve at the pleasure of major corporate and financial interests and their Jewish backers.  Maine politicians are no exception, and many are deeply corrupt. As Mike Bond writes:

Some of America’s most corrupt politicians can be found in the windswept wilds of Maine. The Pine Tree State rates next-to-last in citizens’ trust of their legislators according to the Gallup Poll (April 4, 2014), and the Center for Public Integrity gives the state an F for corruption. Maine politicians appropriate taxpayer funds for their own companies, while governors pass legislation for huge energy projects which they then create companies to run. And energy companies write laws protecting their projects, laws that are obligingly passed verbatim by politicians who receive major payoffs from these companies. The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting recently revealed that former state Senate President Justin Alfond introduced bills in the Senate written entirely by energy industry lawyers, after the industry awarded him with major donations to his Political Action Committee, funds which he then used to pay other Democrats so they would vote for him as state Senate President.

Senator Angus King has an atrocious record on immigration (as do his peers Representative Jared Golden, Senator Susan Collins, and Representative Chellie Pingree). I wonder who funds King? Well, some of the top donors throughout his career include JStreetPAC (the “pro-Israel” PAC which, “advocate[s] for policies that advance shared US and Israeli interests as well as Jewish and democratic values, leading to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”), as well as PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Bernstein Shur, Unum, Bowdoin College, Northrop Grumman, Drummond Woodsum, Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Geiger, Jackson Labs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, T-Mobile, Verrill Dana, Harvard University, Microsoft, TD Bank, Comcast, Google, LL Bean, Podesta Group, Bain Capital, Time Warner, Walmart, the Rosenthal Foundation, McKesson, Liberty Mutual, and Eliot Cutler LLC. You might remember our friend, the Jewish Eliot Cutler, Director and Senior Advisor to the Chairman and to the CEO at Thornburg Investment Management and former candidate for Maine’s governorship himself. The former partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is very pro-immigration and is deeply embedded in the “Woke Capital” axis presently destroying the country. In 2012, Angus King held a fundraising event with Michael Bloomberg, and has also received substantial funding from S. Donald Sussman’s Paloma Partners, LLC (more on them later).

We’ve gone over Jared Golden’s sources of funding in an earlier installment, but what of Collins, Pingree, and Governor Janet Mills? We do know Mills, like Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling and Congresswoman Pingree, received funding from EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion PAC founded by Ellen Malcolm. Other Mills donors include attorney Joe Bornstein, Justin Alfond, S. Donald Sussman, Ira Waldman of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, Bernstein Shur, and LL Bean. Senator Collins’s major donors include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Goldman Sachs, the Blackstone Group, Marriott, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, FedEx, Unum, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Cohen Group, Verizon, Kleinberg Kaplan et al, Lions Gate Entertainment, Liberty Mutual, New Balance, Boeing, Pfizer, Warner Media Group, MGM Resorts, Morgan Stanley, UPS, Bank of America, Aetna, AT&T, Walmart, Home Depot, AFLAC, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Visa, American Bankers Association, New York Life Insurance, MetLife, Citigroup, Cisco Systems, JP Morgan Chase, Target, Elliott Management, DLA Piper, Blank Rome LLP, MBNA Corp., Fidelity, and McDonald’s. Pingree, educated at the College of the Atlantic and the University of Southern Maine, has received substantial campaign donations either directly from or from PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Goldman Sachs, General Dynamics, Unum, Harvard University, Berman & Simmons, the Rosenthal Group, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin,, Boeing, Nancy Pelosi for Congress, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Diversified Communications, Farm Aid, Inc., Tishman Construction, Harvard University, Drummond Woodsum, the University of Maine, UPS, Texas Instruments, Prudential, Bernstein Shur, Joe Bornstein, Pfizer, Tides Foundation, and Caremi Partners.

An explosive report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists chronicled Les Wexner’s illicit dealings involving HSBC—a list including al-Qaeda members, Clinton Foundation donors, and Jewish financier S. Donald Sussman, ex-husband of Maine Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree. Sussman’s Paloma Partners, LLC has donated over $236,000 to Pingree’s political campaigns and Pingree allegedly used Sussman’s private jet to attend campaign fundraisers, which is illegal. Pingree has also received over $100,000 from EMILY’s List and over $41,000 from JStreet.

Sussman has also donated large sums of money to EMILY’s List. In fact, he donated over $1.5 million to EMILY’s List in the 2018 election cycle alone. Angus King received $35,600 from Paloma Partners (on top of his almost $89,000 from JStreet), putting him in such company as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, and…Chellie Pingree. Despite no longer being wed, Sussman seems to continue to be able to open the purse strings for the “progressive” Pingree. You may find it interesting that Pingree’s daughter, Hannah, was appointed to the newly-created post of Head of the Office of Innovation by Governor Mills.

Paloma Partners has also donated to Shenna Bellows, state senator and Executive Director of The Holocaust and Human Rights Center (introduced in Volume IV). Paloma Partners also fund Emerge Maine, an organization dedicated to “increase the number of Democratic women leaders from diverse backgrounds in public office through recruitment, training and providing a powerful network.” Emerge Maine also receives funding from Southern Maine Community College, Berman & Simmons, the University of Maine, the University of Southern Maine, Bates College, Drummond Woodsum, Golden Leadership Fund (Representative Golden’s organization), Bernstein Shur, and Time Warner. Sussman disperses funds widely over the state; in addition to the people and organizations we’ve just covered, he also finances or co-finances: the Maine People’s Alliance, along with George Soros; the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders Maine Center for Economic Policy; the Maine Democratic Party; Maine Equal Justice Partners (MEJP), notorious for suing the LePage administration because it stopped the flow of welfare to illegal aliens; State Victory Action (backers of Maine Governor Janet Mills), along with fellow Jewish billionaires Soros and Tom Steyer through his NextGen America; and Maine Women Together. S. Donald Sussman was also once the majority owner of MaineToday Media, effectively putting him in control of most of Maine’s largest newspapers (more on this next time). What better way to control the narrative than to control the media? The Jews learned this lesson a long time ago.

Sussman doesn’t just dispense funds through Paloma Partners, he also does so through tax haven loopholes by using his personal residence in the US Virgin Islands and shell companies like Simply Radiant in the British Virgin Islands.[1] Sussman, like many wealthy Jews, uses his largesse and his power to influence lawmakers to produce (or re-produce as the case may be) legislation that is advantageous to his co-ethno-religionists and key business and financial players—often one and the same. Returning to Mike Bond:

Hedge fund billionaire Donald Sussman, until recently the owner of most Maine newspapers, and the recipient of $200 million in taxpayer bailouts, was a major funder of an energy company now destroying Maine’s mountains, and whose previous Italian partners have been jailed in the largest Mafia bust in Italian history. His ex-wife, Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, helped former Maine governor Angus King get a fraudulent $102 million taxpayer loan for energy projects he then made millions on, some of which he then used to buy his current seat in the US Senate.

Now entrenched, King and Pingree (and Mills and Strimling and Golden and Collins) are able to shape policy in Maine in such a way that the state has essentially become a playground for the rich. It is, on a much smaller scale, what has happened to countries like Ireland. In addition to tax loopholes and corporate tax breaks, many of these “philanthropic” organizations are tax-exempt, and charitable giving is also tax deductible. Add to this the fact that the government itself funds many of these organizations, and you have basically created the present situation whereby we pay for our own population replacement and subsidize massive corporate profits—all while buying their commercial products. It’s a sick joke.

Sussman is the perfect case study of the Jewish neo-liberal tycoon whose unscrupulousness most Whites would find appalling—if they actually believed it could, and does, happen here. Instead, it’s easy to retreat to “it’s the Democrats” or “it’s the Clintons,” and while in Sussman’s case both happen to be part of the picture, it is a woefully incomplete one to leave it at that. Look at the top donors so far in the 2020 election cycle—how many of them are Jewish? I’ll answer for you. Of the top 50 donors to 527’s and super-PACs, eight of the 36 Republicans are Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one is not Jewish; moreover the top nine contributors to both liberals and conservatives are Jewish, with total contributions north of $62,ooo,000 and led by Tom Steyer’s $21,063,000. Though support for rogue state Israel is baked into the cake, explicit lobbies such as J Street and AIPAC are its visible icing, or the two pieces of foreign policy bread in this particular “kosher sandwich,” if you like. Philip Weiss writes:

J Street was for the Iran Deal, AIPAC was opposed. J Street was against S.1, the anti-boycott legislation passed by the Senate last week; AIPAC was for it. But to be clear, J Street opposes Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) which [Ilhan] Omar supports. And J Street supports continued aid to Israel at the tune of $3.8 billion a year.[2]

On the one hand, the Jewish lobby demands America use its military to enact the Yinon Plan and shatter countries like Syria, and on the other they demand we open our doors to the same people we’ve been bombing into oblivion for Israel’s benefit. Stephanie Schriock, current president of EMILY’s List, had the following to say on the role of AIPAC in campaign fundraising:

Before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel — that was designed by AIPAC — and we made that your paper. This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers than you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position.[3]

Just as is the case with liberals and conservatives in mainstream political discourse, it is the apparent opposition which is most damning. J Street exclusively funded Democrats (and the “Independent” Angus King), to the tune of over $4 million in the 2018 election cycle, whereas AIPAC tends to exert a greater, though not exclusive, influence on the Republicans. Although AIPAC does not technically contribute directly to political candidates, it does require its members to donate to the campaigns of certain candidates in order to receive exclusive membership benefits, and it is able to mobilize donors for their selected candidates. With respect to direct lobbying efforts, their 2018 expenses were in excess of $3.5 million—remarkably little when considering their clout, and likely an indication that politicians are self-censoring to avoid being targeted. The mission of both AIPAC and J Street (and their lesser-lights) is clear—protect Jewish interests and the state of Israel at all costs, even at the expense of American national security and civil liberties such as free speech. Regarding AIPAC, Peter Feld writes:

In 1988, at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco — yes, representing the Dukakis campaign at an AIPAC luncheon is a thing I have done in this life — I heard an AIPAC speaker boast unabashedly about AIPAC’s vast influence. In recent cycles, he said, AIPAC had punished enemies of Israel in Congress, like Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, who had lost his 1984 re-election after criticizing Israel’s settlements and Lebanon invasion[4]…It cannot be anti-Semitic to say that a lobby that spends large sums of money and boasts (at least to its own supporters) of its influence, is influential through money…Israel also exerts influence in the donations of wealthy individuals like Sheldon Adelson who has given the GOP a reported $100 million and was rewarded by Trump with the Jerusalem embassy move. It’s AIPAC, not the evangelicals, who made the Israel Anti-Boycott Act a legislative priority and got 292 House and 69 Senate cosponsors from both parties to place protecting Israel from criticism above their own constituents’ constitutional rights to free speech…It was AIPAC who helped force a different anti-BDS bill, S.1, to the Senate floor three times this winter in the midst of a government shutdown.

AIPAC and J Street are far from the only pro-Israel lobbies active in the United States, just the most prominent. The Center for Responsive Politics reports:

NorPAC, a nonpartisan PAC with the goal of supporting members and candidates who “demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel,” spent more than $1.1 million in the 2018 cycle, with much of it going to Democrats…A variety of other groups other than AIPAC spend some money on lobbying, such as the Israeli-American Coalition for Action with $550,000…The group which spent the most on Republican candidates was the Republican Jewish Coalition which contributed $501,097 during the midterms. The group’s biggest contribution, $42,474, went to the campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). On the Republican Jewish Coalition board is the largest individual donor from the 2018 cycle, Sheldon Adelson. Also holding a board seat is another big money donor, co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus.[5],[6]

Pro-Israeli foreign agents registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which can include lobbyists working on behalf of the Israeli government, companies, political parties, and other organizations, spend tens of millions of dollars annually influencing American policy; the government of Israel has spent over $50 million since 2017, and other agencies such as the World Zionist Organization ($8.6 million in 2018) and the Jewish Agency for Israel ($7.4 million in 2017) have contributed an additional $33 million in that time frame, putting official—and I stress official—Israeli contacts third on the list of foreign entities that’ve spent the most in the United States over that time frame, almost double the amount spent by Russia.

While in Maine it is largely the Democrats who rely on out-of-state “dark money,” as evidenced above (see Susan Collins), this is not a partisan issue, nor is it just limited to PACs and Super-PACs. Corporations, banks, lobbyists, NGOs and other advocacy groups, defense contractors—all exert undue influence, nay, control, over our politics, and all are either under Jewish influence or are beneficiaries of Judeo-neo-liberalism. It is the money that is forever greasing the skids, but if that doesn’t work, there are others ways to ensure politicians remain compliant—just ask former Maine Senator and alleged Jeffrey Epstein sex ring participant George Mitchell.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] “Sussman’s firm, Paloma Partners, is a Simply Radiant shareholder, as are Paloma subsidiaries Golden Mountain Partners and Sunrise Partners, ICIJ data show. Paul Wolansky, a former managing director at the Paloma Partners, is listed as a Simply Radiant director. An individual named Harry S. Campbell is also listed as a director. He was previously a director of Cathay Investment Fund Ltd., in which Paloma is a major shareholder.”



[4] See also: Cynthia McKinney.


[6] Bernie Marcus is also one of Turning Point USA’s primary financiers.


The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XII: LexisNestlé (Water under a Dilapidated Bridge)

As declining infrastructure and environmental degradation are part and parcel of neo-liberalism’s infinite growth model, it stands to reason that the most fundamental element of life—water—should eventually become commodified and privatized. This has already occurred to a frightening degree, though the process is not yet complete. We would do well to understand precisely what this entails and what methods are being used to achieve these ends.

With a market in excess of $19 billion in the US alone and a price point that’s nearly 2,000 times more expensive than tap water and four times more expensive than regular-grade gasoline, the market for bottled water is enormous, and its potential, if you’ll pardon the pun, is as of yet still largely untapped. It will not stay that way for long, though. According to a 2017 OECD policy paper, plans are already underway to create “a global public-private platform for knowledge exchange and effective engagement, collaboration, and action across governments and regulators in developed, emerging and developing economies, institutional investors, the private sector, international organisations, philanthropies, academia and civil society organisations.”[1]

This kind of hybrid action is not limited to just the OECD and its partners. According to the United Nations’ Agenda for Sustainable Development, the aim is for major multi-nationals to “collaborate with governments, UN bodies, NGOs, industry associations and other businesses to create more effective, enabling environments for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, on both international and national levels.” In addition to an accelerated wealth transfer from the First to the Third World to “bridge the infrastructure gap” and “combat climate change,” so-called “impediments to private investment in infrastructure” will be removed and “blended finance” will allow for public funds to underwrite projects where the profits will naturally accrue to the private sector.[2] In “neo-liberalese”:

Both public and private investment have key roles to play in infrastructure financing, including through development banks, development finance institutions and tools and mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, blended finance, which combines concessional public finance with non-concessional private finance and expertise from the public and private sector, special-purpose vehicles, non-recourse project financing, risk mitigation instruments and pooled funding structures. Blended finance instruments including public-private partnerships serve to lower investment-specific risks and incentivize additional private sector finance across key development sectors led by regional, national and subnational government policies and priorities for sustainable development…We encourage the use of innovative mechanisms and partnerships to encourage greater international private financial participation.[3]

As we’ve explored in other contexts, this vast matrix of organizations work in tandem or at least toward common ends through mutually-ensured profit-maximization schemes and social, political, and demographic transformation in whatever form will be most expedient. It is truly a global phenomenon:

Philanthropic funds often foster healthy information-sharing and cooperation among the organizations they support. They also often work on common problem-solving strategies with other kinds of donors. These include multilaterals such as the World Bank, the Global Fund, or the World Health Organization; bilaterals such as USAID and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID); and large foundations, corporations, and significant individual donors.[4]

Many of the new philanthropic funds are funded by private equity and venture capitalists. New Profit, as just one example, is housed in the offices of Bain Capital (founding partner: Mitt Romney) and receives its funding from private equity professionals affiliated with Greylock, JP Morgan, and many other firms in addition to Bain Capital. These groups and individuals apply the private equity model to their philanthropy, which is reflected in a variety of ways (this will be explored more fully in the series’ final installment). In 2017, charitable assets in donor-advised funds reached an all-time high of $110 billion. Donor-advised assets have a growth rate of nearly 20 percent annually. In practical terms, let’s see what the profit-maximizing chain of events looks like with “charitable nonprofits” as the tip of the spear:

Splash, a relatively small nonprofit with revenues of about $3 million in 2017, that in 2018 received a green light for an investment of $20 million from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), with a match of more than $12 million from city and state governments in Ethiopia and India, to dramatically expand its efforts to bring clean water to millions across the globe. Splash…was tackling an enormous problem (lack of clean water for people around the world); it was approaching that problem innovatively, using off-the-shelf technology employed by the most sophisticated corporations, such as McDonalds. For Splash, the big bet was designed to build something that local actors would then sustain. Eric Stowe, Splash’s founder and director, and his team pivoted to that longer-term vision and developed an investment concept with a clear and compelling goal: to provide clean water, sanitation, and hygiene to all public schools in two of the biggest megacities in the developing world. At the end of five years, Splash’s work in Kolkata, India, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is expected to reach the point where local government and local private-sector actors, already well-established in those places, take it over.[5]

Now what happens when inevitable mismanagement from the local government causes regression to the mean? Well, those private sector actors are there to assume full control, and there are certainly plenty of bottled water companies out there to “supplement” cities suffering clean water crises with their products. We have seen the dire consequences here in the United States as a result of the demographic transformation of cities such as Flint, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey, and the consequent neglect, gross mismanagement, and corruption. These are reflections of a wider trend; since peaking in 1977 inflation-adjusted federal funding for water infrastructure has been cut 74 percent. On a per capita basis, that is an 82 percent drop. In 1977, the federal government spent almost $77 per person (in 2014 dollars) on water infrastructure, but by 2014 that support fell to slightly more than $14 per person.[6] As Alexis Bonogofsky reports:

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the nation’s drinking water utilities need $384.2 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 20 years for thousands of miles of pipe as well as thousands of treatment plants and storage tanks to ensure the public health. Consequences of this inadequate investment have been seen in recent high-profile public health crises in Flint, Michigan, and the New Jersey public schools. Internationally, the UN finds that investment in public water systems and infrastructure is at an all-time low.[7]

The Trump administration has advanced plans to make it easier for private companies to control public water systems, including further cuts to federal funding for water protection; the administration’s plan “relies on a $100 billion fund incentivizing private sector involvement in public utilities to address aging pipes, aqueducts, and other critical pieces of hardware essential to the provision of drinking water.”[8] We already know what this looks like, and it is not pretty. From a 2018 exposé penned by Sharon Lerner and Leana Hosea:

Flint and Pittsburgh have many unfortunate parallels. Residents of both cities unknowingly drank water with high levels of the potent neurotoxin [lead], which has long-term health consequences. … The two lead crises have another important thing in common: a private water company named Veolia. The world’s largest supplier of water services, Veolia had contracts with both Flint and Pittsburgh around the time that lead levels rose in their drinking water. And in both places, Veolia wound up in legal disputes over its role in the crises. … The promise of saving money has been central to Veolia’s appeal to cash-strapped cities and towns struggling with water provision. That was certainly the case in Pittsburgh, where the water authority was facing more than $720 million in debt when it decided to contract with Veolia in 2012. The contract was based on Veolia’s “peer performance solutions” model, in which the company is paid based in part on how much it cuts costs.[9]

This has proven very lucrative for Veolia, which now has in excess of $30 billion in revenue and its stock price has increased more than 50 percent over the past half-decade. We also learn from Lerner and Hosea’s piece that, “At least some of those profits may be stowed in an offshore company Veolia set up in the Bahamas, according the Paradise Papers database.” Under Veolia’s oversight, residents’ water bills have steadily risen while the water quality has continued to decline. Controversy seems to follow Veolia wherever they’ve been contracted:

The company’s methods have also come under scrutiny outside the U.S., with controversies in CanadaFrance, and Gabon. In 2015, Romania’s anti-corruption agency launched an investigation into Veolia’s Romanian subsidiary, Apa Nova Bucuresti, and individual executives for allegedly running a multiyear, multimillion-euro bribery scheme in order to dramatically raise water rates.[10]

Though the crises caused by municipal degradation in Flint, Camden, and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh are in no small part the consequence of their demographic transformation, these kinds of systemic failures are not confined to cities and communities hammered by “diversity”—though that is certainly why they receive more media coverage than Martin County, Kentucky, for example. At nearly 94% white and entirely rural, Martin County is indicative of the deep neglect our non-metropolitan and –cosmopolitan communities suffer at the hands of a ruling class that hates them and wants them extinguished. Residents in Martin County have had to grapple with what has been described as “a catastrophically failing water system” compounded by water rates rising close to 50 percent, even though many residents have to purchase bottled water because the tap water is often undrinkable.

The continued failure—by design—at the municipal level both in public and private hands dovetails rather nicely with the privatization schemes of companies such as Nestlé that benefit from public disinvestment in water infrastructure, as the chairman of Nestlé Waters stated in 2009: “We believe tap infrastructure in the U.S. will continue to decline. … People will turn to filtration and bottled water for pure water needs.”[11] A recent Michigan State University study predicts over a third of Americans could be priced out of their municipal water supplies within the next half-decade as costs triple while the infrastructure continues to break down. The only alternatives will then be to turn to bottled water or find local natural springs that aren’t owned by these companies or other possible water sources; as 83% of Americans live in metropolitan areas and their suburbs and exurbs, finding clean natural sources of water will not be an easy task, to put it mildly. According to the United Nations, up to two-thirds of the world’s exploding population could be living under “stressed water conditions” by mid-next decade. Returning to Alexis Bonogofsky:

Internationally, bottled water consumption is estimated to have neared 70.4 billion gallons in 2013, according to data from the latest edition of Beverage Marketing’s report “The Global Bottled Water Market.” Consumption increased 6 percent in one year and is projected to grow. In fact, the International Bottled Water Association predicts the largest growth in bottled water to be in poor countries, where access to safe and clean water is not necessarily a given, and public water infrastructure is severely underfunded.[12]

Providing one case-in-point, Caroline Winter reports:

Failing infrastructure has already led to a near-total reliance on bottled water in parts of the world. Nestlé started selling Pure Life in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1998 to “provide a safe, quality water solution,” the company says. But locals wonder if the Swiss multinational is exacerbating the problem. “Twenty years ago, you could go anywhere in Lahore and get a glass of clean tap water for free,” says Ahmad Rafay Alam, an environmental lawyer in the country. “Now, everyone drinks bottled water…What Nestlé did is use a good marketing scheme to make tap water uncool and dangerous. It’s ubiquitous, like Kleenex. People will say, ‘Give me a bottle of Nestlé.’”…He adds that this change has taken the pressure off the government to fix its utilities, degrading the quality of Lahore’s supply.[13]

Nestlé has been anticipating and increasingly exploiting this situation for decades, controlling local springs and aquifers for their exclusive use. Other bottled water companies do the same. While people are literally dying from the water in Flint, a mere two hours down the road, Nestlé pays just $200 a year in municipal extraction fees to pump clean water and sell it at dramatically marked-up prices. Nestlé’s California water use increased by 19 percent during the major drought from 2011 to 2014. The company paid only $524 annually in permit fees to pump water from the San Bernardino National Forest—on a permit that was nearly thirty years expired, no less.

Nestlé generally seeks out areas with weak or antiquated water laws and regulations. In states like Maine and Texas, a law from the 1800s called “absolute capture” is still in effect. Absolute capture allows for landowners to use unlimited amounts of groundwater “captured” from said property. Nestlé will then appeal zoning resolutions and other restrictions to build massive facilities to extract the water, as in Fryeburg, Maine, where Nestlé’s Poland Spring line now has the means and the rights to extract water for the next twenty to forty-five years, perhaps longer.

Nestlé has sought to influence the political process at the state level in Maine as well, donating to such PACs as [Susan] Collins for Senator, Angus King for US Senate, Leading to a Balanced Maine, and the Alfond Business Community and Development. The Alfond Family, you’ll recall, are an extraordinarily wealthy Jewish family working to transform Maine both through their involvement in politics and through their many “philanthropic endeavors.” Nestlé/Poland Springs effectively has carte blanche in the state to buy up as many springs and aquifers as they can, privatizing what was once publically-accessible and what for many Mainers was their primary or secondary water source.[14] Water independence is part of the deeply self-reliant culture found in the state of Maine; 40 percent of Mainers drink private, unregulated well water as opposed to 86 percent of Americans who drink municipal water treated with fluoride, chlorine, and other chemicals. Furthermore, writes Winter:

Despite the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, compliance with harmful chemical restrictions isn’t monitored carefully, and most wastewater-treatment systems aren’t designed to remove hormones, antidepressants, and other drugs…77 million Americans are served by water systems that violate testing requirements or rules about contamination in drinking water, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council…[Bottled water] outpaced soda sales for the first time as drinkers continue to seek convenience and healthier options and worry about the safety of tap water after the high-profile contamination in Flint, Mich...Nestlé has come to dominate a controversial industry, spring by spring, often going into economically depressed municipalities with the promise of jobs and new infrastructure in exchange for tax breaks and access to a resource that’s scarce for millions. Where Nestlé encounters grass-roots resistance against its industrial-strength guzzling, it deploys lawyers; where it’s welcome, it can push the limits of that hospitality, sometimes with the acquiescence of state and local governments that are too cash-strapped or inept to say no.[15]

Nestlé will also sometimes buy water straight from a municipality with clean water, such as Fryeburg, and as Katy Kelleher writes, “sell it under its private labels, meaning that the same water flowing through faucets in Fryeburg for free is distributed in convenience and grocery stores throughout the country for around $1.99 a liter. One of those private labels is Poland Spring.”[16] If neither springs nor compliant municipalities with clean water are available, Nestlé is content to use common ground water from populated areas and pass it off as “fresh”; a recent lawsuit alleges Poland Spring bottles much of its water from ground water near petroleum pits, landfills, and densely-populated areas. In fact, per Kelleher, “Multiple lawsuits alleging mislabeling of water have been brought against Poland Spring over the past 20 years. A 2017 class-action lawsuit argued that ‘not one drop of Poland Spring Water emanates from a water source that complies with the FDA’s definition of spring water.’”[17]

Not that any of this comes as a surprise from a Nestlé that in the 1970s and 80s pressed a misinformation campaign on women across the Third World and aggressively marketed their infant formula—to be mixed with local water, which as we know is likely to be impure and/or polluted—as a superior alternative to breastfeeding. Nevertheless, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) saw nothing wrong with entering into a partnership with Nestlé. In fact, in a darkly ironic turn:

In 2003, Nestlé began a partnership with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to address the water needs of 210,000 Somali refugees and local people in Eastern Ethiopia. The partnership was both financial and practical, including on-going technical assistance in the form of a Nestlé Waters hydrogeologist and water resources manager…During 2005, the process of handing over the long-term operation and maintenance of the system to local water authorities was commenced. … In November 2005, Nestlé became a founding member of BAFF, a coalition working to reduce vitamin and mineral deficiencies through food fortification. Nestlé is the world’s largest producer of manufactured foods fortified with micronutrients. Nestlé collaborated with NGOs, ENDA Tiers Monde, and the International Association for Maternal and Neonatal Health in Senegal to establish a number of local centers “to improve nutritional and hygiene status of mothers and their infants under 5 years of age.”[18]

The Nestlé Nutrition Duchess Club markets Nestlé products to children in countries such as Nigeria under the guise of humanitarian outreach in order to, “Meet basic needs such as nutrition, healthcare, water…through affordable products and services. Food and beverage companies can develop new products that combat nutritional deficiencies and are affordable to low-income families.”[19] Nestlé works with NGOs and governmental organizations in countries such as Turkey, Egypt, South Africa, and Malaysia to do something similar.[20] As we might expect, the unethical and probably lethal practices of Nestlé have not disqualified the company from “educating” Senegalese mothers on the very infant formula they’ll be purchasing in bulk—or subsidized to purchase in bulk in any case—for their average close to five children per mother. With its low average IQ, dearth of education,[21] and fecundity, Senegal makes for the perfect market, and these factors, along with what for succinctness’s sake we’ll call the “Jewish Question,” are key to understanding neo-liberalism. Recalling the marketing strategies used in Pakistan discussed earlier and understanding the just-aforementioned factors of the Senegalese and Third World peoples in general, Nestlé has endeavored to position itself as a major beneficiary of America’s continued demographic transformation and municipal services degradation:

According to a 2014 market research report, adults that consume large volumes of bottled water are more likely than average to be African American, and Latinos make up the key customer base for bottled water. Researchers from the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin found that Latino and African-American parents were more likely to buy bottled water than white parents, and they are dishing out more money on bottled water primarily because of perceived health benefits. The bottled water industry markets to Latino immigrants…in part by exploiting bottled water as part of the immigrant “heritage” of coming from places with less access to clean drinking water. Nestlé Pure Life’s target audience is recent Latin-American immigrants, particularly mothers. In 2014, Nestlé spent over $5 million advertising Pure Life… and three-quarters of this spending ($3.8 million) went to Spanish-language television advertising.[22]

A recent Penn State study found that Black and Hispanic adults in the United States are half as likely as Whites to drink tap water and more than twice as likely to drink bottled water. Much of this is attributable to the state of municipal tap water in more “diverse” and urban environs, but the ability to market to these population groups more successfully is also a major factor. This may seem harsh, but disparities in intelligence and time preference do make Blacks and Browns better consumers, and a lower ability to engage in critical thinking makes these populations easier to manipulate and thus control. Despite the fluffy egalitarian propaganda that would force us to think otherwise, the ruling class understands this well—so well they’re party to mass genocide in order to produce a new hyper-consumerist, easily-controlled global serf class. It truly is a numbers game for them, and you can scarcely find anything more dehumanizing than that.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[2] From the OECD policy paper: “Blended finance is not an asset class, rather it uses a range of instruments to calibrate the risk-return profile of projects and to address other barriers to private investment…Challenges related to blending include the need for a good enabling investment environment, ensuring that development finance does not crowd out private finance and that the desired development outcomes are realised…Investments in water security compete with other sectors for financiers’ attention, driven primarily by the attractiveness of the risk-return profile. This depends on two factors: i) a stable revenue stream; and ii) how the range of risks related to water security investments are shared between public and private actors. Mobilising commercial finance, in particular domestic sources, need to be based on policy reforms of the water sector to promote efficiency gains, cost reduction and cost recovery, as well as improving the balance of tariffs and taxes as sources of finance.” Also from said paper, and of particular note to how the globalist entities view the project to commodify water and ultimately completely privatize it, with the state only useful in an interim stage as facilitator:

“[To date] water services are often under-priced, resulting in a poor record of cost recovery for water investments…Valuing water means recognising and considering all the diverse benefits derived from improvements in water management in terms of valued goods and services…It creates opportunities for converting the benefits from investments in water management into revenue streams, potentially improving the financial case for investment…Financial flows may benefit projects which are bankable, but may not maximise benefits for communities and the environment [my emphasis]…Mapping the flow of finance to water security investments can identify the ultimate sources of capital…The ‘Infrastructure Data Initiative’ was recently launched to address this need and support efforts to establish infrastructure as an asset class. This is a joint initiative by the OECD, the European Investment Bank, Global Infrastructure Hub, Long-term Infrastructure Investors Association and the Club of Long-Term Investors, which aims to create a centralised repository on historical long-term data on infrastructure (including water) at an asset level…This methodology should also explore the potential benefits from synergies emerging from interrelated projects and their impact on water resources. It would inform project preparation and selection by governments, development finance institutions and other partners.”








[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.




[14] To say nothing of the dramatic environmental impact: “Bottlers’ groundwater pumping operations can harm the local environment as well as natural resources that communities rely on for drinking water, farming, recreation and other uses. Groundwater sources are usually connected to surface waters, and when an aquifer is over-pumped, the water levels…can change. Large-scale groundwater extraction, such as for water bottling plants, could reduce the availability of local groundwater and surface water supplies to the detriment of the natural resources that depend on them. When bottled water companies extract groundwater sources, they not replenish what they take.”

[15] Ibid.


[17] Ibid.


[19] Ibid.

[20] Nestlé, in conjunction with Project Head Start in townships around Pretoria, South Africa, “trains adult caregivers in adequate pre-school education to stimulate children, age 6 and under. Teaching materials as well as health and nutrition education are given to overcome negative effects of poor nutrition. Workshops and weekly training at the University include appropriate handling of HIV/AIDS cases in the pre-school environment (my emphasis) and treating of cuts and wounds”…Nestlé also provides funding for a dietician to give nutrition advice and help to “inner-city” HIV/AIDS patients in France.

[21] A corporation named Bridge International Academies (BIA) is opening for-profit schools across the Third World, where instructors in the Bridge schools teach a pre-scripted curriculum from a computer. Liberia is considering outsourcing its entire elementary program to BIA, which is funded by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and a number of prominent interests from Wall Street.


The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XI: It’s All Happening

“The wage and employment rules have far-reaching, deleterious effects for workers and the US economy. H-1B workers are underpaid and placed in substandard working conditions, while US workers’ wages are depressed, and they lose out on job opportunities. Rather than fixing a market failure, the rules significantly distort the market and its price signals. It lowers incentives for workers and students to enter certain fields and reduces job mobility in sectors key to driving innovation in a regional economy. In sum, instead of fixing market failures, the H-1B program does just the opposite. It creates new market failures and exacerbates existing ones.”— Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy

“Under the new rules, employers experiencing a long-term need for a larger workforce could completely avoid the demands of the domestic labor market by serially employing H-2B workers to meet this long-term need. This would drag down wages and working conditions for workers in the industry or region as a whole. The combination of self-attestation, the elimination of the state workforce agencies, and the broadened definition of “temporary” will further depress wages in the industries in which the H-2B program operates, to the detriment of U.S. workers. And, because there is an endless supply of citizens of foreign countries willing to work in the United States … employers have little or no economic incentive to meet the economic demands of U.S. workers seeking a better wage.”—Associate General Counsel of the AFL-CIO, Lynne Rhinehart

“The financial sector has succeeded in depicting itself as part of the productive economy, yet for centuries banking was recognized as being parasitic. The essence of parasitism is not only to drain the host’s nourishment, but also to dull the host’s brain so that it does not recognize that the parasite is there.”—Michael Hudson

Labor’s share of income has continued to decline, and even in the corporate world, finance is an overgrown tumor. In 1985, the financial sector earned less than 16% of domestic corporate profits, whereas by the early 2000s it was over 40%. This is not coincidental, as the US continues to orient itself along a FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) axis, which comprises the rent and interest paid by debtors and rent payers. As Gottfried Feder wrote, “Only labor is productive.” In a debt-driven economy, one predicated on an exponential growth model, extensive lines of credit, and the creation of new markets both in terms of consumers and goods and services, the entire apparatus is increasingly being built on a house of cards. The economy is basically a Ponzi scheme, one where all of the benefits accrue to the top (wildly disproportionately Jewish) 1%. When we see things like the self-created housing shortage in Britain corresponding exactly to the number of immigrants who arrive every year, when “conservatives” scream about a 2% inflation rate from the Federal Reserve, when the entire globalist establishment decries tariffs and “nativism” in favor of “free trade” and open borders, it’s not difficult to see what the angle is here. Per Michael Hudson:

When we say “people worry” about inflation, it’s mainly bondholders that worry. The labor force benefitted from the inflation of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s (my note: which is also why the populist movement of the late-19th century, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated a move away from the gold standard). What was rising most rapidly were wages. Bond prices fell steadily during these decades. Stocks simply moved sideways. Inflation usually helps the economy at large, but not the 1% if wages rise. So the 1% says that it is terrible. They advocate austerity and permanent deflation. And the media say that anything that doesn’t help the 1% is bad. But don’t believe it. When they say inflation is bad, deflation is good, what they mean is, more money for us 1% is good; we’re all for asset price inflation, we’re all for housing prices going up, and we’re all for our stock and bonds prices going up. We’re just against you workers getting more income.[1]

Now obviously inflation is to be differentiated from hyper-inflation—the kind that occurs when you steal Whites’ land and drive them out of the country, as happened in Rhodesia, and which is now set to commence in South Africa and probably Namibia in the near future. Cultivating Community in Portland tries to set up refugees from Africa with their own farms in Maine, which is a fool’s errand, considering over 60% of the arable land in Africa lies uncultivated, and when in Rhodesia, for example, the White farmers were dispossessed of their land, “the Breadbasket of Africa” fell apart so quickly its currency was insolvent within a few years and it went from a food exporter to a food importer. To top that off, Maine has notoriously acidic soil, so only a local and/or a truly expert farmer is going to get much out of the land. Therein lies the rub with regards to sustainability—only locals and/or people who are otherwise expert know their land or their oceans well enough to have good crop yields or catches that do not deplete resources and destroy the ecosystem. Neo-liberalism does not allow for that. What it does allow for in its exponential growth model is, as Hudson illuminates:

If the economy is growing, people want to employ more workers. If you hire more labor, wages go up. So the 1% always wants to keep unemployment high—it used to be called the reserve army of the unemployed. If you can keep unemployment high, then you prevent wages from rising. That’s what’s happened since the 1970s here. Real wages have not risen, but the price of the things that the 1% owns has risen — stocks, bonds, trophy art and things like that.[2]

This is precisely why, despite over one-third of eligible Americans not participating in the labor force and increasing automation making certain jobs redundant, immigration continues to rise. The infamous New York Times article about how Maine “needs” African immigrants includes a section where these newcomers are expected to become lumberjacks in the Great North Woods, which is curious, since, as a recent Washington Post piece notes, northern Maine has been “battered by the closure of its lumber mills.” Coinciding almost exactly with the opening of the immigration floodgates into America, beginning in the early 1970s, wages essentially remained stagnant in this country until recently, where by some indicators they are on the decline for the majority of American workers, which makes total sense. Similarly, the very conditions which drive away the young and suppress birthrates are of course never discussed; instead, we must import enough “diversity” to drive down wages, increase alienation and consumption, lower trust, and make cross-cultural communication and thus labor organizing impossible. This is despite the clear disingenuousness of the vested interests declaring a “labor shortage” in the third-most populous country in the world. As David Seminara:

Economists have found no evidence of a labor shortage in the occupational groups that constitute the bulk of H-2B employment. George W. Bush was a vocal advocate for guestworker programs. In 2004, Bush proposed a new guestworker program that, had it been enacted, would have tripled the number of visas issued to seasonal workers. On January 18, 2009, his administration published new regulations that significantly reduced oversight of the H-2B application process and extended the definition of “temporary” in the H-2B context from 10 months to up to three years. The H-2B visa was created in 1986 (the same year of Reagan’s illegal alien amnesty), as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which split the H guestworker program into an H-2A visa for agricultural guestworkers, and an H-2B visa for non-agricultural guestworkers. The popularity of the H-2B program for temporary, seasonal, non-agricultural guestworkers has soared from just 15,706 visas issued in 1997 to an all-time high of 129,547 in 2007. American companies filed petitions to request nearly 300,000 H-2B workers in FY 2008. Use of the H-2B program has morphed from its original intent to help employers that need seasonal and/or temporary workers. The majority of the program’s current users are neither small nor seasonal employers, but rather mid- to large-sized companies and recruiters that petition for H-2Bs to work for 10 months out of the year, year after year. Many of the businesses filing H-2B petitions for foreign workers are “body shops” that have no actual “seasonal or temporary” need for labor. Body shops can petition for large numbers of workers and then essentially sell them off to companies that either could not get their own H-2B workers or did not know how to do so.[3]

This is very clearly not a partisan issue; the entire Establishment, political and private sector, is in total agreement that more non-White immigration is always beneficial. Whether the labor is “specialized”[4] or not is irrelevant. We’ve also discussed the transformative role H-2A visas play in Maine’s targeted demographic transformation, and now the United States has offered to triple the number of H-2A visas issued to Guatemalans “to reduce the pressure on the Southern border”—which will in no way incentivize more to come. This comes—like Reagan’s amnesty and the creation of the H-2B visa, the “invade the world, invite the world” ethos of the neo-conservatives, and so on—under a “conservative” regime. As Charles Eisenstein astutely observes:

In opposing redistributive policies, conservative governments seem to see concentration of wealth as a good thing. You might too, if you are wealthy, because concentration of wealth means more for you and less for everyone else. Hired help is cheaper. Your relative wealth, power, and privilege are greater. Governments serving the (short-term) interests of the wealthy therefore advocate the opposite of the aforementioned distributive policies: flat-rate income taxes, reduction of estate taxes, curtailment of social programs, privatized health care, and so forth.

From the US Chamber of Commerce on down, this is seen as a good thing indeed. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce has become a leading voice in supporting an increased role for immigrants in the workforce. Republicans are happy to do their part; Jewish Republican State Senator Roger Katz:

Sponsored LD 1492, an Act to Attract, Educate and Retain New Mainers to Strengthen the Workforce…The bill in its original form would have established a state office for “new Mainers” to carry “out responsibilities of the State relating to immigrants in and into the State.” The bill also would have funded a second immigrant welcome center for the state, located in Lewiston and modeled on Portland’s New Mainers Resource Center, which receives $75,000 a year in state funding. Katz’s bill included funding for vocational and workforce training and English-language training, too. All told, the projected 2018–19 costs were $825,000. …“What has changed (about the immigration issue) is that as our workforce challenges have grown—you are hearing an outcry from the business community,” says Katz. “Because we need more workers, the voices in the Maine Legislature have changed from the usual social justice advocates. They are now being joined by chambers of commerce and business men and women from around the state (my emphasis). That’s starting to really shift the attitude.”[5]

Rachel Peric, Jewish executive director of the Soros-backed immigration advocacy group Welcoming America, concurs, and she uses Baltim0re, Maryland as one example of an immigration success story. The Partnership for a New American Economy (discussed in a previous installment) and their financial backers and corporate partners—Google, Intel, Microsoft, United Fresh Produce Association, Jewish venture capitalist and Managing Director of the Foundry Group Brad Feld, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Farm Bureau Federation, the US Chamber of Commerce, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Pinterest, Society for Human Resource Management, the Council for Global Immigration, Western Growers, and eWIC—agree: think of the GDP growth! Also in agreement are Vaishali Mamgain of the University of Southern Maine and Karen Collins, formerly of Catholic Charities Maine Refugee and Immigration Services in Portland: it appears only “white supremacists” object to “policies to facilitate refugee resettlement in Maine.” According to David Brenerman, “a Democratic member of Portland’s City Council who is Jewish” and Chair of the Economic Development Committee, and Julie Sullivan, Senior Advisor to the City Manager:

Immigration is an important part of this city’s economic growth strategy and improving immigrant integration is critical to ensuring Portland’s work force and vitality… The Committee’s research and public input seem to point to creating an Office of Economic Opportunity and Immigrant Integration…to also improve economic opportunity for youth, people of color, and other disadvantaged populations… There would be a Director overseeing the Office, with a Program Manager implementing the Immigrant Integration efforts and a Program Manager implementing the Inclusion and Equity efforts focused on people of color…[plus] proactive, consistent and systematic outreach to employers to identify jobs that are difficult to fill and subsequent partnering with Portland Adult Education, Southern Maine Community College, and the University of Southern Maine to provide those skills…The Director would work on the more macro level issues and would convene partner organizations, build the intern/apprentice/mentor programs, oversee the data tool development, and link with funders.

Who would this matrix of partners and funders include? Among those proposed were: Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services, Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), the University of Maine Law School, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP), Maine Access Immigrant Network (MAIN), Maine Equal Justice Partners, New Mainers Resource Center and Portland Adult Education, Pine Tree Legal Assistance (PTLA), and the State of Maine Office of Multicultural Affairs. PTLA receives funding from the Sam L. Cohen Foundation, the Harvard University Consumer Project, and the J.T. Gorman Foundation, among others.[6] One of the JT Gorman Foundation’s primary financiers is the Jewish Burton Sonenstein, and the Investment Committee Chair is Maggie Keohan, who “advises high net-worth individuals and institutional clients throughout New England from Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s office in Boston.”

Maine Business Immigration Coalition advocates for immigration “from a business and economic perspective,” though not without the essential ingredients of ersatz compassion and humanitarianism; its partner organizations include: Barber Foods, Ready Seafood, Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), MaineHealth, Maine State Chamber of Commerce, SIGCO, several seafood companies, and of course the Partnership for a New American Economy (NAE). Also partnered, in one of the great ironies of this whole affair, is the Portland Buy Local campaign. Ready Seafood:

One of Maine’s largest lobster-processing companies, now has a workforce of more than 200 in Portland and Scarborough that’s more than half foreign born. … Ready Seafood has now developed a pipeline for new workers, making the time-consuming task of recruitment easier. … Ben Waxman, co-owner of American Roots, the Westbrook clothing manufacturer, echoes Skoczenski’s comment about the importance of immigrants to his company’s survival, … To make it easier for businesses to connect with immigrants and to help coordinate services, the city of Portland created the Portland Office of Economic Opportunity in 2017. Run by Julia Trujillo, its mission is to help integrate immigrants into the economy so that businesses can connect with potential employees. … Skoczenski points to the office as the source of Ready Seafood’s recruitment success: “Julia is the only reason this program is working for us.”[7]

If all of these businesses thrive on cheap labor, well of course it makes sense for them to donate to so-called philanthropic organizations which advocate for “immigrants’ rights” and open borders—they do their dirty work without any direct accusations of “dirty money” and lobbying efforts.

What we know is that for both ideological and economic reasons Maine finds itself “suddenly” in the crosshairs of the globalist establishment. From Time to the New York Times to The Christian Science Monitor to the Huffington Post,[8] we are told in unison that Maine is too old, too White, and in dire need of Haitian nurses, Guatemalan blueberry rakers, Somali who-knows-what?, and all the rest of it. As this sudden media blitz is totally organic and definitely not coordinated at all, enter Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post stage left: In “‘This will be catastrophic’: Maine families face elder boom, worker shortage in preview of nation’s future,” written by Jeff Stein (you can’t make this stuff up), the neo-liberals show their hand to anyone paying attention:

Across Maine, families like the Flahertys are being hammered by two slow-moving demographic forces — the growth of the retirement population and a simultaneous decline in young workers — that have been exacerbated by a national worker shortage pushing up the cost of labor (my emphasis). … The disconnect between Maine’s aging population and its need for young workers to care for that population is expected to be mirrored in states throughout the country over the coming decade, demographic experts say. And that’s especially true in states with populations with fewer immigrants, who are disproportionately represented in many occupations serving the elderly…“As the oldest state, Maine is the tip of the spear — but it foreshadows what is to come for the entire country.” (my emphasis) … Experts say the nation will have to refashion its workforce …. The results of not doing so fast enough are already visible in Maine…Care workers in Maine were paid about $11.37 an hour in 2017, according to an AARP report, with a 2019 minimum wage of $11 an hour. …“Even Dunkin’ Donuts pays you more.”…The rising demand for care is occurring simultaneously with a dangerously low supply of workers…“There are simply just not enough people to go around,” [Mary Jane Richards, chief operating officer at North Country Associates] said. “We try to elevate our wages, but then the nearest facility brings theirs up.”[9]

Oh, the horror of having to pay workers a living wage! Also of note in this piece is the commentary by mass non-White immigration advocate and senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute Howard Gleckman. Gleckman is not Jewish.

Just kidding, of course he is! Gleckman makes the seemingly apropos-of-nothing argument that, “With climate change, towns get burned down, or people die in fires.” We’ve talked about climate alarmism before—in addition to the monetization of carbon emissions and the creation of a new financial market, “climate change” and open borders are synonymous—because “climate change causes migration,” we need to accept any and all (non-White) comers who will increase their consumption while we are expected to confine ourselves to matchbox-sized apartments, sterilize ourselves for the environment, and eat soy and maggot sausages, all while remaining great consumers in our own right, just in different ways, from the cradle to the grave.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[2] Ibid.


[4] In practice, virtually any white-collar occupation qualifies as a specialty occupation for the H-1B program. It is used by employers to fill a variety of occupations, from accountants to reporters to school teachers to salesmen to software developers. There is nothing particularly special about the ‘specialty occupations’ as defined in the H-1B program.”




[8] The HuffPo article was written by Jewish filmmaker Yael Luttwak (also affiliated with the Maine Jewish Film Festival, catalogued in Volume V): “We need to show that diversity works. With one million immigrants making their home in the United States each year, it’s urgent that those who believe deeply in America and the notion of diversity as a core American value, find ways to push back against the rising tide of discrimination against “the other.” The challenge for all of us now is to look, state-by-state, at how our communities are responding to immigration, and find the good news stories that epitomize the value of immigration and the bridges that have been built between immigrant and non-immigrant communities. A good place to start is Maine—one of the whitest states in America. Since 2015, I along with our documentary filmmaking team, have been following a group of female students—some new immigrants— some not, in South Portland as they navigate life in a public school. I co-directed, along with [Jewish] Abigail Tannebaum Sharon, the new documentary, “Maine Girls” which just premiered at the 2017 Camden International Film Festival and is now on the festival circuit and picked up for distribution by Kanopy – follows immigrant girls from the Congo, Jamaica, Somalia and Vietnam. What’s inspiring about these girls is that, even in this anti-immigration environment, teenagers will be teenagers. Through hip hop, culture, and common experiences in a Maine public school, the American and immigrant girls develop trust—with the help of a school curriculum built around tolerance and acceptance who end up enriching life in South Portland.”


Immigrant Crime Has Turned the Netherlands Into a Narco-state

Ridouan Taghi and Saïd Razzouki: just two of the drug dealers, gangsters, and murderers who have ‘culturally enriched’ the Netherlands.

On 18 September 2019, the well-known Dutch lawyer Derk Wiersum was shot and killed in front of his house in Amsterdam. The 44-year-old attorney was representing a crown witness in an affair that has become known as the Mocro-oorlog, which roughly translates into ‘Moroccan War.’ Wiersum was yet another victim in the gangland war that has cost many lives in the Netherlands.

The murder did not come as a surprise. One month earlier, government sources and independent researchers argued the Netherlands has become a narco-state. Every year, hundreds of millions of illicit euros — possibly billions — are being poured into the Dutch economy. The Netherlands produces an astonishing amount of marijuana, as well as synthetic drugs such as amphetamines and ecstasy.

The drug culture is not new to the Netherlands. Most people are aware of the country’s liberal drug policies. Soft drugs including marijuana and certain types of mushrooms are practically legal and the possession of small amounts of hard drugs is tolerated. These policies derive from the early 1970s, when many cultural-Marxist revolutions took place in the Western world.

Just like the mainstream of Dutch society, the criminal underworld got ‘diversified’ with the onset of mass immigration. The infrastructure, access to the sea, liberal drug culture, and rather soft sentences makes the country very attractive to criminals worldwide. Initially, criminals from China, Turkey, and Yugoslavia set up shop in the Netherlands, mostly in the larger cities.

Ever since the turn of the century, crime has become extremely violent, often leading to situations typical of the Third World. There are two reasons for this development: the very lucrative cocaine trade and the increasing role of Third-World criminals, mostly from Morocco and the Caribbean.

It is generally believed that the Moroccan War started around 2012, when a shipment of 200 kilograms of cocaine went missing. The criminals involved turned on each other, leading to a series of killings that continues to this day. Read more

The Way Life Should Be? Vol X: A Bridge Too Far

“Neoliberalisation and globalisation generate and utilise the mobility of both capital and labour. Meanwhile, labour migration is presenting a challenge to the observance of labour rights. Present-day methods of capital accumulation rely on the search for cheap labour and the relocation of production to territories that do not protect workers’ rights.” —Piotr and Pawel Zuk

It is a well-documented but much-ignored phenomenon that parts of the rural Midwest have been totally transformed due to meatpacking companies’ employment of almost exclusively Hispanic migrant labor to drive down labor costs. The effects were already stark in the early stages of America’s “browning”:

Meatpacking wages fell sharply after peaking in 1980. In Iowa, the average hourly earnings of meatpackers in 1981 was $11.33, 50 cents less than the US average $11.83. Wallace Huffman of Iowa State University noted that real meatpacking earnings fluctuated between 1963 and 1988, but were lower in 1988 than in 1963. An INS agent in 1995 estimated that almost 25 percent of the workers in 222 meatpacking plants in Nebraska and Iowa were illegally in the US. …  According to meatpackers, there is very high turnover among 10 to 30 percent of the work force, so that a plant with 500 employees may issue 1,000 to 1,200 W-2 statements at the end of the year. Some critics of the meatpacking industry argue that the companies encourage high turnover to keep most workers at the low end of the wage scale. … In Albert Lea, Minnesota, city officials were not sure that they wanted a meat packing plant employing 700 that was closed for a year reopened. According to one official, “a meatpacking plant can butcher public budgets as well as hogs.” One study found that, despite new payrolls, per capita income declines in some small communities that attract meatpacking plants.[1]

From 1990 to 1996, many Midwestern localities witnessed their Hispanic populations grow anywhere from 200% to 500%, largely at the behest of major meatpackers and other corporate interests facilitating their new labor force’s re-settlement, though not without substantial assistance from the government, social advocacy groups and law firms, and religious charities. The movement of huge numbers of alien peoples into formerly high-trust, tight-knit communities might help companies’ bottom lines in terms of labor costs and general product consumption, but it splinters and ravages these communities—which is also by design. The Democrat Party benefits from a bumper crop of new voters, the religious charities get to feel righteous, the Chamber of Commerce gets its profits, and the assorted “social advocacy groups” get to act out particular ethnic grievances—often via the witting or unwitting accomplices in the Christian charities—under the guise of humanitarianism. The list of winners definitely does not include the locals:

Given their small populations, rural towns can be transformed almost overnight by immigration, leading to issues that range from an inability to communicate with public authorities to non-English speaking children in school. Lexington, Nebraska went from a population that was five percent Latino in the 1990 Census to nearly 45 percent Latino in 1994, on a Census re-check. The growth of the Latino population is attributed to IBP, a meat packer that employs 2,500 workers, and has a $58 million annual payroll, in a town of 9,000. The transformation of Lexington has drawn mixed reviews. On the one hand, business, especially in the downtown area, is up. However, some established residents complain that Spanish-speaking meatpackers and their families drive old cars without licenses and insurance, and that the needs of their children lower the quality of the schools. The crime rate in Lexington has doubled. … According to one Nebraska police chief, “where you have the meatpacking plants, you have an immigration of Hispanics, and you are seeing an increase of gangs.”[2]

This phenomenon has been replicated across the country in different industries, from Wisconsin’s dairy industry[3] to Georgian poultry.[4] In Maine, it is the blueberry, broccoli, forestry, egg, seafood, and apple industries.

Let us consider tiny Milbridge, Maine, home to the Mano en Mano organization first profiled in Volume III, as a starting point. Hispanics first started to come to the area when a sea cucumber processor used a labor contractor to hire migrant labor in 1997; sea cucumbers are similar to starfish and their meat is highly-prized in Asia. The first workers were former blueberry rakers, and network hiring subsequently led to more Hispanic migrants. Consequently, Milbridge, a town of 1,300, is mostly White, but 24% of the student body is now Hispanic. Wild lowbush blueberries in Maine are “raked” from barrens in the coastal forests of the northeastern (“Down East”) part of the state. Cherryfield Foods, Inc. is one of the largest blueberry producers in Maine and provides free housing to its predominantly Mexican workers. Cherryfield is owned by Oxford Foods in Nova Scotia, Canada. Maine produces about $85 million worth of blueberries a year. Throughout the 1990s and well into the 2000s, most of the seasonal harvesters were Hispanic immigrants or migrant laborers complemented by Micmac Indians from Maritime Canada. According to Maine’s Department of Labor, 18% of farm workers in the state are migrants, defined as those who traveled too far from their usual residence to return at the end of the workday. Ed Flanagan, president of Jasper Wyman and Son, a berry harvester,[5] told the Washington Post on April 10, 2006 that Hispanic workers are “like migratory birds. I mean, we don’t have to do much and they show up every year.” Washington County had almost no Hispanics in 1990, but today they dominate the harvest crews that “rake” berries from their bushes, not to mention the labor force of Aroostook County’s major broccoli farms, the coastal seafood processing plants, and other agricultural or seafood-related industries. The initial batch of migrant workers showed up because, “They say that they left California or Texas to enjoy the higher wages and better benefits associated with fewer newly arrived Mexican workers.”

The increased use of farm labor contractors is another major factor in the increased use of migrant Hispanic, mostly mestizo, labor in Maine’s agricultural industries, but the presence of advocacy groups such as Mano en Mano which are, in their own words, “working hard to alleviate impediments to settlement in the region,” is also a contributing factor to be considered. All of the laborers’ (and their families’) health care (including dental, eye care, and psychological care), transportation, and translation needs are provided for by another 501(c)(3) called the Maine Mobile Health Program, Inc. (MMHP), which is focused on “equitable healthcare and social justice.” Do you get free housing, healthcare, transportation, and psychological support through your job? MMHP gets a small subsidy from the US Department of Agriculture, and, according to the most recent financial statements I could find, over $1.4 million from the US Department of Health and Human Services. It was recently announced that MMHP—along with twenty other organizations, many of which we have covered such as MEJP, MIRC, and the like—would be receiving a $1.17 million grant from Maine Health Access Foundation.

In a joint project between Mano en Mano and Colby College entitled, “From Sojourner to Settler,” published in April 2017, we learn that when Mano en Mano conducted its first HUD-designed (Housing of Urban Development) needs assessment in 2011, “The organization found that 78.5% of the respondents of the HUD survey were born in Mexico; 89% self-identified as Hispanic/Latino. In that year, 93% were employed in farm-work.” Further, from the joint study conducted by Mano en Mano and Colby itself:

When asked, 98% of all respondents identified the town in which they live as “home” implying these sojourners have in fact become settled…[of respondents] under the age of 18 years. … 87% of these were born in the U.S. … Eighty percent of respondents to our survey identify as Latino or Hispanic. Eighteen percent identify as having two or more racial identities and 1% identify as White. Forty-three percent of respondents report speaking only Spanish in their household, while 45% report speaking both Spanish and English. Nine percent of households reportedly speak English only at home (my note: this is not “diversity,” this is an ethnic enclave)…22% of households don’t feel comfortable interacting or calling with police (my note: we can probably guess why).

What we can see here is that “documented” or not, the migrants are putting down roots and becoming settled, which is an ominous sign for Maine’s demographic future. The workers surveyed are already averaging over three children per family, which is well over the US average, but only slightly higher than the local average of 2.7. It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this is going, however.

One by-product of the reliance on predominantly Mexican-mestizo labor is that these families have coalesced into communities with a shared culture and language—which has made their ability to organize and demand better working conditions, benefits, and higher wages much easier, especially as, 1) their only competition locally is Whites who would demand even more and greater protections, and 2) there is a paucity of readily-available scab labor to replace these workers. In the late-1990s and 2000s, we began to see push-back against serious labor abuses as Mexican workers started to understand their rights and interface with local groups about unionization. Let’s use the saga of Jack DeCoster, farm magnate, as a filter, with a timeline combined from UC Davis’s catalogue Rural Migration News and Marler Clark’s website:

·         1996: DeCoster was fined $3.6 million for health and safety violations at the family’s Turner egg farm, which then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich termed “as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop we have seen.” Regulators found that workers had been forced to handle manure and dead chickens with their bare hands and to live in filthy trailers.

·         1996: In Turner, Maine, Mexican immigrants dominate the work force at the DeCoster Egg Farm, the largest brown-egg producer in the US…was fined $ 2 million by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for violations of health and safety laws. This fine and publicity resulted in boycotts of DeCoster eggs, and a law approved in Maine that permits workers on large farms to unionize under state laws. Most farm workers are not covered by the NLRA.

·         1997: In December, the NLRB announced that it would issue complaints charging that DeCoster unlawfully interfered with workers engaged in union activities, spied on workers and fired union supporters; the United Paperworkers International is attempting to organize DeCoster workers. The charges were filed against the two successor companies, Maine Ag and Quality Eggs of New England. DeCoster paid $2 million to settle a $5.8 million federal fine for health and safety violations, and split into two companies…In the 1980s and 1990s, DeCoster was fined repeatedly for violations of workplace safety laws.

·         1999: The company paid $5 million to settle wage-and-hour claims involving 3,000 workers.

·         2002: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the family’s Maine Contract Farming operation $345,810 for an array of violations. The same year, DeCoster Egg Farms of Maine paid $3.2 million to settle a lawsuit filed in 1998 by Mexican workers alleging discrimination in housing and working conditions. Afterward, DeCoster subdivided into eight smaller firms on 1,300 acres near Turner.

·         2008: Maine Contract Farming LLC of Turner, Maine, the successor to DeCoster Egg Farms, was fined $150,000 by OSHA for ordering workers to retrieve eggs from a building with a partially collapsed roof.

·          Jack DeCoster’s Turner and Winthrop Maine egg farms were sued in August 2011 by a plant manager who alleged that DeCoster treated Mexican-born as “virtual slaves.” The manager said that DeCoster told him to “get rid of the gringos” because Mexicans accepted his authority.[6],[7]

These abuses are just from DeCoster’s Maine farms; his farms in Iowa were shockingly worse.[8] What you’ll notice is that the suits and fines, with the one exception of the plant manager in 2011, have seemed to dry up over the last decade. Is it that DeCoster suddenly became a responsible and ethical human being, or is it that as the 2000s progressed, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Jamaicans, and sub-Saharan Africans started arriving in Maine in appreciable numbers? The uniform ethnic make-up of the migrant workers in Maine throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s allowed the workers to band together and attempt to unionize as well as file class-action law-suits. Clearly this is not beneficial for the agricultural industry, so a more diverse work force had to be imported. Each success wave breaks the bargaining and organizational power of the group that comes before and keeps wages low. It also harms the domestic population for the aforementioned reasons. I’ll say it again: this has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarianism.

The Mexican enclave in and around Milbridge will not last. Already Mano en Mano is listing Haitian Creole alongside Spanish for the translation services offered, and you will find large numbers of guest workers along the coast from Jamaica and Eastern Europe. This is before considering the huge influx of sub-Saharan Africans or the other mestizo groups from Central America. The Maine Department of Labor has started to organize job fairs targeting African immigrant communities in Lewiston and Portland, bringing together translators, NGOs, and prospective employers. From the “Immigrant and Refugee Integration and Policy Development Working Group Final Report” for the City of Lewiston, December 2017:

According to the 2017 Maine Chamber of Commerce report, new immigrants and their children are anticipated to account for 83% of growth in the U.S. workforce between 2000 and 2050…However, as the writers of the report indicate, to incentivize immigrant participation in the Maine economy, “we need to be receptive to the fact that many of the people who will grow our population, workforce, and economy will look different than most of us and have different backgrounds and cultures.”… Several area employers, including Staff Management, Aramark, L.L. Bean, Barber Foods, Pionite, Labor Ready, Central Maine Meats, Commonwealth Poultry, Cozy Harbor Seafood, the Harraseeket Inn, Clover Manor, Conform, St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, HW Staffing, Central Maine Medical Center, TJ Maxx, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, Home Depot, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Wal-Mart (both retail and distribution), K-Mart, Hannaford, Shaw’s, Belanger Farms, Pineland Farms, and Goodwill, have adopted practices and policies to hire and support a diversified workforce.[9]

What all of this really means is that each successive wave of immigrants breaks the backs of the organizing attempts of the collected group before them, but the power brokers seem finally to have grasped that if you can’t even understand or communicate with the person working next to you, you sure as hell cannot propose unionizing to them. Thus, the more diverse a workforce, the less likely it is to be able to take collective action, and this is before considering long-standing ethnic grievances in addition to linguistic and cultural barriers. When they say “diversity is our strength” they mean “diversity is their strength,” for they envision a state of unlimited immigration from every nook and cranny of planet earth keeping things perpetually in the black.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[2] Ibid.

[3] “Some Wisconsin dairy farmers, claiming that 40 percent of hired workers on dairies are immigrants, were quoted as saying: ‘If E-Verify passes, it will kill the dairy industry in Wisconsin.’ John Rosenow of Rosenholm-Wolfe Dairy asserted that ‘60 percent of the milk that’s harvested is harvested by immigrants, and the vast majority are probably undocumented.’”

[4] “The Washington Post on April 3, 2006 profiled immigration to Gainsville, Georgia, the self-proclaimed ‘poultry capital of the world.’ Between 1990 and 2005, the city’s population almost doubled to 32,000, while the number of Hispanics quadrupled, so that the town is now 50 percent Hispanic. Gainsville’s demographic change was induced by poultry processors such as Fieldale Farms, Koch Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride. About 3,000 of Fieldale’s 4,700 workers are Hispanic and earn $10 an hour. About 70 percent of the pupils in Gainesville Elementary are Hispanic, and 90 percent qualify for subsidized meals.”

[5] Berry farm Jasper Wyman and Sons paid $118,000 to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in November 2010 for failing to properly complete I-9 forms on the 900 seasonal workers hired each year.



[8] “In 2001, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that DeCoster was a “repeat violator” of state environmental laws, citing violations involving the family’s hog-farming operations. The family was forbidden to expand its hog-farming interests in the state. Also in 2001, DeCoster Farms of Iowa settled, for $1.5 million, a complaint brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that DeCoster had subjected 11 undocumented female workers from Mexico to a “sexually hostile work environment,” including sexual assault and rape by supervisors… n 2003, Jack DeCoster paid the federal government $2.1 million as part of a plea agreement after federal agents found more than 100 undocumented workers at his Iowa egg farms. It was the largest penalty ever against an Iowa employer. Three years later, agents found 30 workers suspected of being illegal immigrants at a DeCoster farm in Iowa. And in 2007, raids in Iowa uncovered 51 more undocumented workers.”