Immigration

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”), 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 the Jewish 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: 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 from Goldman Sachs, General Dynamics, Unum, Harvard University, Berman & Simmons, the Rosenthal Group, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, MoveOn.org, 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; the State Victory Fund, along with Soros and Tom Steyer, backers of Maine Governor Janet Mills; 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.” https://freebeacon.com/issues/offshore-tax-haven-leak-implicates-seven-figure-pro-clinton-donor/

[2] https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/congressional-candidates-stephanie/

[3] https://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/forward-columnist-and-emilys-list-leader-relate-gigantic-shocking-role-of-jewish-democratic-donors/

[4] See also: Cynthia McKinney.

[5] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/aipac-dont-contribute-which-pro-israel-groups-do/

[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.


[1] http://www.oecd.org/water/Policy-Paper-Financing-Water-Investing-in-Sustainable-Growth.pdf

[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.”

 

[3] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/frameworks/addisababaactionagenda

[4] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[5] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/becoming_big_bettable#sidebar1

[6] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf

[7] https://truthout.org/articles/nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extraction/

[8] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-privatization-public-water-systems-lead/

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/nestle-and-others-cashing-us-water-infrastructure-crisis

[12] https://truthout.org/articles/nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extraction/

[13] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for

[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.” https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf

[15] Ibid.

[16] https://www.topic.com/wet-n-wild

[17] Ibid.

[18] https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/reports/csv%20reports/community%20and%20development/un_millennium_development_2005_2006_english.pdf

[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.

[22] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf

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

The financial sector in the United States has tripled since the 1980s, while the real economy has shrunk and labor’s share of income has declined. 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:

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.


[1] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-slow-crash-the-shrinking-of-the-real-economy/5532131

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://cis.org/Dirty-Work-InSourcing-American-Jobs-H2B-Guestworkers

[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.” https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

[5] https://pinetreewatch.org/help-wanted-the-immigrant-opportunity-immigrants-can-greatly-help-fill-maines-workforce/

[6] https://ptla.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Audited-Public.pdf

[7] https://pinetreewatch.org/help-wanted-the-immigrant-opportunity-maine-employers-look-to-immigrants-to-fill-severe-gap/

[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.”

[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/this-will-be-catastrophic-maine-families-face-elder-boom-worker-shortage-in-preview-of-nations-future/2019/08/14/7cecafc6-bec1-11e9-b873-63ace636af08_story.html

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.


[1] https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=126

[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.

[6] https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=250

[7] https://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/wright-county-egg-owner-decoster-seems-to-be-one-bad-egg/

[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.” https://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/wright-county-egg-owner-decoster-seems-to-be-one-bad-egg/

[9] https://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8885/REPORT—ImmigrantandRefugeeIntegrationandPolicyDevelopmentWorkingGroupFinalReport

 

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. IX: Cheap Labor is the Opiate of Dying Nations

“The [labor] shortage is so acute … other companies have gone so far as to offer higher wages to entice locals.”—Martha Searchfield, Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce

You may remember that several years ago, Disney became notorious for hiring imported H-1B visa workers to replace their higher-paid American counterparts, and threatening to withhold severance packages if the outgoing American employees refused to train their new replacements. This then-new policy was overseen by Partnership for a New American Economy (NAE) member and Disney CEO Bob Iger. Recall the sheer number of powerful executives, major economic players, and prominent politicians among NAE’s ranks, as catalogued in the previous piece, and understand that it is no surprise that there has been virtually no resistance to the mass importation of scab labor from either the public or private sectors outside of organized labor and the odd Bernie Sanders (although the “new and improved” Sanders has changed his tune).

NAE’s entire raison d’etre is to pad corporate profits, and one of the ways they do that is to advocate for increased foreign worker visas. In fact, NAE founder Michael Bloomberg has publicly called for the removal of any cap on H-1B visas issued by the federal government, a sentiment echoed by Bill Gates and others. The H-1B visa worker program is just one of over twenty such worker visas allowing companies to push out American workers in favor of foreign ones. Regarding H-1B visas specifically, Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy write:

Technology and financial services firms have taken the lead in the public advocacy, spending millions of dollars on lobbying, creating numerous issue-specific advocacy organizations, and funding favorable studies at think tanks. Unlike traditional policy advocacy—which is typically left to the government affairs departments of corporations—pushing for H-1B expansion has seen CEOs be highly visible. Celebrity CEOs such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Jamie Dimon, and Michael Bloomberg have publicly advocated for expanding the H-1B program—through op-eds, speeches, sponsoring news organizations’ events designed to influence lawmakers’ views of the program, letters to shareholders, and congressional testimony.[1]

Further, in true Woke Capital fashion, the authors continue, “To broaden the appeal of expanding the program, they have linked their messages to broader advocacy efforts on behalf of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and the undocumented.” With few exceptions, the entire capitalist structure is in favor of unlimited immigration so long as it serves their needs; organizations such as NAE, George Soros’s National Immigration Forum, the American Action Network, FWD.us, and the US Chamber of Commerce are the rule, not the exception. In 2013, 450 businesses, chambers of commerce, advocacy groups, immigration attorney groups, and other organizations issued a letter to Congress calling for “Immigration Reform NOW.” The letter’s signatories demanded a doubling of immigration into the country and full amnesty for all illegal aliens. Disney was of course represented—as were NAE, FWD.us, the American Action Network, and the National Immigration Forum—and also present were a slew of tech companies from Dell to Google to Microsoft to Facebook to Cisco Systems. Also well-represented were companies that thrive on the cheap labor provided by H-2A and H-2B visas. The H-2A is designed to import agricultural labor and the H-2B is for general non-agricultural labor (think maids, restaurant employees, etc.). As Jon Feere relates:

The companies apparently looking for more H-2A visas (i.e. cheap agricultural labor from overseas) include the Sun-Maid Growers of California, Welch Foods Inc., the New England Apple Council, Sweet Potato Council of California, National Christmas Tree Association, and various state nursery, landscape, and farm bureau organizations. The companies apparently looking for more H-2B visas (i.e. cheap non-agricultural labor from overseas) include Hilton Worldwide, Marriott International, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants. Many state Chambers of Commerce also signed on. … Santa Clara University also signed on to the letter, the only school on the list. The school bills itself as “The Jesuit University in Silicon Valley,” so they likely received pressure from both the Jesuits and the IT industry to support amnesty. And perhaps being the alma matter of Janet Napolitano had something to do with it.[2]… Also on the list is FWD.us, a pro-amnesty group created by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. The group created an off-shoot called “Americans for a Conservative Direction” aimed at selling amnesty from a conservative perspective (despite the fact that the organization is run by Obama-supporting liberals). It is this group that created the deceptive amnesty ad that starred Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) earlier this year.[3] …

The quaint notion that employers will self-regulate has been shattered by dozens of stories of household names replacing US workers with H-1Bs. This common practice has reportedly been used by Disney, Southern California Edison, New York Life, Abbott Labs, Fossil Group, and many other leading firms. Perhaps the most stunning case was when UCSF forced Robert Harrison and his colleagues to train their H-1B replacements. UCSF is part of the University of California (UC) system, one of the largest public university systems in the country. According to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the UC system received $8.5 billion in grants and subsidies from the federal government. More astounding, Janet Napolitano, UC’s president, previously served as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that administers the H-1B program. During an oversight hearing before Congress in 2009, Senator Durbin asked then-Secretary Napolitano what she was doing to ensure that US workers were not being displaced by H-1B workers. She responded, “Our top obligation is to American workers, making sure American workers have jobs…We are going to keep at this to make sure that the intent of that program is fulfilled.” Remember, the intent is that H-1B workers are filling positions for which there is a bona fide labor shortage. After the UC H-1B scandal became public in late 2016, about a dozen members of Congress sent letters to Napolitano, urging her to reverse course. In spite of this public admonition, she went forward with replacing her US workers with H-1Bs. The lure of lower-cost, hassle-free workers was too tempting for even for a public university like UC to pass up.

Immigration law firms were well-represented on the list because, as Ron Hira and Bharath Gopalaswamy explicate:

Immigration attorneys, who have expert knowledge about how the H-1B program operates, have also advocated for H-1B expansion and argued that current safeguards are more than adequate. This should come as no surprise, since H-1B cases are often a large source of revenue for immigration law firms. The more H-1Bs issued, the greater the revenue earned by them.[4]

Outsourcing firms also make billions of dollars in revenue from the current system, and a removal of the cap on foreign worker visas would be a financial windfall. Many businesses enjoy these visas not simply because of the lower advertised wages they pay and the fact that the workers typically demand and receive fewer benefits; an unfamiliarity with labor rights and often a language barrier enables employers to exploit these workers by underpayment either through position re-classification or through undocumented overtime, as well as a failure to reimburse workers for expenses normally covered by the employer, such as uniforms. Bread and Roses Bakery, Inc. in Maine is one such business that checks all of those boxes, and when caught last year, the owner flippantly commented that she thought the government had “more important things to do” than to enforce labor law—and in a sense, she’s right. The abuses go much further than this one bakery, however; I will go into much greater depth in the next installment of this series, but it is vital to understand that the issue is systemic:

U.S. H-2B employers and the U.S. recruiters they hire often partner with foreign recruiters, and then deny knowledge of the foreign recruiters’ tactics when fraud and abuse are alleged. U.S. courts have not shown a willingness to try cases of abuse when the violations occur outside the United States, even if the case involves a job being performed in the United States…Despite credible allegations and even convictions for fraud and abuse of both H-2B workers and the program in general, neither the Department of Labor (DOL) nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ever barred a U.S. company from filing H-2B petitions. Some repeat offenders continue to have their petitions approved to this day.[5]

Furthermore, write Hira and Gopalaswamy:

Most of the abuses—whether the low wages for H-1Bs or even the replacement of US workers with H-1Bs—are legal under the current laws and regulations. Increased efforts at enforcement are ineffective when abuse is legal. Even in the high-profile cases of Disney and Southern California Edison, where US workers had to train their H-1B replacements, government investigations found the practices perfectly legal, leaving US workers with no recourse. Any government investigation of the widespread use of the H-1B for cheap labor would prove similarly fruitless since it too is legal.[6]

And there’s the rub: of course illegal migration into the United States is a massive issue, but even its full curtailment, while necessary, is not sufficient to stop the demographic destruction of the United States and its transformation—already well underway—from a nation to an economic zone. We live in a market. If you think the push for open borders has anything to do with humanitarianism, you’re being naïve at best. The Central Bank of Ireland admitted as much: they need a certain intake of people to keep wages from rising. There are other reasons for the mass importation of alien peoples as well, but as regards wages, it’s primarily considerations of supply-and-demand and collective bargaining, or lack thereof.

In the antebellum South, indentured servants and slaves filled the labor needs of many major landholders, whereas in the North child labor was prevalent. As the mid-nineteenth century approached, immigrants from countries like Ireland joined the Yankees in laboring in factories and mills in the rapidly-industrializing Union. Freed Blacks filled this role during the Great Migration when immigration was restricted in the 1920s, and soon thereafter women were “liberated” from their “burdens” of home-making and child-rearing to depress wages and provide a financial windfall of tax revenue to the federal government. Immigrant populations arriving in the United States have typically come in waves, and these waves very often served to provide cheap, disposable labor for the expanding industrial economy as the nineteenth century progressed, and the de-industrialized service-sector economy post-1965. This model has been adopted across the West at various intervals in the immediate aftermath of World War II (aka, Year Zero, per Dharmakirti). Immigrants, women, and now sexual identity groups (although the latter two are more white-collar phenomena) have been a boon to capitalists looking to keep wages as low as possible and break the collective bargaining power of organized labor, which has also traditionally been the bulwark against mass immigration, not just in the United States but in countries like Canada, Australia, and others. The specific context of Maine will be explored in my next piece, but it is important to understand this economic motivation on the part of Money Power in order to see the big picture. Without grasping the economics, much of what the “elites” are doing remains obscured. Returning once more to Hira and Gopalaswamy:

Labor markets work like other markets. When there is growth in demand for a particular good or service, prices (and, in this case, wages) rise, sending a signal to supplyEmployers can fill a position with an H-1B worker without ever attempting to recruit a US worker for the job…The rationale for not requiring active recruitment of US workers was to expedite the hiring process for an H-1B worker. The assumption was that employers would only use the program when they couldn’t find an American worker, but that assumption has proven wildly incorrect. Many employers actually set aside jobs for H-1B workers through preferential hiring practices, and even replace US workers with H-1Bs. Such practices may surprise some, but they are perfectly legal—and, more importantly, perfectly logical because employment norms and firm behaviors are far different today than they were in 1990. The rise of shareholder-value-driven management means that the logic of the firm is to maximize profits. If hiring an H-1B worker instead of an equally qualified US worker increases profits, then the firm’s executives will choose to do so.[7]

Once again, there are no legal disincentives to do so, only moral ones, and given where we’re at…well, you get it. Even if there was a moral objection to replacing your countrymen in the name of profit, the nature of most industries would quickly see that company go out of business. The libertarian notion that industries self-regulate in the absence of government is laughable—and destructive. Beyond the false Judaic construct of the “free market,” which would see the state run by corporations for the benefit of corporations, laissez-faire economics marginalizes such “externalities” as blood and soil. Both wind up exploited, polluted, and ultimately destroyed.

More next time.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

[2]

[3] https://cis.org/Feere/Yelp-Gives-FiveStar-Review-Amnesty-So-Do-Virgin-America-Overstockcom-EBay

[4] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

[5] https://cis.org/Dirty-Work-InSourcing-American-Jobs-H2B-Guestworkers

[6] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Reforming_US_High-Skilled_Guestworkers_Program.pdf

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. VII: Welcome to Paradise

There is a saying, “Shit rolls downhill,” and when considering the “refugee re-settlement” business—and it is in no small part a business—this saying is very apropos. Starting with the United Nations at the top, the nine major contractors in the US then “farm out” these refugees (most of whom are anything but) to approximately 350 sub-contractors to “seed” the refugees across the country. Most are settled in overwhelmingly white areas with high-trust and social cohesion under the auspices of humanitarianism and economic necessity. There is certainly an economic imperative for mass immigration on behalf of the Money Power, one which I will continue to illustrate, but there is also a very clear ideological motivation as well. As immigrants largely cluster in major cities, migrants must be artificially pumped into rural and/or less-“sexy” destinations by NGOs, the government, businesses, or some combination thereof. Migrant labor has been one of the primary drivers of the demographic transformation of areas in states from Oregon to Kansas to Georgia, but the vast network of re-settlement organizations, often with ample governmental or extra-governmental assistance, are able to pin-point and target areas to be totally “re-made.” These areas are always overwhelmingly white and generally unprepared for their diversity enema.

The state of Tennessee has pushed back against the federal government’s re-settlement overreach on Tenth Amendment grounds, and this is great, but unfortunately even in victory this would change little. As previously evidenced, many of these “charitable organizations,” such as Catholic Charities, do in fact receive substantial government (i.e., taxpayer) funding, and are thus beholden to the government as a kind of shareholder—though only in principle. The Six Degrees of Separation between the federal consortium of agencies and the private voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) and subcontractors provides tremendous latitude for “discretionary” re-settlement should the government, as it has under President Trump, decide to lower the refugee cap. This provides for a sort of humanitarian end-around where the Vatican or other globalist groups can wire money to groups on the Mexican side of the US border and facilitate refugees’ or, even better, “asylum-seekers’” passage to the American side, where the VOLAGs and subcontractors then provide transport to places like Maine. The asylum loophole is especially insidious.[1]

Under former Governor Paul LePage, Maine actually withdrew from the federal refugee re-settlement program, which should have ended the flow of refugees to the state, but—libertarians rejoice!—with the increasing privatization of “refugee re-settlement,” the well-intentioned decision has actually been counter-productive, which we’ll get to in a second. Canada’s provision for privatized refugee sponsorship, which is in addition to (read: above and beyond) governmental policy, has resulted in the highest rate of refugee re-settlement per capita in Canada of any Western country, presently over seven times that of the United States according to official figures.[2] This is of course nowhere near enough for the anti-White ideologues or for the special interests who want it fully privatized. The US and other countries are being pressured by the private sector to move closer to, and ultimately beyond, the Canadian model, although we are already in many ways in a state of de facto privatization. In the present American model, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR):

If a State chooses to withdraw from the Program…ORR may select one or more other grantees, typically private non-profit organizations, to administer federal funding for cash and medical assistance and social services provided to eligible refugee populations in that State.

In Maine, Catholic Charities has become that organization, and given what we’ve discussed in previous installments about Catholic Charities, it is little surprise the demographic transformation of the state has only accelerated. The number of refugees in Portland alone has doubled from the year 2013, much of that number coming since LePage’s withdrawal of Maine from the federal re-settlement program. As many migrants arrived this past June as in the entirety of 2013. Fifty-one percent of the refugees admitted to the United States are from Africa, but a near-totality of refugees and asylum-seekers arriving in Maine are from sub-Saharan Africa, with a sprinkling of Middle Easterners. Regarding the Refugee Re-Settlement Industrial Complex, insert “Hotel California” joke here. As Don Barnett writes:

No state has ever been allowed to exit the program completely, though that was clearly the intent of the state of Maine. … It is the 1994 regulation (45 CFR 400.301), not the statutory 1984 Wilson/Fish Amendment that allows for the federal government to bring in a private contractor to run the program when the state has exited the program. The Wilson/Fish statutory amendment does not grant authority to either HHS or ORR to fund an alternative program as a way to establish or continue an initial resettlement program in a state when that state has withdrawn from the federal program. It unintentionally provided a framework and funding that is more advantageous to the contractors. That is why it is the preferred mode of contractor operations when a state has withdrawn from the program. Ironically, what was meant to reduce costs and ensure accountability became a boon to the contractors, which together with regulation 45 CFR 400.301, allowed them to bypass any state influence and impose even more costs on the states where they operate…It was instrumentalized to the advantage of the very entities it was meant to control.[3]

In other words, it functions exactly as it’s supposed to. It should be clear why it is advantageous for law firms, corporations, banks and other financial institutions, big agra, and other businesses to partner with these refugee re-settlement organizations; this “economic impetus” to humanitarianism is central to the Woke Capital model. This more than just a branding exercise, although “woke washing” is certainly a lucrative marketing tactic—it’s about curating a particular kind of consumer base, ensuring a steady supply of cheap, disposable labor (with private citizens often unwittingly padding the bottom line through confiscatory taxation, further aided by government corporate tax cuts or tax breaks), and a pliable, easily-“sold” population. You can’t ask questions if you don’t know what to ask.

This is not to say that the state isn’t at least partially involved—it is, more as a conduit than anything else, though. Labor is taxed at twice the rate of capital, which accelerates the accrual of capital to the top 1% and steepens the divide between haves and have-nots. It’s part of the reason someone like AOC has a base—they’re dimly aware that they’re being exploited, but given their lower IQs and critical thinking faculties—plus the sheer amount of programming—they simply regurgitate what they’re told: “White people.” Therein lies another benefit to trading Whites for Blacks and Browns. Think about all of the golems you hear screeching about “white supremacy” while Jewish interests act with impunity.

There’s another shrewd tactic here: by “allying” with “social justice,” corporations can then rhetorically attack the “nativist” Right and, with the Left now totally subverted, erode the final barrier to open borders and cheaper labor. Their rhetoric is then internalized by consumers to TAKE ACTION, either in the form of purchasing more products like the Kaepernick Nikes for social approval or literal action, which also involves purchasing products like milkshakes to hurl at anyone who isn’t officially-sanctioned ideologically. Speaking of milkshakes, it is empirically-accurate to state that the current groups flooding into the West do not prioritize wellness. Thus the Medical-Industrial Complex is also well-situated to make serious money. Unhappy with how society is? Here, take these pills!

As you can see, these things are all interrelated even if they aren’t always working in direct conjunction. We’ll get more into asset privatization specifically in the Nestlé/Poland Springs context in a future piece, but for our purposes here, I’ll simply state that the deleterious effect non-Whites (or certain other exceptions like Northeast Asians) have on their surroundings then “necessitates” privatization as corporations have preemptively consolidated resource control and may then mark it up for major profit. Consider the conditions of public drinking water in places like Flint, Michigan, and then consider the newly-created need for bottled water.

There’s another bonus here, too. When sufficient numbers of Blacks and Browns have moved to an area, and when elevated crime, ruined social capital have caused White Flight have driven down property values, the process of gentrification may begin, and enterprising developers stand to make a killing re-selling Whites and “model minorities” a facsimile of what they had before diversity. You may even have a situation like that in Detroit with Dan Gilbert (Quicken Loans/Rock Ventures/Cleveland Cavaliers/Temple Beth Israel) and his Bedrock Detroit project—the anarcho-capitalist wet dream. As an added bonus, local taxpayers will contribute $618 million to be eventually priced-out of their own homes. But as always—think of the GDP!

The smoke-and-mirrors is all meant to direct attention away from the primary cause of what is, indeed, White genocide: the profit motive. You see, the banks and the multi-nationals are run by people who despise you—some Jews and some Gentiles—but your destruction is less about this raw hatred, especially for the Gentiles involved, and more about removing you as an obstacle to greater profits. You would likely demand pesky nuisances like lunch breaks, weekends, and a livable wage. You wouldn’t have an eighth child you couldn’t afford to care for. You might question why, exactly, you should have to pay almost double your home’s value by the end of a thirty-year mortgage. By creating a snake oil “academic” framework through which to lend cultural credence and legitimacy to concepts such as “privilege,” the private sphere is given carte blanche to dismantle the obstinate White population and sell their nations for parts—with ample government assistance in the interim stage, as the state is run by and for the financial institutions and corporations until it, too, can be dismantled and discarded.

Jewish hatred of the Gentile, especially Whites, is vital to understand, as is their wildly disproportionate share of personal and professional influence over socially and morally corrosive institutions. But without first grasping the profit motive and the economic forces behind White replacement, you cannot combat Jewish use of power for privileging their in-group and acting out their millennia-long hatred of Whites. They would not be able to do this without the means to do so, or without willing White collaborators motivated by greed and class-based disdain for lower-, working-, and even middle-class Whites. Their dumb golems are useful, too, as they work to erode nationalist sentiments among all groups of people with the exception of themselves. Neo-liberalism is the vehicle, and it must be destroyed.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.


[1] “In FY 2019, the United States expects to resettle up to 30,000 refugees, as well as processing more than 280,000 asylum seekers.  They will join the over 800,000 asylum seekers who are already inside the United States and who are awaiting adjudication of their claims.” https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/

[2] “Provisions for the Private Sponsorship Program were introduced as part of the Immigration Act of 1976. It was recognized at that time that in addition to a planned government effort to help refugees, Canada would benefit from a mechanism that would allow private citizens and corporations to become involved in refugee resettlement. [What was originally viewed as a very incidental part of the system of refugee intake, if it were ever to be utilized, quickly became the most imaginative innovation in refugee resettlement with the massive intake of Indochinese refugees beginning in 1979 and 1980 in which, during an 18- month period, 32,000 refugees were sponsored by the private sector.]”  “Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program” Discussion Paper, Refuge, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 1992).

[3] https://cis.org/Report/Do-States-Have-Say-Refugee-Resettlement-Program