Immigration

Jerry Kammer: The SPLC depends on Jewish donors

/26 Comments/in , , /by

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a report by Jerry Kammer on the $PLC’s involvement in pro-immigration activism, its ties to La Raza, and its financial dependence on Jewish donors. Because the SPLC is able to get it’s messages into the media, its claim that FAIR is a “hate group” has been endlessly repeated in the media and touted by pro-immigration activists. Advocates then note that other groups on the SPLC hate list include the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Aryan Nations.

The point, of course, is to remove all restrictionist arguments from having any public credibility — whatever their factual basis. Journalist Laird Wilcox is quoted “The SPLC has exploited the patina of the old civil rights movement. And this has a mesmerizing effect on people, especially reporters who are naturally attracted to heroic images of racial struggles and stark contrasts of good vs. evil. I’ve been astounded at how many of the SPLC’s claims have gone unchallenged.”

Kammer is careful to oppose any hint that ethnically based arguments have any validity. He notes that the pro-immigration group America’s Voice features a quote from FAIR founder John Tanton in its ads: “As WHITES see their POWER and CONTROL over their lives DECLINING, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an EXPLOSION” (emphasis from America’s Voice). Such a statement does appear on the face of it to be a claim that there is a huge ethnic angle to the immigration debate — not that there is anything wrong with that. This indeed is the big issue. Pro-immigration forces have been running roughshod over the interests and feelings of the White majority for decades, and I do believe that eventually there will be an explosion if the legitimate interests of Whites continue to be trampled on.

Kammer contextualizes Tanton’s statement as questioning the ability of non-Whites to assimilate into America and therefore absolves him of “racism.” And he notes that FAIR has tended to frame its arguments in economic terms — that immigration hurts American workers, while the SPLC, despite its supposed championing of Black causes, is remarkably unconcerned about the effects of immigration on American Blacks. In my view, that’s because the SPLC is heavily allied with and funded by Jewish ethnic interests in maximizing non-White immigration from all non-White groups. Indeed, Kammer notes that “A former SPLC employee told the Montgomery Advertiser that the donor base was ‘anchored by wealthy Jewish contributors on the East and West coasts’ ”

As I have said before, until White ethnic interests are legitimized, we are fighting this race war against Whites without our most potent weapon. As Kammer shows, activists like Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok have no trouble at all denying fact-based arguments on the economic effects of immigration. It’s just like the IQ debate in the media. Facts are always trumped by politics, non-White ethnic interests, and propaganda.

Until people can openly talk about the fact that the SPLC is a de facto Jewish activist organization promoting Jewish ethnic interests and that individual SPLC activists like Beirich and Potok have an ethnic interest in non-White immigration and work overtime to demonize White expressions of their ethnic interest, we can’t win the fight on immigration.

Kammer also does a great job on the slimy,sociopathic Morris Dees. Dees is not Jewish, but he has often acted as if he is Jewish — what one might term a “crypto-gentile”:

While Dees was raised a Southern Baptist, he suggested to some donors that he had a more diverse background. For example, in a 1985 fundraising pitch for funds to protect SPLC staff from threats of Klan violence, Dees made conspicuous use of his middle name — Seligman, which he received in honor of a family friend. A former SPLC attorney told The Progressive magazine that Dees signed letters with his middle name in mailings to zip codes that had many Jewish residents.

For Dees, it’s all about the money, and when it comes to donations to the SPLC, Dees is quite obviously aware that (falsely) advertizing his Jewish connections and hiring highly visible Jews like Beirich and Potok are excellent strategies.

Because the Jewish donor base is so critical, the SPLC appeals to “hate” rather than trying to make life better for poor people:

Ripping the SPLC as “puffed up crusaders,” [JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in The Nation]: “Hate sells; poor people don’t, which is why readers who go to the SPLC’s website will find only a handful of cases on such non-lucrative causes as fair housing, worker safety, or healthcare, many of those from the 1970s and 1980s. Why the organization continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.”

Jews fund the left in America, and that certainly includes the SPLC. Jews who contribute to leftist causes do so for typically Jewish motives — fear and loathing of the White majority, not compassion for poor people. The rhetoric of  helping poor people may be used if it aids in the larger anti-White agenda but is completely ignored when, as in the case of immigration policy, it does not. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

Kammer does a great job showing the ethnic commitments of La Raza — its rhetoric of anti-White hatred, quoting a La Raza honoree as having said “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”Kammer notes, “If FAIR adopted the SPLC’s diversionary tactics — probing for sinister motives rather than debating policy concerns — it would steer every conversation and refer every reporter to such statements, and it would demand to know why La Raza continues to cling to a name that derives from the ‘raza cosmica’ concept, which is explicitly based in the racist and eugenicist theories of its author.”

Of course, La Raza’s motives are not really sinister, but plain old ethnic competition suffused with hatred over historical grievances. The problem is that White people have not yet awakened to the reality that this is a race war.

Finally, Kammer does seem to acknowledge that it is legitimate for Whites to ponder the effects of immigration on them as Whites:

In her accusatory video for the “Stop the Hate” campaign, Beirich explains that the SPLC has also branded [FAIR’s magazine The Social Contract] as a hate group “because it puts out things like an issue on Europhobia and how white people are being destroyed by immigrants coming here.”142

This is another example of the SPLC’s habitual descent into hysteria and distortion. The allegedly hateful issue is actually a complaint against the hostility that multiculturalism is alleged to be fomenting against Americans of European descent. The offending essay expressed the fear that as the hostility spreads, “European-Americans will face increasing tension, discrimination, and perhaps physical danger.”143

This fear may be unreasonable, but it should certainly be open to consideration and discussion. It is precisely the sort of fear that — when expressed by minority groups who relate their own experiences with bigotry — occupies much of the attention of the SPLC’s “Teaching Tolerance” project. To put it kindly, it seems strange for Beirich to put the “hate group” tag on a publication that provides a forum for people to express their fear of being hated as they ponder demographic trends that are moving them toward minority status by mid-century.

Of course, the fear is not at all unreasonable, especially when so many non-White ethnic activists — Jews, Latinos, and Blacks — have not been at all shy about their hatred. Any ethnic group that voluntarily agrees to its own demise is foolish, but hugely more so when the people that are displacing them harbor such hatreds.

Bookmark and Share

Thomas Dalton on Carrying Capacity

/38 Comments/in , /by

Thomas Dalton’s current TOO article “Environment, Immigration, and Population Reduction“ reflects an intellectual movement that was for some time centered around the academic journal Population and Environment, especially when it was edited by Virginia Abernethy and later by me. The basic idea is that in the long run the human population will have to be scaled back in order to come into line with Earth’s carrying capacity.

An immediate implication of this perspective is that countries like the United States would have to institute an immigration moratorium. As things stand now, all predictions are for a massive increase in US population by 2050, almost entirely due to immigration. The figure accompanying the article, from a paper by two academics, David Pimentel of Cornell and Mario Giampiettro of the University of Rome, projects a US population of 520 million by 2050 if current increases of 1.1% per year are maintained.

Recently Lindsey Grant, another major figure in this movement, has distributed a new paper on this topic. He notes that the population restriction movement gained some traction in the 1970s but declined thereafter, and that recently the US State Department commented that “The U.S. does not endorse population ‘stabilization’ or ‘control.’” There is absolutely no discussion of reduction of legal immigration despite high levels of unemployment and wages that have been stagnant for a generation. Instead, as the LA Times reports today, the Obama administration and its Congressional allies are gearing up to legalize illegal immigrants, a policy that will hugely inflate US population as these people bring their relatives here.

Grant also points to economic realities: “The past 35 years have been a period of soaring incomes for the wealthy, stagnant hourly wages for most people, income differentials rising to levels that a humane observer would call obscene.” Rising commodity prices of the last few years are a harbinger of scarcity. Unemployment is increasing: “To keep up with population growth in those two years, we should have added about 1.2 million jobs, rather than losing nearly nine million. The “good” months are those when the job loss slows down. January was a ‘good’ month; only 22,000 jobs disappeared. What kind of recovery is that?” (For February, the loss was 36,000, a report that was greeted as encouraging by the Obama administration.) On the basis of US Labor Department statistics, he points out that the real unemployment level is 16.8 percent of the labor force, and much higher for minorities and youth.

One could say much else about the economic irrationality of current immigration policy.  In attempting to explain why there are no attempts to have a population policy, he points to five reasons:

First, the national addiction to growth and the dream of rising prosperity. Second, the political fears of alienating Hispanic voters, business, and their allies by tackling immigration levels. Third, the increased assertiveness of interest groups that oppose governmental population policies on principle (such as the Vatican) or, like the feminists at Cairo, do not want population policy advocates diverting attention from their priorities, or who oppose governmental involvement in women’s decisions about child bearing. Fourth, the defection of most of the U.S. environmental movement from population advocacy, for fear of losing support from the people I have just described, or from immigration advocates. Fifth, the present confrontational climate in Washington, which dictates that politicians avoid any positions that might lose votes.

I think this is basically right. A population policy that included an immigration moratorium flies in the face powerful ethnic and economic interests, as well as a deeply embedded view of perpetual expansion that is very common across the political spectrum.

Of course, I would add a prominent role for Jewish ethnic interests in leading and funding the pro-immigration movement as well as providing support for immigration among media and academic elites. (It’s amazing that it’s okay to mention Catholics, Latinos, feminists and business interests but would never mention the role of Jewish ethnic interests.) A notorious example related to environmental and population policy is David Gelbaum’s $100 million donation to the Sierra Club on condition that they not oppose immigration. As Gelbaum famously said to the president of the Sierra Club, “”I did tell [Sierra Club President] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

It’s interesting that the global warming hysteria did manage to recruit the backing of elites in government and business without offending the coalition of interests promoting a head-in-the-sands policy on population. (Headline you won’t see: Al Gore Proposes Immigration Moratorium To Combat Global Warming.) After all, one could argue that a good way for the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to lower its population, especially since, as Dalton points out, the US has such a large ecological footprint. Immigrants coming to the US will typically have a larger footprint than if they had stayed at home, and, as Virginia Abernethy has point out many times, this increase in prosperity is typically accompanied by increased fertility — Life is good compared to what you grew up with. Have babies. At present, Latino fertility is 50% higher than White, non-Latino fertility.

Nevertheless, global warming became a pillar of the left — even though the data supporting it are iffy at best and even though dealing with global warming requires the same sort of long range planning and drastic social changes also entailed by taking carrying capacity seriously. All told, it’s a nice comment on where the power is.

As a result, as things stand now, in 2050, not only will the US have a minority White population, it will have a population that is well beyond sustainability. Ethnic conflict will increase in multicultural, White-minority America even in the absence of sustainability issues. But the conflict will be even more intense as resources diminish and humans are forced to find ways to reduce population. As always, conflict will center around ethnic identities. It’s not going to be pretty.

Bookmark and Share

The Kvetcher, the ADL, and David Duke

/55 Comments/in , , , , /by

Patrick Cleburne over at VDARE.com has done a great job publicizing the Kvetcher’s comments on the enthusiasm of the organized Jewish community for displacing Whites. The oddity here is that Kvetcher is not only Jewish but rather blatantly Jewish.  Kvetcher gets it — he understands that people who advocate for Whites have absolutely normal human concerns about their future and that the ADL and the HIAS are pushing a hostile and aggressive Jewish ethnic agenda that should be abhorrent to every White person in America.

The ADL advertizes this quote from Duke as symptomatic of Duke’s vicious hatred:

As America is transformed from a 90 percent European American nation, as it was in the 1960s, to one where we will soon be a minority, should we not ask some pertinent questions? Is this racial diversity enriching, or will it be damaging to our social fabric?

The Kvetcher writes:

How is this not a good question? What does this say about the ADL and its donors that they cite this as a proof of how evil David Duke is?

Is this about “fighting anti-semitism,” or is this about the ADL’s attempt to smear anyone who questions the ADL’s fanatical goal of a white minority (as soon as possible) as a white supremacist?

Exactly. For the ADL, David Duke is the supreme bogeyman. The very first move that Jewish activists (including the ADL’s Abe Foxman) made in their campaign to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt was to solicit Duke’s approval of their writing — and Duke’s approval was then dutifully published throughout the mainstream media, from the Washington Post to the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal.

It’s simply ridiculous to go after Duke because he deplores the fact that a powerful set of interests like the organized Jewish community has a fanatical goal of displacing Whites. But using Duke is doubtless very effective as a fundraising tool for the ADL and the $PLC.

The pathetic thing is that we get excited when we find a Jew who has the temerity to stand up to his own community on an issue like immigration, much less race. Non-Jews are well aware of the very powerful forces that will come down on them if they advocate for the interests of Whites or defend anything that Duke has ever said. The vast majority of Whites tremble at the very thought of challenging anything the ADL says for fear of being branded a racist or anti-Semite and then having to wonder if they will have a job next week. Kvetcher presumably doesn’t have to worry about that.

It’s good that the Kvetcher is writing like this, but he obviously has a very long way to go to really change things in the organized Jewish community.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Patrick Cleburne on Jewish involvement in immigration

/32 Comments/in , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: I was going to blog on the recent news reports of Latino-Jewish ties, but I really can’t improve on Patrick Cleburne’s  blog over at Vdare.com. A must read. Cleburne agrees with the Kvetcher that the real motivation is “the mutual goal of making the majority population a minority population. We need to all be ‘The Stranger.'” It’s obviously a goal that is radically opposed to the interests of White Americans.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: The multi-cultural left's broad definitions of 'racism' — and aggressive tactics

/57 Comments/in , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: The story of Bob Kellar, a city councilman in Santa Clarita, has been getting a lot of attention in Southern California. The LA Times (“’Proud racist’comment roils Santa Clarita”) describes the context:   

The controversy stems from a Jan. 16 anti-immigration rally in Santa Clarita; Kellar spoke and referred to a statement by former President Theodore Roosevelt that the United States has a place for only one flag and one language.

Kellar said those remarks caused some people to accuse him of being racist to which he replied: If believing in America causes people to think he’s a racist, “then I’m a proud racist.”

What this really shows is that the left has a very low threshold for what constitutes racism among Whites. Advocating one flag and one language is not going to be enough to stave off White dispossession and is certainly not racist by any reasonable definition of the term. In this video interview, Kellar says “of course, I am not a racist. I am anything else but,” and then says he will continue to “do what’s right for all the people of this great nation.” Of course, the LA Time gets right in line by labeling Answer Coalition, the organization protesting Kellar, as “anti-racist.”

As the newspaper article makes clear, the focus is on illegal immigration, not immigration in general. Even opposition to illegal immigration becomes politically risky and likely to bring out aggressive protestors waving signs and pointing fingers. Advocating cultural assimilation becomes “racism” — the most deadly charge in contemporary American public life.

But of course, this tactic works. Politicians who value a peaceful life and good media coverage will certainly avoid talking like Bob Kellar.

What strikes me is the sheer aggression of the open borders crowd. In the past week my classes have been disrupted by student activists calling me a Nazi, claiming that I advocate genocide, and generally making life unpleasant. The reason for this renewed activism is my association with the American Third Position. This is a recording of Gustavo Arellano’s show on KPFK, January, 28. (KPFK-Radio Pacifica is a self-described “Progressive and Independent” station. Ironically, KPFK portrays itself as a staunch advocate of free speech.)

Arellano begins by baldly asserting that A3P and I advocate deportation of all non-Whites, including African Americans and every other group, legal or illegal, no matter how long they or their ancestors have been here. Not only that, he claims that A3P advocates suppression of all LBGT’s (lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender, for those not in the loop of leftist acronyms). (For  the record, my position is that gays and other sexual minorities have ethnic interests just like everyone else). For these supposed crimes, he advocates that I be fired from my academic position.

This is the summary A3P statement on immigration:

To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands. 

This reflects my views. Pretty clearly, it does not advocate a blanket deportation of non-Whites. There is nothing in it that can reasonably be labeled as racist. Deporting illegal aliens is the official policy of the US government and I really don’t know why anyone would oppose deporting criminal aliens. Further, I have no doubt that this statement reflects the views of a strong majority of White Americans — even though they and their political representatives are terrified to say so publicly. 

It’s obvious that the activist left cares nothing for the truth or accurate depictions of the ideas of those who disagree with them. But as long as it is effective, they will doubtless continue to do it.

I can’t help but point out the obvious: people like Arellano are ethnic activists for their own people but they would deny me the right to act on my ethnic interests or even to identify as a European-American. He has a strong ethnic identity as a Mexican. (His column “Ask a Mexican” runs in the Orange County Weekly.)

I am not at all surprised that he wants the best for his people, including getting as many of them as possible to become US citizens and to pursue political power here.

But people like me have ethnic interests too. It’s not about hate. It’s about conflicts of interest over the ethnic composition of the country. And even though politicians like Bob Kellar shy away from explicitly asserting their ethnic interests, they are tapping into a growing rage among White Americans that their country is being taken away from them. At this point it’s not possible to see where this rage will lead, but it will certainly make for interesting times.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Dodgson on Stratfor

/22 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Dodgson’s current TOO article “Stratfor’s Global Forecast: Myopia or Neoconservative Manipulation?” is a real eye-opener. I have often seen Stratfor’s forecasts distributed on email lists and other venues as representing objective, hardheaded analysis. Now it turns out that Stratfor is run by a strongly identified Jew who sees the world through a typical neoconservative Jewish lens — biased toward Israel. And, by emphasizing the benefits of immigration into Western countries but not the ethnic costs to Whites, Stratfor is an effective cheerleader for White dispossession in Europe and America.

Because they are tiny minority in Western societies, all  successful Jewish intellectual and political movements  must appeal to non-Jews. This has certainly been true of the Jewish movements of the left that dominate so much of contemporary thinking in the West. This is also true of neoconservative movements, and Dodgson’s analysis shows that Stratfor appeals to non-Jewish conservatives because  it emphasizes national sovereignty and other hot button conservative issues. But, in the end, Stratfor is yet another illustration of neoconservative Jews  reinforcing the fundamentally leftist, multicultural, anti-White status quo in the West while simultaneously advocating Jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel.

Bookmark and Share

Ted Sallis: Taking a Initial Look at the American Third Position Party

/36 Comments/in , , , , /by

Ted Sallis: The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a new political party that purports to represent the interests of the white American majority.  As such, it is a refreshing change from the standard Republicrat/Democan one-party system and gives hope that, finally, the political system can be used to further our specific group interests. 

These are early days and one cannot make any definitive conclusions about A3P at this point.  However, some progress has been made, and the party has put forth some initial positions on major issues, so it is worthwhile to examine these. Readers are urged to look at A3P’s program and policies.  I have no major disagreement with their stance on crime, economy, education, etc.  Instead, I would like to take a closer look at two of their major policy initiatives. Emphasis added to all quotes. 

The following summarizes the party’s key positions on immigration:

 To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands. 

This is good – stopping the influx, deportation of illegals, and an end to the concept of “anything goes” birthright citizenship.  Even more impressively, the possibility of repatriation of “recent, legal immigrants” is brought up – the only instance of an American political party raising the “R” issue.  I would like even more – a more comprehensive repatriation program for example, but this is a good start. Also: 

Immigration affects our culture. It affects the way we feel, act, and operate within a community. It affects whether or not we can have actual communities at all. It affects our welfare and livelihood in ways that are immeasurable, aside from the efforts we go to in protecting against it. Immigration erodes our culture and sense of identity. In cities where many cultures meet, there is an atmosphere of hostility. Neighborhoods become atomized, and a true community is never established. 

True and good, but it’s not only culture. Not surprisingly, I would like to have seen a more explicitly Salterian mention of the actual physical, demographic, biological effects of immigration.  They add: 

While we accept that ethnic minorities are, and will always be, part of America, we want our will to be observed and exercised as it should be, and as it should have been. We have a right to sovereignty and to exercise our will as a people. We want an America that is recognizable to us, one that we can feel comfortable in. We believe that this desire is not unique to our nation or our own people, and we believe that all people’s have a right to sovereignty. Accordingly, we will stop all immigration into America, except in special cases. To help restore our national identity, we will offer generous grants to recent immigrants who have a desire to return to their countries of origin. While this can be easily repositioned by a media who is hostile to our people or to a political establishment who relies on recent immigrants for votes, we only mean to create a system of mutual benefit, where the wills of both parties are observed and respected, as they should be. Wherever a recent immigrant has a need to get back home but is without the resources to do as much, we will lend a helping hand. 

I don’t know about the first set of phrases, but I understand that this party needs to navigate within the streams of the politically possible – for now – and that a too radical program at first may be difficult.  A contrasting argument would be that it’s a mistake to start off too moderate.  An initial moderate stance may “lock in” this moderation and prevent future shifts toward more radical positions since, having attracted a mass of more moderate supporters at the beginning, the party would be loathe to lose that support by shifting towards more radical solutions to the pressing problems of race, culture, and nation.  Truth be told, I’m more supportive of the latter mindset – that it is better to lay your cards on the table at the beginning and build in depth with more revolutionary support.  Of course, the assumption here is that the A3P leadership and I actually agree on these more radical ideals.  It may be that our vision is not congruent, and that the party program is what it is because that’s what the party leaders want it to be.  And, of course, A3P leadership has the right to formulate their own party’s positions as they see fit.  I merely make suggestions and offer some contrary views.

The A3P also has an excellent position on space exploration.

This is important; I am a very strong supporter of space exploration (both manned and unmanned).  This is part of Western Man’s Faustian soul, will yield important information and discoveries, and, hopefully, eventually lead to Western Man’s expansion into, and colonization of, space (assuming of course we are not first Third Worldized out of existence).  That the A3P has included space exploration as a key part of their program is therefore encouraging and demonstrates a willingness to look at long-term objectives, and also the ability to look beyond the standard “right-wing fare” (immigration, economy, crime, etc.). 

One point though is that they should go beyond space exploration and put together a broader position on overall science and Technology.  In other words they should also: encourage the development of alternative and novel sources of energy, promote advances in biomedical research (which should include not only basic research and that aimed at disease therapeutics, but also research on race and eugenics), stimulate development of advanced computing, and encourage continued and expanded research into the fabric of the universe and of reality itself (e.g., astronomy and, especially, both theoretical and applied advanced physics, cosmology, etc).  Further, Americans need to be in the lead of what can be called “global disaster abatement” – research aimed at investigating and, if possible, preventing asteroid strikes, super volcano eruptions, pandemics, environmental degradation, etc.  While some of the latter may seem like “science fiction,” that is more a function of our limited knowledge and imagination than it is to any real limitation of the possibilities. 

The A3P can also state an interest in Western cultural artifacts – an interest in opposing the current “Winter” of our High Culture, and its sewer-like degraded atmosphere, with a contrasting encouragement of Western cultural rebirth and the creation of a civilization that can make us, our ancestors, and our posterity proud.

In summary, there is some more work to be done and I hope that a bit of constructive criticism will be appreciated.  However, all in all, A3P seems at this point to be a very positive development, and I wish them well.

A major concern is that the landscape of “movement” history is littered with the scattered remnants of past projects that, initially, looked promising and generated enthusiasm, but quickly petered out due to lack of progress and direction, infighting, the action of infiltrators and agent provocateurs, diminished interest of activists with short attention spans, and the ability of the establishment to use a variety of methods to thwart nationalist progress.  We can hope that things will be different this time.

Bookmark and Share