Corsi’s EU timeline

In the introduction to his excellent book ‘Late Great U.S.A.’ Jerome R. Corsi provides a useful potted history of the evolution of the European Union as well as a warning to his American readers:

On November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln strode forward onto the field of Gettysburg, some four months after the great battle. The short speech he delivered that day is one of the most enduring statements of American freedom ever uttered.

In that speech, Lincoln observed that the Civil War was a test of how long a nation ‘conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal’ could endure.

In these few words, Lincoln captured the historic significance of America. The United States was the first nation ever brought forth to preserve the God-given rights endowed to all people. He also recognized the preciousness of any human institution designed to preserve those rights, especially one created ‘under God’ to be a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Before, governments had been created of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.

That day, Lincoln prayed that the United States of America, so created and so dedicated, should ‘not perish from the earth.’

Today, we again face the possibility that the United States of America may not long endure. Our national sovereignty is in danger of being compromised in favor of an emerging regional government, designed of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite, who are working to achieve global ambitions in the pursuit of wealth and power for themselves.

There are movements afoot in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, similar to those in Europe that led to the formation of the European Union that, if left unchecked, will erode U.S. sovereignty and lead to a North American Union.


But how exactly did the Europe of World Wars I and II—a Europe that was fiercely nationalistic—become the Europe of today? In order to understand the significance of contemporary developments in the United States, it is imperative to compare them to those that occurred in Europe over half a century ago.

The Formation of the European Union

The European Union was formed by people determined to destroy the nation-states that had dominated European politics for centuries. Many European intellectuals, especially in Germany, blamed the two world wars on the rise of nationalism. Those planning to undercut national sovereignty in Europe knew they would succeed only if they kept their true intentions concealed. Any direct proposal to eliminate nation-states - most with proud histories extending across centuries - would have been overwhelmingly rejected by citizens loath to see their national identities absorbed into a ‘European’ consciousness.

Despite these odds, the backers of a European Union succeeded, due in large part to the efforts of Jean Monnet, widely regarded as the father of the European Union. Monnet was born on November 9, 1888, to a French cognac merchant. Discharged from the military for health reasons, Monnet spent much of World War I forging an international alliance between the French and British-led effort to defeat Germany. Monnet emerged from this experience a true globalist who believed that nation-states were ultimately destructive. Monnet believed more European wars were inevitable as long as Europeans saw themselves first as British, French, Italian, or German, and only secondarily as European.[1]

On August 5, 1943, as a member of the National Liberation Committee of the free French Government in Algiers, Monnet addressed the committee, stating:

There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection...The countries of Europe are not strong enough to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit.[2]

Monnet was instrumental in forging this federation, and he did so by prioritizing economic unity over political unity.

On May 9, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Shuman, in a speech inspired by Monnet, announced what became known as ‘The Shuman Declaration,’ a plan to pool French and German coal and steel production.[3] Shuman argued that this solidarity would make war between France and Germany ‘not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.’[4] On December 18, 1951, ‘the Six’ - a group of European nations consisting of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands - signed the Treaty of Paris, formally establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).[5] Then, on March 25, 1957, the Six signed the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), commonly referred to in the United Kingdom as the European Common Market.[6]

From here, a series of incremental steps can be traced that moved a European common market into a European regional government. Once Europe started taking steps toward economic unity, political unity followed.

On March 25, 1957, the European Atomic Energy Commission was created by a second treaty of Rome, signed the same day that the more famous Treaty of Rome created the EEC. On October 17, 1957, a European Court of Justice was established in order to settle regional trade disputes. In 1960, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK set up the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). In 1965, the three already-established European communities - the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community - merged under the European Economic Community (EEC) moniker. In 1968, in a move toward abolishing duties at internal borders and establishing a uniform system for taxing imports among EEC countries, the European Customs Union was formed.

Brussels and Luxembourg were selected as the executive sites of the EEC almost by accident. In 1951, Luxembourg’s foreign minister had insisted that the European Coal and Steel Community set up headquarters in Luxembourg, but refused to accept any more ‘Eurocrats.’ When the Treaty of Rome established the EEC in 1957, Brussels became a ‘provisional site’ that eventually grew into a permanent fixture. In Luxembourg, ECSC committees were established, just as EEC committees were established in Brussels. Over time, these committees evolved into the bureaucratic ‘working groups’ that even today run the executive functions of the European Union.[7]

In 1978, the European Council met in Brussels and established a European monetary system based on a European currency unit (ECU) and an exchange rate mechanism (ERM). Initially the ECU was just used for travelers’ checks and interbank deposits. However, the agreement set the stage for the emergence of a common European currency. In 1986, the Single European Act modified the Treaty of Rome and set up a framework for a completely unified European market. Gradually, what began as a limited coal and steel agreement transformed into a common market and a European customs union, with the underpinnings for a European currency.

The Treaty of the European Union, signed in Maastricht, the Netherlands, on February 7, 1992, formed a full-fledged regional government.[8] The flag of twelve yellow stars in a circle against a blue background, first seen as the EEC flag in 1985, became the official flag of the European Union - just as the EU passport supplemented and then supplanted national passports from the various European nations participating in the union. Over a period of fifty years, the internal borders between EU countries were largely erased so European Union citizens could live and work in the EU country of their choice. Over this same period of time, a professional bureaucracy sprouted and grew in Brussels and Luxembourg. On January 1, 2002, the euro was introduced and the traditional national currencies of the participating EU countries were phased out.[9]

Today, some 70 to 80 percent of the laws passed in Europe involve nothing more than rubber stamping regulations already written by nameless ‘working group’ bureaucrats in Brussels or Luxembourg. Virtually gone is the ability of European countries to set their own policy direction and the ultimate arbiter of justice is the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, not the highest national court in each country.

In short, Monnet’s vision of a future where the nations of Europe would gradually surrender their sovereignty to participate in a regional government had been largely achieved.

The Incremental Approach and the Stealth Plan

The European Union succeeded because its supporters took an incremental approach. While advancing step by step toward a united Europe, they studiously avoided suggesting their goal was to create a ‘supra-government.’ What began as a coal and steel agreement advanced to a common market and ended as a regional government - exactly as Jean Monnet had always wanted as expressed in the closing words of his Memoirs:

The sovereign nations of the past could no longer solve the problems of the present; they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organized world of tomorrow.[10]

In The Great Deception, perhaps the most comprehensive examination of the emergence of the EU yet written, authors Christopher Booker and Richard North conclude:

Even though he had long since been honored as ‘the Father of Europe,’ Jean Monnet had always preferred to work behind the scenes, away from the limelight. He knew that, only by operating in the shadows, behind a cloak of obscurity, could he one day realize his dream. What he pulled off ... was to amount to a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.[11]

Although he died in 1979 before seeing his plan for establishing an EU fully realized, Monnet lived to see many events unfold as he had recommended. The original nation-states, including the governments, courts, and parliaments of France, England, and Germany remained, but ‘only so they could gradually become subordinated to a new supranational government which was above them all.’[12]


From this brief history of the European Union, several defining characteristics emerge from which parallels can be drawn to the movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada:

• A highly motivated and passionate organizer
• Economic union as a means to economic growth, which was later followed by political union;
• A desire to foster security and eradicate war;
• A desire to establish a collective consciousness that superseded national consciousness;
• A de facto political union that resulted from economic treaties followed by formal ratification;
• The blurring of borders and the transfer of passports from the countries to the ‘supra-government’;
• A reticence to acknowledge the real goals of the movement;
• The creation of a common currency.

Had Germany, France, or Italy realized in 1957 that the Treaty of Rome would lead to a loss of self-government, the European Union movement would have been dead before it started. By 2002, however, most European states made the decision to abandon their national currencies in favor of the euro with little hesitation, despite the loss of national sovereignty entailed in the decision.

Will the same be said of the United States twenty or thirty years from today? If we don’t heed the handwriting on the wall, it might very well be.

The Late, Great USA

Abraham Lincoln understood that liberty is precious, so he stood on the field of Gettysburg and reminded people that it was their duty to continue ‘the great task remaining before us ... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.’ Eternal vigilance, it has been said, is the price of freedom, and just as it was the duty of Americans in Lincoln’s day to fight to preserve that freedom, so it is the duty of Americans in our day.

The government established by our forefathers, a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people,’ was not established quietly. Unlike Jean Monnet, the Founding Fathers were upfront about their goals for the new government they formed. The democratic process and the liberty it brings depend upon such openness. Elites are as susceptible to corruption as ordinary citizens. In a constitutional republic, the power of correction rests with all the people; but the people can only correct that of which they are aware. As the EU experience shows us, secrecy is the great friend of tyranny.

Unfortunately, steps similar to those that resulted in the European Union are being taken in America, Mexico, and Canada. If we do not wish to follow the EU into regional government, it’s the duty of each of us to hold our leaders accountable for placing our country’s sovereignty in danger. While it would be presumptuous to claim that a North American Union is inevitable, it is equally presumptuous to insist that it is impossible. This book will demonstrate that disturbing parallels exist between the stealth process that resulted in the EU, and the incremental actions being taken by the governments of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to unite our nations into an emerging regional configuration. Preserving U.S. sovereignty is up to those of us who still care about freedom and the nation our forefathers bestowed upon us.

Notes


1. Christopher Booker and Richard North, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (New York: Continuum Books, 2003), 5.
2. Quoted in ‘Jean Monnet: 1888-1979,’ in ‘The history of the European Union: The European citizenship,’ at http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/rnonnet.htm .
3. Europa, ‘Gateway to the European Union,’ the official Internet portal to the European Union, in a year-by-year timeline entitled ‘The History of the European Union,’ at: http://europa.eu/abc/history/1950/index_%20en.htm . Referred to hereafter as ‘Europa Timeline.’
4. Documented in ‘A Timeline of the EU,’ BBC News, October 29, 2004, at: http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/world/europe/3583801.stm. Referred to hereafter as ‘BBC News Timeline.’
5. Europa Timeline at: http://europa.eu/abc/history/1951/index_en.htm.
6. Europa Timeline at: http://europa.eu/abc/history/1957/index_en.htm.
7. Great Deception, 86-87.
8. Europa Timeline at: http://europa.eu/abc/history/1992/index_en.htm.
9. BBC News Timeline, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3583801.stm.
10. Closing words of Jean Monnet’s memoirs, quoted by Booker and North, op. cit. 1,1.
11. Great Deception, 3.
12. Ibid., 1.

The ‘One Show’ and ‘The Jungle’

I saw the portion of last night’s One Show covering the closure of ‘the jungle.’ Even for the BBC its naked advocacy for the would-be illegal immigrants was shockingly biased, perhaps unwisely so.

The (Asian) reporter that had visited the camp talked up its residents’ youth as though it implied vulnerability. The men she interviewed looked to me to have about the same average age as the English Defence League, I don’t recall anyone at the Beeb making sympathetic gurgles over them because of their youth. Next, and implying that this was an unfortunate loophole, she stated that asylum regulations would permit the British government to deny the campers asylum since they had not claimed refugee status in the first EU country they passed through. In fact they should have claimed asylum in the very first country which they entered, EU or no, on leaving their own. Guest Matt Lucas gave the standard Jewish line: ancestors who had fled the Nazis and other recent immigrant ancestors … enrichment … melting-pot, all that vomit. Even Adrian Chiles, nominally the average bloke (but happening to be half-Jewish/half-Croatian -- do any Englishmen still work at the BBC?) expressed only sympathy for the economic migrants’ ‘plight’ (they became ‘economic migrants’ when they entered the second country after ‘fleeing’ their own).

All-in-all it was a text book example of one-sided, emotional-plea propaganda. No questions asked of whether these people were truly fleeing some unusually criminal regime; no criticism of them for not seeking asylum in any of the numerous countries they had passed through; no-one - to provide that mythical BBC balance - from Migration Watch or the BNP to offer an alternative to the limitless tolerance of the media dandies (limitless until tolerance of Migration Watch, BNP and the like is required, anyway).

In openly seeking to illegally enter another people’s country knowing their entry is opposed by most of that country’s owner-citizens these migrants show themselves to be hostile to basic civilisational norms. That the beeb’s reporters do not seem concerned by this is not surprising - the BBC itself has long been hostile to basic civilisational norms. But ordinarily the beeb’s culture war is far more subtle than last night’s love-fest with criminals who openly conspire to aggress against us as a nation. In brazenly endorsing the law of ‘the jungle,’ the beeb - I hope - will have shocked some of its tame teatime viewers.

The ‘Latinoization’ of Miami

Here’s an eye-opening history of the ‘Latinoization’ of Miami. It’s disturbing enough in what it says, calling attention to the way ‘Miami’s old-line, non-Hispanic white political and business elite’ subsidised its own dispossession assisted by the CIA pursuing its imperial goals, but I suspect the deeper truth is even worse: that the ‘Cold War’ was largely a phoney war whose primary purpose was domestic social control and Military Industrial profit; and that the ‘American’ state considered the presence of Cubans in Miami beneficial not only for their anti-Communist views but because they contributed to ‘diversity,’ i.e., social division, so adding to pressure that America’s racial and cultural identity be redefined. But like I say, if the truth is only as bad as presented here, that’s quite bad enough.


Latinos: Remaking America, Eds. Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco and Mariela M. Páez (David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University and University of California Press, 2002) pp. 75-81

Chapter 3: Power and Identity: Miami Cubans

by Alex Stepick and Carol Dutton Stepick

The Building of Cuban Miami

We Cubans made Miami. Before us, Miami was nothing but a decaying winter vacation spot and swamp. Now, it’s the capital of Latin America. And, we Cubans did it!

-- A Miami Cuban businessman

Indeed, Cubans do deserve much of the credit for shifting Miami’s economic focus from northern tourists to international southern trade. But their stories of self-congratulation usually fail to acknowledge the critical political context that encouraged them—even permitted their success.


Cubans fleeing Castro’s Cuba began arriving in significant numbers in the 1960s, following the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Their arrival reflected both the failure of a U.S.-backed military invasion of Cuba and the failure of a socialist revolution to retain those who had the most skills and resources for reconstructing Cuba. The Cubans’ arrival also coincided with the construction of Great Society programs that provided extensive benefits to minority populations and that were quickly expanded to include Cuban refugees. The U.S. government created the Cuban Refugee Program, which spent nearly $1 billion between 1965 and 1976. Through this program, the federal government paid transportation costs from Cuba and offered financial assistance to needy refugees and to state and local public agencies that provided refugee services. Even in programs not especially designed for them, Cubans seemed to benefit. From 1968 to 1980, Latinos (almost all Cubans) received 46.9 percent of all Small Business Administration loans in Dade County.


Even more important was indirect assistance. Through the 1960s, the private University of Miami had the largest Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) station in the world, outside of the organization’s headquarters in Virginia. With perhaps as many as twelve thousand Cubans in Miami on its payroll at one point in the early 1960s, the CIA was one of the largest employers in the state of Florida. It supported what was described as the third largest navy in the world and over fifty front businesses: CIA boat shops, gun shops, travel agencies, detective agencies, and real estate agencies. Ultimately, this investment did much more to boost Cubans in Miami economically than it did to destabilize the Castro regime.


The state of Florida also passed laws that made it easier for Cuban professionals to recertify themselves to practice in the United States. At the county level, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 53 percent of minority contracts for Dade County’s rapid transit system went to Latino-owned firms. Dade County Schools led the nation in introducing bilingual education for the first wave of Cuban refugees in 1960. The Dade County Commission also designated the county officially bilingual in the mid-1970s. With about 75 percent of Cuban arrivals before 1974 directly taking advantage of some kind of state-provided benefits, and with virtually everyone profiting from indirect aid, the total benefits available to the Cuban community appear to surpass those available to any other U.S. minority group.


The first wave of Cubans has been labeled the “Golden Exiles,” the top of Cuban society who were most immediately threatened by a socialist revolution. These new arrivals were different from other minorities in the United States. They were not only white but also predominantly middle or upper class. The presence of entrepreneurs and professionals in the Cuban refugee flow provided a trained and experienced core who knew how to access and use the extraordinary benefits provided by the U.S. government. Some had already established a footing in the United States and, when the revolution came, abandoned one of their residences for another across the straits of Florida. A Cuban shoe manufacturer, for example, produced footwear for a major U.S. retail chain before the Cuban revolution. He obtained his working capital from New York financial houses. After the revolution, the only change was that the manufacturing was done in Miami rather than Havana. He even was able to keep some of the same employees.


The earlier-arriving, higher-status refugees created the first enterprises in what came to be known as the Cuban enclave and allowed Miami to be the only U.S. city where Latino immigrants created a successful and self-sustained ethnic enclave economy. Miami has proportionally the largest concentration of Latino businesses (over fifty-five thousand) and of large Latino enterprises in the country. Although Miami-Dade County has only 5 percent of the total U.S. Latino population, thirty-one of the top one hundred Latino businesses in the United States are located there. U.S. Cubans’ rate of business ownership is more than three times that of Mexicans and nearly six times that of Puerto Ricans.


The Cuban enclave benefits not only Cuban business owners but also the broader Miami Cuban community. Most later-arriving Cuban immigrants from more modest origins than the Golden Exiles are employed by Cuban Miami enclave firms in various entry-level positions, which may offer low wages but can often be apprenticeships rather than dead-end jobs. Miami Cuban employers frequently provide training to their Miami Cuban workers and may even help them establish their own independent businesses. Miami Cuban garment workers become subcontractors, establishing informal workshops in their homes. Miami Cuban construction workers become contractors or subcontractors, also working out of their homes. For financing, workers who have turned entrepreneurs can go to banks (sometimes owned by Miami Cubans and certainly staffed by Miami Cubans) where they are likely to find sympathetic loan officers. For markets, they rely on the Miami Cuban community’s loyalty and preference for buying from “their own.”


The result has been a most economically successful immigrant community. A comparison of Cubans and Mexicans who came to the United States in the mid-1970s, for example, revealed that the Cubans not only had higher wages than the Mexicans, even Cubans with the same educational level as Mexicans received higher wages.


Miami Cubans also transformed Miami by attracting investment and migration from the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, turning Miami into a diverse, dynamic Latino economic center of the Americas. Only New York has more foreign-owned banks than Miami. Nearly 50 percent of U.S. exports to the Caribbean and Central America and over 30 percent of U.S. exports to South America pass through Miami. Miami’s Free Trade Zone is the first and largest privately owned trade zone in the world. With more non-stop cargo flights to Latin America and the Caribbean than Orlando, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, and New York’s Kennedy combined, Miami’s airport is the top U.S. airport for international freight. The airport has more airlines than any other in the Western hemisphere; it is frequently easier to get from one Latin American country to another by going through Miami than by going directly. Miami also has the largest cruise port in the world, ironically transporting primarily U.S. passengers on vacations throughout the Caribbean and Latin America while many of the citizens of those countries are immigrating to Miami. Miami may not be a global city equal to New York or London, but it is assuredly the economic capital of Latin America, and its Cuban immigrants made it so.


The economic transformation has also altered much of Miami’s culture. For example, at a 1998 event held by the University of Miami and the state of Florida to discuss plans for educating a “multilingual workforce for the 21st Century,” the university’s newly installed dean of education, an import from a university up north, spoke of language diversity as a problem that people where he came from would soon be encountering. The faculty member who was moderating the conference gently reminded the dean that in Florida multilingualism is viewed as an asset and promised to continue to educate him.


Antibilingual-education measures such as those that passed in the late 1990s in California no longer have a chance in Miami. It is easier to find a job, to shop, and just to get things done if one knows Spanish. It is also much easier to advance economically if one knows English. Miami is truly bilingual and multicultural. Miami Dade Community College has more foreign students, mostly Latino, than any other college or university in the nation. One of the three Spanish-language local television newscasts has more viewers than any of the local English-language television stations. The main Spanish-language daily, El Nuevo Herald, reprints articles from eleven Latin American newspapers. The 1990 census showed that Spanish had replaced English in Miami-Dade as the language most often spoken at home. Even at work, the language most frequently spoken by Latinos in South Florida is Spanish (42.2 percent).


It is not just the number of Latinos and the pervasive use of Spanish that makes Miami the de facto capital of Latin America. Latinos are also the demographic majority in some Texas cities, such as Laredo, El Paso, and San Antonio, and in other border areas such as California’s Imperial Valley, but there they lack the political and economic clout exercised by Miami Cubans.


Miami Cubans translated the favorable reception by the U.S. government and the millions of dollars of resettlement assistance not only into a self-sufficient economic enclave and thriving international economic city but also into a “direct line” to the centers of political power in Washington. Despite considerable political diversity among Miami Cubans in the early 1960s, by the 1970s politics and profits had become fused. Anti-Castro, anticommunist Miami Cubans invested locally and also enforced political consensus by harassing, boycotting, and even terrorizing their more liberal political and economic compatriots, a process referred to as enforceable solidarity.


The outcome was a profound economic and political solidarity. From the 1960s on, most Miami Cubans, despite their diverse class origins and social views, patronized other Miami Cuban-owned businesses and preferred conationals as business associates at the same time that they shared a coherent anti-Castro, anticommunist ideology. Expelled and despised by the government of their country, abandoned at the Bay of Pigs by a supposedly friendly host government, bartered away during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and ridiculed by Latin American intellectuals, the exiles had few to trust but each other. As illustrated in a full-page advertisement in the Miami Herald that was paid for by the most powerful Miami Cuban organization, the Cuban American National Foundation, resentment and a sense of persecution had evolved:

All our achievements have been accomplished with a national press coverage that has often portrayed us as extremists. This has been the most unfair and prejudiced perception we have experienced in America. . . . The Miami Herald is aggressive in its ignorance of our people. It refuses to understand that Cuban Americans see the struggle between totalitarianism and democracy as a personal, ever-present struggle. We live the struggle daily because our friends and families enslaved in communist Cuba live it daily. (Cuban American National Foundation 1987)

Unlike other minorities, which usually adopt antiestablishment, progressive positions, Miami Cubans have been militant conservatives on foreign policy, specifically on anticommunism issues. As a result, anticommunist policy positions and anticommunist rhetoric are de rigueur for local political candidates. For example, in the mid-1980s the City Commission passed a resolution barring any expenditure of “funds of the City of Miami . . . where representatives of Communist-Marxist countries have either been scheduled to participate or invited to attend.” Subsequently, Miami-Dade County passed a similar resolution. In an effort to win Miami Cuban readership, the Miami Herald created an entirely new Spanish-language edition run almost exclusively by Cuban exiles who seldom have a favorable word for the Castro government.


The Miami Cubans’ solidarity has produced tangible political results. Miami’s city and county mayors are foreign-born Cuban immigrants, as are the superintendent of the public schools (the fourth largest district in the nation), the president of the community college (the largest in the nation), and the president of the local state university (one of the country’s most rapidly growing). In the wake of the Elián crisis, the Miami Cuban mayor fired the Anglo police chief and the Anglo city manager. They were replaced by Miami Cubans. Also Cuban-born are the Miami-Dade County police chief, the state prosecutor for Miami-Dade County, two congressional representatives, and the majority of the Miami-Dade County state legislative contingent. Nationally, the two Miami Cubans in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the Cuban American National Foundation, successfully promoted Radio and T.V. Martí, which broadcasts to Cuba, as well as the Cuban Democracy Act, which tightened U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. More generally, Miami Cubans have emerged as a group whose support is actively courted by a growing number of officeholders from outside the state—from presidential candidates to members of Congress seeking campaign contributions.


These victories have not been without costs to the image of Miami Cubans and the well-being of the overall community. In response to an intolerance concerning political opinions about Cuba, the Inter-American Press Association and the human rights group Americas Watch in 1992 condemned the Miami exile community for violations of civil liberties. There have been many other lost opportunities. The most recent examples: An international music market conference that focused on the Americas had met in Miami Beach for several years, but in 1998 the county blocked the conference because Cuban musicians were scheduled to attend. Also in 1998, the Miami Light Project, a leading local arts group, had to forgo presenting a Cuban musical group in order not to lose $60,000 in county funding. The July 1999 Junior Pan American Games track and field meet was moved to Tampa after Miami-Dade refused to support it because Cuba would be represented in the games. The Latin Grammys scheduled for September 2000 pulled out of Miami. For similar reasons, a local group bidding to hold the 2007 Pan Am Games in Miami-Dade pulled out after realizing that the county would not support the games because Cuban athletes would participate.


Achieving both economic and political success as a Miami Cuban did not necessarily shield individuals from prejudice and discrimination. Certainly during the early stages of Cuban settlement in the 1960s, Cubans confronted significant prejudice when apartment owners, for example, posted signs declaiming, “No Pets, No Kids, No Cubans.” Moreover, in an effort to prevent the political empowerment of Cubans, local Anglo politicians in the 1960s and 1970s successfully urged federal officials to relocate new Cuban refugees outside of Dade County. Public resentment against Cuban Americans mounted, especially in the wake of the 1980 Mariel boatlift when the Miami Herald editorialized repeatedly against Cubans and when national polls listed Cubans as the least desirable immigrants. This was largely a reaction to Castro’s propaganda about those leaving Cuba in the boatlift. As late as 1993, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that only 19 percent of the respondents believed that immigration from Cuba has benefited the United States. Dade County was also the birthplace of the English-only movement in the United States during the 1980s.


By the late 1980s, after the election of a Cuban-born mayor, a majority on the city council, numerous state representatives, and a congressional representative, and recognizing the business elite’s inability to advance their agenda without the support of the Cuban business community, Miami’s old-line, non-Hispanic white political and business elite switched to a policy of incorporation. In the meantime, the Cuban enclave had been forging itself into the staging ground for a profound Latinoization of Miami.

The Herd Management Act (1965)

(Officially The Race Relations Act [1965])

In Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism: A Mania Exposed (Quartet Books, London, 1988. p.34.):

The incitement to racial hatred part of the bill was not controversial. As a matter of fact it was due less to racist propaganda against coloured people than to anti-Semitic speeches at public meetings in the early 1960s. This change in the law was strongly urged by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The reason it was not controversial is because organised Jewry was advocating for it. If Black or Bangladeshi organisations had been demanding laws limiting free speech no-one would have listened. With Jews, no-one dared defy them.

Frank Soskice was Home Secretary at the time.

The Devil is in the Detail

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says that loyalty to our propositional state over terrorists and wartime enemies is required of all. He forgets that Gordon Brown has identified political freedom as the most important element in the proposition. When political freedom is an essential part of the proposition loyalty is not owed to a propositional state. A state which cannot reasonably demand its citizens side with it against enemies will not long survive as enemies multiply like rabbits within and without.

The ‘Goddess’ Lumley

The Joanna Lumley / Gurkha story offers a demonstration of how easily the public can be manipulated against its settled views and its best interests by mindless feel-good arguments. Nobody who’s thought about it for a second really believes that the Gurkhas ‘risked their lives for Britain,’ they were mercenary soldiers fighting for payment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was all along an exercise in testing the media’s power to direct public opinion concerning a rapidly emerging political issue. Even the BNP felt it necessary to recognise the Gurkhas’ absurd claim, not a good sign for the future. Conclusion: there is no such thing as ‘Too much love, drooling like syrup from too many famous mouths!’ (The Camp of the Saints)

Buchanan on the navy whose ‘number one priority is diversity’

Pat Buchanan comments on the claim that the US Naval Academy sets lower admission standards for non-White candidates than for White ones. It is not surprising, of course - as Buchanan points out that kind of anti-White discrimination is widespread - but he draws attention to the critical difference between gormless supermarket managers and senior military officers who ‘struggle to master basic concepts’:

these students will be operating the most sophisticated and complex weapons systems ever built -- aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers, nuclear submarines.

This sums up the problem of developed liberalism: even in the midst of war the principle of ‘equality’ must over-ride everything even to the peril of national security (and of global security if we are to believe the rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’). Ultimately it must prove suicidal.

Reasons for treasons

It has been apparent for years that the more hostile and problematic immigrant groups gain official and NGO support in their efforts to immigrate and remain here while the most affinitive have obstacles put in their way. The perverse bias persists despite near unanimous public opposition and politicians’ oft-stated ‘outrage’ at the situation. Two cases in the media this weekend demonstrate the problem:

Ahmed Daq must be given bail because the Home Office has taken too long to deport him and his continued detention is now unlawful, the court said...It is another blow to the Home Office, which has already lost a series of human rights battles over illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers... Addicted to alcohol and drugs, Daq committed 18 offences between 1998 and 2004, using 13 aliases... They included robbery, theft, two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of an offensive weapon - an axe - in a public place without reasonable excuse, using threatening words and behaviour, and seven burglaries... Mr Howell, sitting in London, added: "This case is a sad reminder of the continuing difficulties in securing the removal of foreign nationals who commit criminal offences in this country which make their continued presence here undesirable."

****

A doting dad with an 11-month-old daughter faces the heart-breaking prospect of having his family torn apart after his Canadian wife was refused permission to remain in the UK... Her application to extend her UK visa has been refused on the grounds that her circumstances are “not compassionate or compelling enough” for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in her favour... Mr Harper, a self-employed gardener who would be unable to leave his business to travel with them to Canada, said: “We are very upset.If she goes back to Canada, it’s going to take at least three months and it’s just not right that I can’t see my wife and baby for that time... “It seems wrong that all these people come into the UK illegally and are then granted the right to stay and a genuine case where a family wants to stay together is refused... “She has come here and taken nothing from the state. She has not drained the country at all because I have supported her since her arrival”.

****

It is axiomatic that governments usually act in such a way as to increase their powers, and this is the most parsimonious explanation for the systematic discrimination in favour of the hostile, criminal and least assimilable. The more havoc the likes of Ahmed Daq create, the more public support is gained for legislative and social controls that would otherwise be opposed on civil liberties grounds. Immigration by the likes of Deanna Harper is discouraged because it dilutes the toxic effect of immigration generally, and because the life she will make for herself here would present such an obvious contrast to the government's favoured immigrant cohorts.

Age of Treason

A society in which the basic principle of loyalty to members over non-members does not obtain, especially among the policy makers, doesn’t have much future; such a society is by definition no society at all. Yet Boris Johnson’s disloyalty to the British and support for illegal aliens is the norm among our elites. And illegal aliens are not just some random class of foreigner, they are known to have already aggressed against our society and shown contempt for civilised norms generally.

Boffins believe we have evolved a brain to deal with Gemeinschaft-type groups of several hundred kinfolk. Pierre L. van den Berghe writes that,

Beyond that kind and size of group, the strain of having to deal with people we do not know well enough, and therefore cannot trust, is of such a nature as to alter radically the very nature of the interaction. In the larger world, we expect ruthless self-interest and cheating to be rampant and to be constrained principally by the coercive power of the state.

But in this age of treason the state is an instrument of the criminal conspiracy between power-seeking elites and benefit-seeking aliens. As civil strife continues to increase as a result of state malfeasance, many millions of Brits will unwittingly turn to their tormentor for relief, giving the hostile state even more power to exploit and oppress us.

The B BC?

I rarely subject myself to the mainstream media’s ‘news’ programs (programming being exactly what they are), but even I can’t help noticing the blurring of the lines between national and international, especially American, coverage. It’s most obvious in the treatment of POTUS, who is usually just ‘the President’ and the story’s relevance to British interests, if any, is usually left unstated, but it’s quite pervasive.

I noticed a variation on this theme this morning. A BBC radio news bulletin reported the arrest of a retired U.S. State Department official and his wife on charges of spying on the U.S. for Cuba … without mentioning America once! We were told only that a ‘State Department’ official had been arrested for spying on behalf of Cuba. Is the State Department some outfit in Whitehall? Were the couple spying on Britain? You might be forgiven for thinking so.

I don’t believe the habit of never clearly distinguishing between British and American interests is accidental. It’s clear that most of our political and media elites are committed globalists and that the people’s stubborn scepticism about that project pisses them off.

It follows that we will be submitted to various subtle treatments designed ultimately to eliminate our identification with specifically British national interests, and to encourage identification with ‘global’ concerns, often to mean U.S. concerns as the U.S. is presently the most powerful instrument of the globalists.