Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, can't wait for whites to become a minority!
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/12/let_the_non-whi.php
Let the Non-Whites Take Over
News stories on the Demographic Transformation
Jared Taylor and John Harrison Sims, Special to AR News, December 17, 2010
Frank Rich, (Jewish) columnist for the New York Times, can't wait for whites to become a minority. One reason is that he doesn't like the way they vote, and when there are fewer whites around, the country will finally be run by the "wise Latinas" and "Civil Rights heroes" he thinks ought to be in charge. But the more you read Frank Rich, the more you begin to realize that he just doesn't like white people, and he is happy to think they are glimmering away. A columnist for the New York Times would never propose anything so crude as ethnic cleansing, but that is where Mr. Rich's animus for whites logically leads.
Here is typical Rich about politics and that group he takes such pleasure in calling "a dwindling and threatened minority:"
"The conjunction of a black president and female speaker of the House—topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman—would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."
"When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan 'Take our country back!' these are the people [non-whites and homosexuals] they want to take the country back from. They can't. . . . The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded." [The Rage is Not About Health Care]
Mr. Rich despises the Tea Party movement, of course but since it "resides in the aging white base of the Republican Party," [The 'Randslide' and Its Discontents] it is not a long-term threat.
The same, thank heavens, is true for another of Mr. Rich's hate figures, Sarah Palin: "The Palinist 'real America' is demographically doomed to keep shrinking." [She Broke the G.O.P. and Now She Owns It] Mr. Rich's real Americans—blacks, Hispanics, Asians—needn't worry because "the demographic that Palin attracts is in decline; there's no way the math of her fan base adds up to an Electoral College victory [in 2012]." [The Pit Bull in the China Shop] Republicans in general are dodos-to-be because there is no way to "avoid reckoning with the doomed demographics of the G.O.P.'s old white male base." [The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off]
There's more to it than politics, though. It's pretty clear that Mr. Rich just wants us gone, and the sooner the better. This is what he had to say about people who thought President Obama was wrong and perhaps even "racist" to say that Sgt. James Crowley had behaved "stupidly" when he arrested Prof. Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge in 2009:
"That reaction is merely the latest example of how the inexorable transformation of America into a white-minority country in some 30 years—by 2042 in the latest Census Bureau estimate—is causing serious jitters, if not panic, in some white establishments."
"What provokes their angry and nonsensical cries of racism is sheer desperation: an entire country is changing faster than these white guys bargained for."
"America is not post-racial. . . . [W]e're just at the start of what may be a 30-year struggle. Beer [served by the White House at the subsequent meeting between Sgt. Crowley and Prof. Gates] won't cool the fury of those who can't accept the reality that America's racial profile will no longer reflect their own." [Small Beer, Big Hangover]
Mr. Rich can't conceal his glee at the thought of brown people taking over. He wrote this about Sonia Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings:
"[T]his particular wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, would far more often than not reach a better [judicial] conclusion than the individual white males she faced in that Senate hearing room. Even those viewers who watched the Sotomayor show for only a few minutes could see that her America is our future and theirs is the rapidly receding past." [They Got Some 'Splainin' to Do]
Mr. Rich clearly thinks whites should cheerfully turn over to immigrants the country their ancestors built. Why? Is there something about white Americans that makes them especially deserving of dispossession? Surely not, for that would be "racist." Mr. Rich must therefore think all countries should be up for grabs.
Europeans should no doubt hand their countries over to "wise Imams." And Tibetans should just relax; their grandchildren will enjoy being Chinese. Israelis shouldn't worry about Arab birthrates; being a minority will be fun. Just think: All that unpleasantness could have been avoided if the Hutus had behaved like good white people and let the Tutsis rule them. And since Latinas are so wise, why doesn't Japan import several million of them and let them run the place?
No, Mr. Rich probably doesn't think these things. That would be consistent. He just wants to sweep white people into the dustbin. And his employer, the New York Times, seems to think that's just fine.
+++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous wrote at 7:02 PM
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, can't wait for whites to become a minority.
According to the US Census—a white minority could happen as early as next year!
Census Confirms Tea Party's Worst Nightmare
The latest Census figures show that the country's white population could become a minority as soon as…next year.
"No big news, right? We've been hearing thatfor years. But these latest numbers show that massive geographic shifts are taking place in areas of the country not traditionally thought of as ethnically diverse, like the South and middle America.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Census reported that babies of color accounted for more than 48 percent of the total amount of children born between July of 2008 and 2009. Even though a tough economy and harsher immigration policies have slowed the number of babies of color being born in recent years, they're still more of them arriving in the world than whites. Among Latinos, there were roughly nine births for every one death, while whites had a one-to-one ratio. Similarly, whites are having fewer children and, by marrying more interracially, are having more multiracial kids.
While people of color have already been majorities in states like Texas and California, other states, like North Carolina, are quickly entering the fray. In Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County, whites are just more than 50 percent of the population. Thirty years ago it was slightly more than 70 percent. And as proof, there's a statue of Ghandi in front of the town courthouse."
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/06/census_confirms_tea_partys_worst_nightmare.html
+++++++++++++++++++
Eric wrote at 7:03 PM
Rich is just a predictable smug liberal who fantasizes about his "progressive" brown comrades taking power from evil whites. Like most leftists his grand ideas and fantasies are far removed from reality. The reality of a majority Mesitzo and black society is widespread corruption, crime and anarchy. Rich knows this but his hatred of sensible whites overrides his common sense.
+++++++++++++++++++
E Pluribus Pluribus wrote at 7:56 PM on December 17:
U. S. immigration policy —- with its several daggers aimed the heart of the historic (white) American nation —- is the major weapon the news media and academia have in their quest to destroy white America:
There's Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision forcing states to take the property of American citizens —- in the form of taxes —- to pay for the K-12 schooling of children brought illegally to the United States.
There's "automatic birthright citizenship" for children born to illegal aliens in the U. S. 380,000 children per year are born to illegal aliens in the U. S.
There's the 1965 Immigration Act which adds about 1 million legal immigrants annually —- mainly from Latin America but secondarily from Asia. This is through the act's "family reunification" (chain migration) provisions.
There's the 1994 nullification of California's Proposition 187. Prop 187 would have denied services to illegal aliens in California. Prop 187, approved by 59 percent of California voters, was blocked by a single Jimmy Carter-appointed federal Judge, Marianna Pfaelzer. California's appeal was derailed by then incoming Democratic Party governor Gray Davis.
There have been several amnesties —- the small ones being the grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to foreigners in due to some crisis their native lands. The status generally becomes permanent. There is the biggest amnesty so far, the 1986 "one-time-only" amnesty offer to some 3 million illegal aliens, who subsequently brought their families.
There is a refugee policy that takes in about 80,000 people per year from all over the world.
There's the truly insane "Diversity Lottery". 50,000 foreigners from all around the worly apply to enter on a lottery basis
The George Bush administration got banks involved in 2002. The Bush Treasury Department issued a directive informing banks that the Mexican "matricular consular" cards, used almost exclusively by illegal aliens —- however untrustworthy according to the FBI —- were acceptable identification for opening U. S. bank accounts and therefore taking out a mortgages.
Frank Rich and the New York Times have good reason to be gleeful. But they have still more to celebrate.
There American government schooling monopolies, highly successful at producing mass ignorance. Their monopoly structures dictate that result —- as does the rock-bottom GRE[Graduate Record Examination] scores of their personnel.
See the WSJ piece:"Dismal GRE Statistics for Education Fields," July 25, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2fjcls9
As a bonus to the NYT crowd, our government schools are heavily anti-white in orientation. One example: NYU research professor Diane Ravitch's describes the "sensitiity and bias" guidelines of textbook publishing giant McGraw-Hill:
"The MH [McGraw-Hill] guidelines express barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry. They deride European Americans for exploiting slaves, migrant workers, and factory labor; they excoriate the land rapacity of the pioneers and mock their so-called courage in fighting Native Americans: 'Bigots and Bigotry,' say the guidelines, referring to European Americans, 'must be identified and discussed.' European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history …" (THE LANGUAGE POLICE, p. 44)
ALL major "education" publishers must use elaborate bias guidelines to pre-censor textbooks the hope to market to the government systes or else risk losing a multi-million dollar sale to a big state due to a protests by an ethnocentric pressure group.
All in all, Rich, the New York Times, the major media and academia can look forward with relish to an America with a "dwindling and threatened" white minority.
+++++++++++++++++++
Skipper wrote at 8:49 PM on December 17:
In the current age people wonder how to classify these positions of Mr. Frank Rich and people similar to him. It seems so strange coming from someone in … America? In fact, what we are seeing is an old adversary, essentially modern age Bolsheviks who wish to eliminate the conservative peoples from this and every nation. We to them are the Kulaks, the White Russians, and the counter-revolutionaries etc. who must be liquidated.
Instead of firing squads and starvation the left is now using demographic warfare against the white population. The old Bolsheviks justified their positions in terms of ending oppression and achieving equality. And so do the new ones.
They are the same people.
+++++++++++++++++++
Tim in Indiana wrote at 9:03 PM on December 17:
And since Latinas are so wise, why doesn't Japan import several million of them and let them run the place?
Best laugh-out-loud line of the whole article!
Looking at his biography, I see that this Frank Rich was a founding editor of The Richmond (Va.) Mercury, a weekly newspaper, in the early 1970s.
Hmmm, Richmond Va….not exactly the most Hispanic area of the United States. But let's assume that Mr. Rich has had an epiphany since he now lives in Manhattan (I wonder what is the racial makeup of his apartment building?)
I find that most liberals think living among a token number of minorities —maybe one or two, as long as one of the two is Asian, is perfectly enough to prove they aren't "racist." They only demand that other whites live as a minority. This is classism and elitism at it's very finest, folks. (Of course racism is the only "ism" that is truly unacceptable to these types.)
And when he retires, where do you think it will be to? Will it be to Detroit or to a 90% Hispanic city so he can revel in all the "diversity?" Or will it be to a 90% white neighborhood like virtually every other well-heeled liberal? 20 points and a cigar for the right answer.
+++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous wrote at 1:20 AM on December 18:
I just had lunch with my cousins today, where one cousin's wife is expecting her fourth child, and the other cousin's wife is expecting her second child. They are all blond and blue eyed, and plan to have more children.
Now, a few days ago, I spoke with a man who just celebrated having his 12th grandchild.
And while at a Christmas Tree lighting, my wife and I saw two families next to us, that had four children each, ranging in age from a few months, to about eight years old.
Everywhere I look, I am happy to state that I see young mid 20s and 30 years old couples having at least three for four children. This is the norm, not the exception, which is refreshing. Apparently, my generation, and those behind me are doing what is needed to maintain who we are.
Now what needs to be done, is to round up the 20 million or so Illegal Aliens, most of which are brown or Black and deport them as soon as possible. Then take a new head count of which Race is the dominant one.
It's not that Whites aren't having babies, but we are being flooded with a horde of unwashed, uneducated, and uncivilized Barbarians, that we seem to be overwhelmed with their numbers.
+++++++++++++++++++
E Pluribus Pluribus wrote at 5:29 PM on December 18:
A wonderful example of media animosity towards whites is the New York Times' spectacularly slanted coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. It's an example from which we learn how news organizations shape the news to their liking. Columnists like Frank Rich are a natural fit.
Stuart Taylor, a columnist for National Journal, contributing editor for Newsweek, and fellow at the Brookings Institution, worked for the New York Times for eight years, covering legal affairs and the Supreme Court. He co-authored UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case with K.C. Johnson. In a September 2007 presentation for BookTV.org, Taylor made the following remarks:
"…The first New York Times reporter on the case, a fellow named Joe Drape, who covered horse races, but who was doing a very good job on this case actually … he … reported Nifong's statements the first couple of days. They dominated his stories — as they should have, that was the news event. But then he started talking to the defense lawyers.
"One of the defense lawyers told me that Joe Drape called him ten times … Well, that may be more times than the entire rest of the national media spent calling the defense lawyers combined over the first month of the case … but Joe Drape at the New York Times did it and he wrote stories reporting the defense theories and reporting them in an open way …
"The defense lawyers … got together and said this guy is being fair … Let's give him all of our evidence … Maybe he'll turn this around with a big story in the New York Times.
"They give him the evidence, wait for the big story. Joe Drape calls a few days later and says, I'm sorry that the story about your evidence isn't going to run. I'm having problems with editors. Joe Drape's byline disappears …
"A new reporter comes on the case who's much more willing to give the editors what they apparently wanted, which was the same guilt-presuming, don't-bother-us-with-the-defense side that the rest of the national media was doing. And when I say the rest, I mean USA Today, The Washington Post (although it didn't do much), the Los Angeles Times (although it got better later), all of the major networks … the Durham Herald-Sun which was shameful throughout, Nancy Grace, who was mind-bogglingly shameful throughout …
"The national news media ignored, largely, the evidence. For example, when the DNA evidence came out that did what the prosecution said would prove innocence on April 10 — I'm not talking about the private DNA, but the state DNA … The New York Times reporter Duff Wilson wrote a little story: Well, the defense says it proves this and that and then he called Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, who is a great authority on DNA and quoted him in a way that made it sound like he was saying: Well, this doesn't really prove anything. Not every rape has DNA.
"…This struck me as odd so I called Neufeld — through his spokesman at the Innocence Project — and I said, 'Why did he say that? … Didn't he know the facts of the case, that the woman claimed she was raped for a half an hour by three men, three orifices, no condoms, beating, kicking, strangling — and no DNA? And you're saying it [no DNA match] doesn't prove anything?'
"The answer was that Neufeld was told nothing about the facts of the case by the New York Times reporter and so the question basically to Neufeld was: Is it possible that you might some day have a rape that didn't leave DNA evidence? Well, sure it's possible. But not this rape. But Neufeld didn't know that. And that was not untypical of the way the media covered the story — and for months and months and months they covered it that way.
"…Newsweek, which had maybe been too credulous at first, to their credit … [had] the first major piece tearing the cover off of this … So there were good journalists out there … But in the face of all this … The New York Times does its definitive revisiting of the story on August 25 of '06 — MONTHS after anybody in the media who wanted to look at the evidence realized that it leaned strongly toward no rape.
"Well the New York Times' 5600-word article kind of boiled down to: Well, we looked at the evidence and, you know, defense lawyers, they kind of play games … and then there ARE weaknesses in the case but we think it looks like … a case you can take to trial. Not a bad case. It was an astonishingly slanted piece of writing … It reported a lot of the evidence of the defense, but it minimized them, it put them in a context that suggests: Well, that doesn't really amount to anything, and it took some things as probative of guilt that anyone who knew anything about the case would know perfectly well was not probative of guilt.
"It's hard to say enough critical about their coverage … After the spectacular expose in open court on December 15 of the prosecution-DNA lab conspiracy to suppress evidence of the multiple male DNA — After that the New York Times finally started saying: Gee, you know, maybe there's a problem here. But there was a problem long before that."
SOURCE: UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and K. C. Johnson (BookTV.org video presentation, September 11, 2007)
[Click on "Watch" in the upper right corner]
http://tinyurl.com/33dflgb
