nation of immigrants Robert Novak called us xenophobic demagogues

August 18, 2009

“”The new immigration has provoked a widespread feeling of apprehension as to its effect on the economic and social welfare of the country.” The report, by the U.S. Immigration Commission, was dated 1911.”

“This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, with the Republican Party in trouble and seeking a unifying issue at the grass roots and with the Democratic Party sensing its adversary’s weakness and moving in for the kill.”

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Fertility fell from 1800 to the 1920’s when immigration restricted started in 1924.

Fertility rose starting in 1940 and peaked in 1957 as immigration started to come back.

Fertility fell like a rock to the end of the 1970’s.

It then rose slightly, possibly from new immigrants.

Income inequality is an upright U over the same time period.  It was high during immigration prior to 1924, it fell to a low by the 1960’s, and then rose again to the highest ever today.

See chart below from Krugman

Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973. Women’s the same as men’s in 1963.

Labor force participation rate of men was over 80 percent in 1948 and is under 70 percent today.  Men’s labor force participation rate from 1973 at 75.5 to 68.5 in 2008 and even lower now.  SEe Table page 2 of

Non-Jewish whites are under 25 percent of Stanford and Harvard undergraduates.

Ethnic Diversity
African American 10.5%
Asian American 19.8%
International 7.2%
Mexican American 7.9%
Native American 3.2%
Native Hawaiian 0.8%
Other Hispanic 6.7%
White 31.5%
Other 3.1%
Declined to State 9.5%

Assuming the same 25 percent Jewish percentage as at Stanford, we get Non Jewish whites at 6.5 percent.  That NJ whites are below 25 percent is highly likely at Stanford.

==Vanishing American has had columns on Novak in the past including the above quote

==Sun Times,081809novak.photogallery,robert-novak-sun-times-081809.article,sun-times-columnist-robert-novak-dead-081809.article,robert-novak-cancer-diagnosis-death-081809.article

Novak “nation of immigrants”

Robert Novak  nativism


Roman Catholic (convert from Judaism)

Novak was born in Joliet, Illinois, the son of Jane Sanders and Maurice Novak, a chemical engineer.[4] His paternal grandparents immigrated from the Ukraine, and his mother’s family was from Lithuania.[4]

Raised Jewish, Novak converted to Roman Catholicism in 1998,[12] after meeting Peter Vaghi, whom he had known before Vaghi switched from politics to the priesthood.

Novak is an example of the Slicer Coalition.  Jews have replaced non-Jewish whites at Harvard and Stanford as the dominant ethnic group among undergraduates.   This is accompanied with genocide of non-Jewish whites.  This includes holding down their wages and taking away jobs from non-Jewish men so that their labor force participation rate has gone from over 80 percent to under 70 percent.  This involves keeping wages of women below men and at the 1963 level of men at the median.  Jews, of course, are far above the national or white median in their group median and average.  This is a consequence of the policies Novak supports.


Novak was a classic practitioner of liberalism masquerading as conservatism.  This is something others have commented on such as Lawrence Auster.  Novak was a spear carrier of liberalism.  On real issues that mattered such as immigration restriction, Novak used his position as a seeming conservative to shut down whites from stopping immigration.  Novak was a neocon from the beginning.   This spirit has captured the Republican party.  Freepers are braying their appreciation of Novak even though in fact he was against them on their very existence.  A thread of Freeperism is below:

Freeperism is an illness of cheer leading the PC liberal who pretends to be a conservative.  Freeperism is anti-white.  It is as anti-white as is Obamism and in fact both come from the same roots of Red Communist thinking.  Freepers are useful idiots of the Left.

LGF is also similar to Free Republic for the same reasons.  The people who run each one want profits.  They think that meaningless cheer leading of Republicans but which doesn’t actually have any effect to stop immigration or what is harming us is the best way for the men who run those sites to make money.

Novak was basically the same.  So is the leadership of the GOP.  They are profoundly anti-white liberals.  They are not secretly for us but overtly pretending to be PC.  They really are against us.  They take harsh measures against those openly for our survival and for stopping immigration.

They have Buckley Disease.   They try to destroy the careers and reputations of those who tell the truth about immigration and advocate stopping it.  They do not advocate for whites but harshly attack those who do as racist.  They mislead.  They distort.  They lie.  They are full of hate for those who tell the truth about what is being done to whites. They are not our secret friends, they are our open enemies.


6 Responses to “nation of immigrants Robert Novak called us xenophobic demagogues”

  1. Old Atlantic Says:

    I saw that at Vdare. Thanks for the link. You are doing a great job, please keep in there.

  2. Emerson Says:

    Good read.

    “They do not advocate for whites but harshly attack those who do as racist. They mislead. They distort. They lie. They are full of hate for those who tell the truth about what is being done to whites.”

    That’s hard for people to swallow, but it’s true of the GOP. Bush, McCain, Graham, Huckabee and other GOP “Christians” have all called us bigots and demagogues and are all guilty of the treachery you listed above.
    Now I have my suspicions about Christian Sarah Palin. She has said that she would not deport the illegal aliens because it would be “inhumane.” I guess that makes me inhumane and maybe a racist and a bigot, in her mind. It also means she will not honor her Presidential Oath to enforce the law. I mentioned this on a Christian blog and I was accused of attacking Christianity.
    I don’t read Free Republic but is that how Freepers would respond?
    And what do you think of Palin? Are we totally screwed?

  3. oldatlantic Says:

    I think Freepers would tend to respond that way. I support Palin as a symbol that the left hates, but she has not really spoken out on stopping legal immigration. She is not a spokesman for us on that.

    The remark you cite on not deporting illegals is disquieting. She has been quite on that subject. She had supposedly supported Buchanan then denied that. The first is good, the second bad.

    It seems like there is no one in sight for us as a Republican candidate for president in 2012. I think we have to think 3rd party at that level. When we vote for Republicans against us on immigration, they develop disdain for us. Over time as we keep voting for them that develops into hate for us.

    Congressional Republicans tend to be good but not always. Republicans in the Senate are mixed. Let your Senator know your views through NumbersUSA on immigration, even if a Red Democrat on immigration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: