". . . white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance. And it takes only a cursory look at a worsening economic climate and grim national mood to realize that history is always threatening to repeat itself."
-- New York Times editorial
What the Times is huffing about is a press conference with Bay Buchanan, Jim Pinkerton, Peter Brimelow and Marcus Epstein which I covered last week. The report prepared by Epstein is available online, and any reader can assess the extent to which the slurs "white supremacist," "nativism" and "racism" are applicable. (I only skimmed the report, but it certainly didn't look like something Willis Carto or J.B. Stoner would publish.) The Times is to be congratulated for their effort, which I'm told got Bay Buchanan booked tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor."
Based on a superficial familiarity with the Epstein report, and with the discussion at the (lightly attended) press conference, I am left to wonder if there is any person, organization, publication or event aimed at discussing immigration as policy and politics from a border-enforcement perspective, that would not be denounced by the Times. in more or less the same manner as they've denounced Buchanan, et al.
Ah, but it seems like only yesterday that "dissent" was patriotic and we could not criticize Code Pink, CAIR, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan or International ANSWER without being accused of totalitarian impulses. Some animals are more equal than others.
Perhaps we'll soon have a directive telling us exactly which forms of dissent, and on which issues, are still considered patriotic. Obama should order Secretary Dodd and the Department of Unicorns and Rainbows to look into this.
UPDATE: Behold, the face of white supremacy! (What would Lothrop Stoddard say?)