The post that got Ron Unz purged from the American Conservative on July 20, 2013

Ron Unz:

“For the last half-century, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, especially illegal ones, have been non-white, and the resulting racial fears have been a central motivating force driving many of the most zealous restrictionists, who fear being swamped by a tidal wave of “the Other.”  However, I believe that racial considerations, whether fully conscious or not, might also be found on the other side of the issue, helping to explain why our national leadership today so uniformly endorses very heavy foreign immigration.

America’s ruling financial, media, and political elites are largely concentrated in three major urban centers—New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.—and all three have contained large black populations, including a violent underclass.  During the early 1990s, many observers feared New York City was headed for urban collapse due to its enormously high crime rates, Los Angeles experienced the massive and deadly Rodney King Riots, and Washington often vied for the title of American homicide capital.  In each city, the violence and crime were overwhelmingly committed by black males, and although white elites were rarely the victims, their fears were quite palpable.

One obvious reaction to these concerns was strong political support for a massive national crackdown on crime, and the prison incarceration of black men increased by almost 500% during the two decades after 1980.  But even after such enormous rates of imprisonment, official FBI statistics indicate that blacks today are still over 600% as likely to commit homicide than non-blacks and their robbery rate is over 700% larger; these disparities seem just as high with respect to Hispanic or Asian immigrants as they are for whites.  Thus, replacing a city’s blacks with immigrants would tend to lower local crime rates by as much as 90%, and during the 1990s American elites may have become increasingly aware of this important fact, together with the obvious implications for their quality of urban life and housing values.

According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50% in New York City, and by over 70% in Washington, D.C.  The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location.  And all three cities experienced enormous drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73%, 79%, and 72% respectively, perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes.  Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices.  It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views..”

Michael Rozeff:

We are looking at large numbers of traitorous Senators promoting very dangerous ideas that are expansionist and interventionist in nature. They have built up a structure of lies, falsehoods, exaggerations, false enemies, false threats, impossible aspirations for dominance, and misperceptions. We are looking at people who feign respectability, reasonableness, honesty, loyalty and intelligence but who, when they promote war against a President who is succeeding in bringing a degree of peace, must be counted as among the lowest of the low, people that we must revile and reject as “leaders”, people that we must see as enemies of the interests of the peaceful pursuit of happiness. These same people will, by and large, turn their guns against the American people and be most supportive of the national security state.

The following senators are Senate co-sponsors of this bill. Beside each name is the dollar amount of AIPAC contributions to that senator in the years 2007-2012.

Mark Kirk $925,379
John McCain $771,012
Mitch McConnell $430,925
Robert Menendez $344,670
Kirsten Gillibrand $326,937
Mary Landrieu $296,409
Benjamin Cardin $267,542
Charles Schumer $248,149
Robert Casey $192,550
Roger Wicker $158,861
Mark Warner $149,151
Susan Collins $139,518
Mark Pryor $138,250
John Thune $123,725
Roy Blunt $120,500
Joe Manchin $117,110
Pat Roberts $116,900
Bob Corker $114,770
David Vitter $112,619
Kelly Ayotte $111,899
Michael Bennet $109,126
John Cornyn $107,000
Saxby Chambliss $103,650
John Barrasso $99,050
Orrin Hatch $91,500
Jeff Sessions $86,550
Marco Rubio $86,200
Lisa Murkowski $85,900
Lindsey Graham $84,515
Daniel Coats $82,733
Richard Blumenthal $80,640
Joe Donnelly $72,911
Dean Heller $71,100
Richard Burr $70,850
Robert Portman $68,815
John Hoeven $67,535
Mike Johanns $63,635
James Inhofe $60,000
Charles Grassley $57,600
Jerry Moran $53,400
Thomas Coburn $47,445
Michael Crapo $45,750
Mike Lee $45,030
James Risch $41,750
Patrick Toomey $40,500
Ted Cruz $39,354
Mark Begich $36,727
John Boozman $34,250
John Isakson $31,600
Michael Enzi $31,600
Richard Shelby $27,250
Deb Fischer $26,400
Chris Coons $20,774
Tim Scott $15,310
Ron Johnson $10,400

Times of India:

“Based in New York, Batra had successfully represented the former Indian Consul General Prabhu Dayal against allegations of sexual exploitation by his maid.

“The core problem here is that Sangeeta willfully, voluntarily and with free will entered into three contracts: an oral contract followed by two written agreements, with the first and third contracts each calling for Rs 30,000 to be paid per month. Then, Sangeeta, alone, was twice interviewed by the US Embassy to negotiate the fraud upon the US Embassy, aided by her-executed Fake Contract, and Sangeeta did so successfully,” Batra told PTI.

[Batra seems to accept that one of the contracts – the one shown to the US Visa office  – was fraudulent. Devyani K’s contention is that it wasn’t and that the first and third, for Rs. 30,000, constituted money to be paid to the maid’s family in India. However, that second contract itself would violate US labor laws, which require all monies to be paid in the US, so I read. Ms. Khobragade probably did not know that  or thought it was permissible since both she and the maid were Indian citizens, the contracts were drawn up in India, and they were protected under Indian labor law. Since the full terms of payment actually fulfilled US requirements, she may not even have known that it was in conflict with US law.]

[Another point is the US Visa office A3 visa is probably illegal itself and unnecessary.]

Times of India:

“Of course, once Sangeeta agreed to work as Devyani’s domestic worker, Sangeeta gave her ‘Blue’ passport to Devyani, who then got Sangeeta her Official ‘White’ passport, with obvious ‘cancellation’ of the Blue passport,” he said.

Sangeeta then traveled on her White passport on November 24, 2013 to New York, and later it was missing, as reported in the FIR when she left Devyani’s home in June 2013, he added.

[Lila: That is, Sangeeta herself took the white passport from the house. She couldn’t travel on it to go home, because it is an official passport that would be invalid if she reneged on her terms of agreement. So Bharara’s charge that DK took her passport or prevented her from traveling is bogus and confused.]

Times of India:

“Hence, the claim that Devyani, was somehow preventing Sangeeta from traveling on her Blue passport is incomprehensible – as Sangeeta had her White passport, which Sangeeta knew, she could not use to go back to India, given her violation of her employment-terms,” Batra alleged.

“Additionally, with an arrest warrant for Sangeeta issued on November 19, 2013, by the Delhi High Court and her husband listed as an Accused #2, Sangeeta’s claimed desire to return to India is not credible,” Batra claims, referring to the allegations made by the federal prosecutor in the indictment that the maid wanted to return to India.

“Finally, since Philip Richard was an employee of the US Embassy in Delhi, Sangeeta was always empowered to seek advice and counsel from Philip’s employer, prior to her entering into two contracts for Rs 30,000,” Batra said.

[Lila: That is, with close family ties to the head of the anti-trafficking and anti-terrorism unit in the US embassy, Wayne May,  Sangeeta had plenty of ability to get further advice on the exact nature of her contract. She could not have been pressured by Devyani to make her appearance in the US visa office.]

Time of India:

Relying solely upon Sangeeta’s unadorned word, the indictment accuses Devyani of overworking and exploiting her and lists hours she claims to have worked – as much as “94 to 109” hours a week, including Sundays, he said, adding that the hours claimed by Sangeeta could be challenged.

Lila:  Witnesses whom the US judge did not include have already testified seeing Sangeeta on off-days.

Times of India:

Batra also questions the US decision to give T-visa to the family members of Sangeeta.

“That our State Department required our Justice Department to file criminal charges against Devyani, while giving Sangeeta and family a T-visa, under these circumstances is nothing short of an avoidable itch becoming a roaring rash. “Sinful human trafficking, modern day slavery, this is not – no matter the powerful incentive of getting a T-visa causing one to fake being trafficked.”

Derrick Bell’s Rules Of Racial Standing:

FIRST RULE

The law grants litigants standing to come into court based on their having sufficient personal interest and involvement in the issue to justify judicial cognizance. Black people (while they may be able to get into court) are denied such standing legitimacy in the world generally when they discuss their negative experiences with racism or even when they attempt to give a positive evaluation of another black person or of his work. No matter what their experience or expertise, blacks’ statements involving race are deemed ‘special pleading’ and thus not entitled to serious consideration.

[Lila:That is, even on India and Indians, my opinion has to be confirmed by white observation, or it is demoted to special pleading. However, even the most uninformed white person can pronounce on anything under the sun, be completely wrong, and still be taken seriously. His objectivity is taken for granted. I can only be taken seriously on my own when I back a position that white society as a whole wants to see promoted and sees some advantage to itself in having a non-white person also “validate it.” ]

SECOND RULE
Not only are blacks’ complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort – despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice – to keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge – without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.

[Lila: I don’t believe that whites constitute an oppressor class, en masse, obviously, since many whites are oppressed themselves and many non-whites join with the oppressor class. However, I do believe that white populations, relative to the central banking cartel – which is the main cause of the proliferation of war and poverty in the modern world – are privileged victims, in that their oppression – which is also severe – is cushioned by their position in the epicenter of power.]

THIRD RULE
Few blacks avoid diminishing t of racial standing, most of their statements about racial conditions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted ‘enhanced standing’ even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.

[Lila: This was especially noticeable in cases like that of Trayvon Martin, when any non-white who could support the general white perception of the case was trotted out.]

FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem “outrageous,” the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.

FIFTH RULE
True awareness requires an understanding of the Rules of Racial Standing. As an individuals understanding of these rules increases, there will be more and more instances where one can discern their workings. Using this knowledge, one gains the gift of prophesy about racism, its essence, its goals, even its remedies. The price of this knowledge is the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophesy, no matter its accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing nor prevent their or prevent their operation.

Zee News

“Those comments absolutely do not reflect US Government policy, nor were they made on any official US Government social media account,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson, Marie Harf, told reporters at her daily news conference. “

Marie Harf wisely put a bit of distance between the State Dept. and the Facebook remarks of the chatty May couple.

She was wise to do it. No educated and sophisticated observer would consider Mrs. Mays blabbings on social media reflective of the beliefs of the State Dept. which has many fine scholars. Indians of an older generation  still recall the good-will generated by fine American representatives like Chester Bowles.

But the issue is not whether May represents each State Dept official. Of course, he doesn’t.  He does however represent all of them, as a collective. And so does his wife.

It’s also not the specifics of what he said. It’s the general tone of the blogging, which shows entitlement and self-absorption, which while excellent attributes for socialites and celebrities are terrible ones for security chiefs, diplomats and international representatives.

One can understand how a person from a very affluent country might find even a posh enclave in Delhi unbearable.

One can’t understand how a senior diplomat in a country counts not one “native” to whom she is close enough to share even public postings on social media.

Update: India is now investigating whether Snowden visited India in an official capacity or privately, as a tourist.

Foreign Policy via EPJ:

“Snowden didn’t disclose his India trip to investigators when renewing his top-secret security clearance the following year. It was that clearance, NSA officials say, that gave Snowden access to the 1.7 million classified files he later stole from the agency’s computer networks and databases. U.S. intelligence officials have faulted the company that conducted Snowden’s background check for not more thoroughly questioning him about overseas travel and what foreign nationals he may have met with, which is standard procedure for detecting whether someone is spying for a foreign power. They have characterized the background check as flawed and incomplete.

But Foreign Policy has learned that Snowden’s trip to India should not have been a mystery to the U.S. government or intelligence agencies. Snowden was in the country in his capacity as an NSA contractor “to assist as a technical expert” at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, according to an individual with knowledge of the situation who asked not to be identified. Snowden also told his computer instructor that he worked for the NSA and that he was in the city “on business,” said Rohit Aggarwal, the CEO and founder of the school, Koenig Solutions. Government employees and contractors are not required to disclose foreign trips of an official nature, and may even be instructed not to, in order to avoid compromising intelligence operations and programs, according to two former U.S. intelligence officials.

Snowden’s time in India has been covered in the Indian press but has received little attention in the United States.

The travels offer a rare glimpse into his activities in the years before he became arguably the most famous leaker of classified secrets in American history.””

My Comment at EPJ Below:

5 comments:

1. 
   AnonymousJanuary 13, 2014 at 9:27 AM

   “… The most famous Leaker… “? No, Snowden is a whistleblower.

   Reply

2. 
   Lila RajivaJanuary 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM

   A further NSA document obtained by the Hindu suggests the agency selected the office of India’s mission at the UN in New York and the country’s Washington embassy as “location targets” where records of Internet traffic, emails, telephone and office conversations – and even official documents stored digitally – could potentially be accessed after programs had been clandestinely inserted into computers.

   In March 2013, the NSA collected 6.3bn pieces of information from internet networks in India and 6.2bn pieces of information from the country’s telephone networks during the same period, the Hindu said.

   After the Guardian reported in June that Pm program allowed the NSA “to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders”, both US and Indian officials claimed no content was being taken from the country’s networks and that the programs were intended to aid “counter-terrorism”.

   Syed Akbaruddin, an external affairs ministry spokesperson, said on Wednesday there was no further comment following the latest revelations.

   Siddharth Varadajaran, editor of the Hindu, said the Indian government’s “remarkably tepid and even apologetic response to the initial set of disclosures” made the story a “priority for Indians”.

   A home ministry official told the newspaper the government had been “rattled” to discover the extent of the the programme’s interest in India. “It’s not just violation of our sovereignty, it’s a complete intrusion into our decision-making process,” the official said.

   Reply

3. 
   Lila RajivaJanuary 13, 2014 at 10:48 AM

   I wonder why Foreign Policy, an establishment mouthpiece, is putting this out now? It’s been covered widely before. Red herring much?

   Reply

4. 
   Lila RajivaJanuary 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM

   Parallel, militarized female police force introduced into Delhi, under the pretext of the increase in rapes (drummed up sensationally, of course), ostensibly to thwart rapists.

   Actually, this police force is not under Delhi govt. but parallel to it and seemingly responsible to the AAP Party – which is heavily funded by FOUNDATIONS.
   (Ford etc.)

   Delhi is thus effectively under Foundation rule and they now have their own private police force..

   Following on the fact that the US embassy security and anti-terror chief (who was buying and selling duty free goods, and violating tax law) was able to obstruct the Indian judiciary, evacuate the maid, and instigate the arrest and strip search of a senior diplomat over her protests of immunity, this suggests where real power in Delhi lies.

   Reply

The Times of India has got on the case and draws the obvious conclusions. While the US embassy has been putting out the story that the intervention of Wayne May and his wife into the Sangeeta Richard case was humanitarian, intended to save her from the malice of a thuggish Indian diplomat, the Mays’ social media chatter gives an entirely different picture of the two, one much more in keeping with the theory, proposed on this blog, that the “trafficking” case was initiated for political reasons, not humanitarian.

“The Indian ”holy cow” is a recurring theme in their entries, starting from the time Wayne May was posted in New Delhi in 2010. The first of the pictures appears in June 2010 with a comment from Wayne saying, ”No eating the sacred cows.” A little later, he adds, ”one week in country and I already miss steak.”

His wife Alicia captions another photo ”Stupid Cow.” A friend comments, ”You just insulted their cow,” to which May responds, ”Not the first time, not the last time.”

[Lila: In the post, it’s actually “you just insulted their god,” which is far more inflammatory, so I guess Times of India, trying to be a good international citizen, changed the word.]

But a short time later, she shows the kind of frustration that many Indians might also share: ”Just wait till you have to dodge these beasts in your car because they are laying in the middle of the road blocking traffic – they lose their “holiness” real fast. And, as holy as they are supposed to be, most of them are bodyline starved. It’s awful to see. Everything is a contradiction here…”

There is other banter in which enraged nationalists see signs of Indian laws being broken by the meat-loving diplomats. ”Had real American Hamburbers for dinner last night. A friend smuggled them in his suitcase last night,” Alicia Muller May writes in September 2010, soon after their arrival in India, adding, ”water buffalo burgers just aren’t cutting it. Oh, the simple pleasures of life….” Another time, she alerts her friends in Delhi to ”a good friend in Beijing who is coming to the CLO office with beautiful pearls for sale…” – which some see as evidence that embassy premises were being used for commercial activities.

In one bizarre exchange in November 2012 in response to a Huffington Post article on claims that are meat eaters being more prone to violence and sex crimes, Alicia May says ”I’d like them to do a follow up article on how many vegetarians rape women here every day.” It is the vegetarians that are doing the raping, not the meat eaters, she says, later adding, ”applies only to Indians, not westerners.”

The domestic Indian staff for whom they professedly had concern don’t come out very well either in their corrosive social media exchanges. In one photograph, it is pointed out that their pet dog Paco looks bigger and in better health than their Indian gardener. Paco, says May, gets more protein in his diet. Another times, May goes to a mosque in Delhi with two visitors where they get a VIP tour because they are from the US embassy.

“I hate the taste but I have to be polite,” she says about having to drink tea at the mosque. Her friend: ”Tea? I thought it was coffee.” ”If it tastes like rancid mushroom, don’t drink it.” Friend (who is evidently serving in Afghanistan): ”Everything is rancid in Afghanistan. That’s how you know it is farm fresh.”

To be sure, most of the exchanges are frivolous and typical of social media tattle. But given the sensitive positions they occupied in the US embassy, they are, particularly in hindsight, astonishingly offensive, robbing the couple of their “bleeding heart” credentials that is said to have led them to spirit out Sangeeta Richard’s family from New Delhi.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Waynes-world-Was-expelled-US-official-a-bleeding-heart-or-an-ugly-American/articleshow/28719329.cms

At BharatRakshak forum, one astute poster also suggests that May was likely CIA and used his power to prevent the Delhi police from doing anything about the criminal case filed against the maid:

“It is possible that “May” is CIA. I don’t think any diplomat will give a sh*t about a simple domestic servant dispute. He decided that he is powerful enough to teach Devyani a lesson by getting her raped. This seems to be a operation planned between May Couple along with somebody like Urza Shamim Zeya to show “who is daddy” to IFS. “May” controls a staff almost of 500 security staff and liason’s with Delhi Police.

Look at the actions of Delhi Police, they first refused to register FIR. Then after Court directed FIR, they refused to investigate or make arrests. Third they even refused to issue “look out” notices or seize passports of SK Family members. Delhi Police has 4 levels of failures in spite of Court orders and calls of Devynai father. My guess is that “May” used favors to fix some very high IPS level officers of Delhi Police. Not to forget inspite of withdrawal of immunity to US Counsels cars, Delhi Traffic Police did not take action and a specific letter had to written to them by GoI to take action, then they have taken action only for one day.”