Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby - Part I
Articles
In today's Orwellian America, where all groups are equal, but some groups are more equal than others, four radical "Hispanic" organizations — League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), and National Council of La Raza (La Raza) — champion discrimination against non-Hispanics in general and European-Americans in particular.
In most cases funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and in all cases abetted by the U.S. government, LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza are "politically correct" hate mongers. These four organizations, which form the core of the radical "Hispanic" lobby, have succeeded in having the U.S. government advance their agenda in ten key areas
Official identification — legal recognition of "Hispanic" as a separate ethnic category.
Affirmative Action — legal expansion of affirmative action programs to cover the newly recognized "Hispanic" population.
Legal immigration — adoption of immigration laws limiting ethnic European immigration while promoting massive Third World immigration in general and massive "Hispanic" immigration in particular.
Illegal immigration — refusal of Immigration and Naturalization Service to arrest and deport all illegal aliens; granting children born in the United States to illegal aliens U.S. citizenship; providing all other children of illegal aliens free public education; providing illegal aliens free social and welfare services; and granting illegal aliens amnesties enabling them to apply for naturalization, and after obtaining U.S. citizenship, vote, run for elected office, and sponsor additional immigrants.
Voting — allowing illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote in local, state, and federal elections; Department of Justice obstructing attempts by U.S. citizens to challenge election fraud at the polling booths, and Congressional leaders quashing legislation that would impose stiff penalties for election fraud.
English language — adoption of government services in languages other than English for voting ballots, welfare, social security, and IRS forms, and drivers' licenses; elimination of the English language proficiency requirement for U.S. citizenship for certain aliens 50 years old or older; conducting part of the U.S. naturalization ceremony in Spanish; penalizing private companies that require employees to speak English on the job; refusal to enforce laws that established English as the official language of State government; refusal of Congress to pass legislation or a Constitutional amendment recognizing English as the official language of the government of the United States; tacit federal support to those States that declare themselves officially bilingual or multilingual, and tacit federal and State of Texas support to the Texas city of El Cenizo for declaring, itself, officially Spanish only. This tacit support by the federal and State governments extends to the decision by the authorities of El Cenizo to fly the Mexican flag over City Hall.
Bilingual education — educating students in languages other than English, principally Spanish; denying parents any say in whether their child should be in such classes; threatening legal action against local school boards that teach children in English; denying bilingual education to non-Spanish-speaking Indian immigrants from "Hispanic" countries (i.e., refusing to educate them in their Indian languages and English) and instead teaching them in Spanish; manipulating "bilingual" education to officially promote Spanish as co-equal to English.
Multiculturalism — promotion of other cultures, especially "Hispanic," while demonizing, demeaning and eliminating the European-American heritage and identity of the United States wherever possible from school curriculum to the names of buildings and streets to the recognition of monuments and holidays. For example, in 1994, San Jose, California spent $500,000 of taxpayers' money to erect a statue to the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, in a public park replacing the previous monument of the Liberty Bell.
Land claims — introduction of H.R. 505, "Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act of 1999" that would enable descendants of Mexican citizens who had been living in what is now the State of New Mexico at the time the land was acquired by the U.S. in 1848 to submit community land grant claims challenging the existing ownership of private and public properties.
Freedom of speech — refusal of federal, State, and local authorities to arrest and prosecute those "Hispanics" who called for the assassination of California Governor Pete Wilson or made death threats to the sponsors of California Proposition 187 that denied free welfare services to illegal aliens; refusal of federal, State, and local authorities to protect billboards in Los Angeles calling for immigration reform or to arrest and prosecute those "Hispanics" who threatened violence if the billboard was not taken down; the removal by local authorities of billboards in New York City that called for immigration reform in blatant violation of the First Amendment; enactment of "hate crimes" laws which demonize European-Americans then interpreting such laws to cover "hate speech" so as to legally and financially penalize any expression of "politically incorrect" beliefs on immigration, bilingualism, multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc.
Where does the term ‘Hispanic' come from?
LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza all claim to be "Hispanic" organizations. In fact, the word "Hispanic" is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority. Historically, political opportunism has always dictated the racial identity of "Hispanics."
From 1820 to 1930, Mexican immigrants (whose presence was negligible since they never exceeded, on average, more than 350 annually between 1820 and 1900) and Mexican-Americans were officially classified as "white." In 1930, however, they were officially reclassified as "non-white." This "Between 1910 and 1930, approximately 700,000 Mexicans (three percent of the population of Mexico) crossed into the United States, principally Texas, fleeing the chaos of the Mexican Revolution."reclassification was due to two events — the unprecedented level of mass Mexican immigration after 1910 and the attempted genocide against European-Americans by an armed alliance of Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and Mexican-Americans in 1915.
Between 1910 and 1930, approximately 700,000 Mexicans (three percent of the population of Mexico) crossed into the United States, principally Texas, fleeing the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. This dramatic growth in the size of the Mexican population persuaded some a "Reconquista" of the U.S. South-west from California to Texas could be achieved.
An insurrection was planned for two o'clock in the morning on February 20, 1915. The goal was to seize power in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California and then declare these five States a single independent republic, which could in the future unite with Mexico. The written manifesto of this insurgency, the "Plan de San Diego, Texas," declared that this was to be "a war without quarter" against whites. At that specified day and time, Mexicans throughout the U.S. Southwest were to rise up and murder every white male over sixteen years of age and expel the surviving women, children, and elderly from the newly liberated land. To insure the planned genocide was successful, the leadership of the Mexican insurgency sought an alliance with blacks, American Indians, and Asians proposing that most of the United States be partitioned among themselves. European-Americans were to be confined essentially to the Northeast and Midwest. This overture was rejected by blacks and American Indians. But some Japanese accepted the proposed alliance and joined the self-styled "Liberating Army for Race and Peoples" apparently functioning as ordnance experts.
The insurrection, when it occurred, was limited to Texas. Using bases in northern Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans waged a guerilla war lasting 16 months — from February 1915 to June 1916 — against the European-American population of Texas.
Among the ringleaders were Luis de la Rosa (Mexican-American and a former deputy sheriff of Cameron County), Aniceto Pizana (Mexican-American from a respected ranching family near Brownsville), Esteban Fierros (Mexican-American from a prominent family in Laredo and a Colonel in the Mexican Army), Agustin Garza (Mexican immigrant), Basilio Ramos, Jr. (Mexican immigrant), Porfirio Santos, Manuel Flores, A.G. Almaraz, L. Perrigo, A.A. Sanez, and E. Cisneros (all Mexican nationals) and Mexican Generals Pablo Gonzales and Juan Antonio Acosta.
While the insurrection was eventually defeated by the Texas Rangers and the U.S. Army, this was not before the guerrillas had murdered 33 European-Americans, wounded 24 others, "ethnically cleansed" thousands of European-American families from south Texas, and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of public and private property.
To prevent this from happening again, the federal and Texas governments decided it was necessary to know how many Mexicans were living in the United States in general and Texas in particular. To learn this, "Mexicans" were counted separately from "whites" for the first time in the 1930 Census. They were listed along with non-white groups — "Negro," "Indian," "Chinese," "Japanese," and "Filipino." Since Mexicans were now no longer counted as "white," they were considered "non-white." Such a legal classification had the potential of subjecting them to the same conditions as blacks in segregationist Texas.
Therefore, during the 1930s, "Hispanics," led by LULAC, opposed identifying Mexicans as "non-white," but did not oppose segregation. They only opposed "illegal" segregation — i.e., applying the "Jim Crow" laws for blacks to Mexicans. Within a few years, LULAC succeeded in having Mexicans once again officially recognized as "white" and eligible for all the benefits accruing to whites under segregation.
"…after affirmative action programs were instituted for blacks, ‘Hispanics,' successfully lobbied the federal government to officially recognize them as a ‘non-white' group for purposes of eligibility for affirmative action programs."
Getting on the ‘affirmative action' bandwagon
Forty years later, in the 1970s, after affirmative action programs were instituted for blacks, "Hispanics," led by LULAC and La Raza, changed their position on their racial identity and successfully lobbied the federal government to officially recognize them as a "non-white" group for purposes of eligibility for affirmative action programs.
In both instances, the losers in the game of official racial identification pursued by "Hispanics" were African-Americans.
What eventually became the "Hispanic" category was created on June 16, 1976 by Public Law 94-311, "Economic and Social Statistics for Americans of Spanish Origin." This law, which was endorsed by several "Hispanic" organizations including LULAC and La Raza, contained two significant elements (1) the subject "Americans of Spanish origin or descent" and (2) the legal status "American citizens." Both qualifiers were soon dropped in an effort to maximize political influence by maximizing numeric size.
After asserting that "a large number of Americans of Spanish origin or descent suffer from racial, social, economic, and political discrimination and are denied the basic opportunities they desire as American citizens," Public Law 94-311 mandated federal agencies to "collect, and publish regularly, statistics which indicate the social, health, and economic condition of Americans of Spanish origin or descent." The law further required the Census Bureau to provide both Spanish-language census questionnaires and Spanish-speaking enumerators and to "implement an affirmative action program…for the employment of personnel of Spanish origin or descent."
According to the legislation, the phrase "Americans of Spanish origin or descent" applied to anyone who can "trace their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries."
That the purpose of this legislation was to create an artificial "ethnic" group — similar to the practice of the former Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, of creating "nations" by fiat — can be seen in the flawed methodology of this law and its inconsistent application. It was flawed because the law equated "State" (a political entity) with "ethnicity" (a biological/cultural entity). Then this flawed methodology was only applied to Spanish-speaking dominated countries, such as Mexico. But if all the inhabitants of Mexico are ethnic "Mexicans," then logically all the inhabitants of Belgium are ethnic "Belgians," not Dutch, Walloons, and Germans. Likewise, all the inhabitants of Switzerland must be ethnic "Swiss," not French, Germans, and Italians. All the inhabitants of former Czechoslovakia must have been ethnic "Czechoslovakians," not Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians. All the inhabitants of the former Soviet Union must have been ethnic "Soviets," not Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc. All the inhabitants of pre-1990 Yugoslavia must have been ethnic "Yugoslavs," not Albanians, Croats, Gypsies, Hungarians, Macedonians, Serbs, and Slovenians. And, most importantly, all the inhabitants of the United States must be ethnic "Americans." Since this would completely undermine the purpose of the law — to officially create an artificial "ethnic" group within the United States and then reward that "ethnic" group with access to affirmation action programs — it explains why the law's methodology was not applied consistently.
But there was another instance of flawed reasoning and inconsistent application in the law's methodology, which again revealed the intellectual dishonesty of its sponsors. The flaw was the assumption that a common language of government "… in [OMB's] Directive No. 15, … ‘Hispanic' is defined as ‘A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."' among different countries meant a common supra "national" identity. While language can be universal, a nation cannot. A nation, by definition, is always distinct, unique, one-of-a-kind. The idea of an international or supra "nationality" is an oxymoron. Yet, by this law Congress was declaring Spain, Puerto Rico, and the 18 Spanish-speaking dominated countries in the Western Hemisphere — most of the latter having antagonist, sometimes violent rivalries over borders and/or regional dominance — shared a common supra "national" identity. According to this logic, India and Nigeria must have a common supra "national" identity since they share English as a common language of government. Similarly, Belgium and Haiti must have a common supra "national" identity because they both share French as a common language of government. But Congress again refused to apply its own methodology consistently. To do so would have exposed the absurdity of the law.
The next year, May 12, 1977, the Office of Management and Budget adopted the shorter title of "Hispanic" and revised and finalized the official definition in Directive No. 15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting."
Since then "Hispanic" is defined as "A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race." The new definition sought to further inflate the numerical size of the "Hispanic" community. First, all reference to "American citizens" was dropped. This omission enables illegal aliens to be counted. Second, by changing the phrase from "Spanish origin or descent" to "Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race" it is now possible to count as "Hispanics," among others, individuals from Morocco, Western Sahara, and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, the Philippines, Guam, the Northern Marianas, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia in the Pacific, and Jamaica, Trinidad, and the Dutch West Indies in the Caribbean.
Under this new definition, a sign of "Spanish culture or origin" is the possession of a "Spanish" surname. This enables the U.S. government to inflate the numeric size of the "Hispanic" population even more by counting "Urban Indians," i.e., American Indians living off tribal reservations, as "Hispanics" or "Mexicans." Since "Hispanic" is officially an "ethnic" group, "Urban Indians" are counted twice — once racially as American Indian which they are and a second time "ethnically" as"Hispanic" which they are not. In reality, many surnames considered as "Spanish" by the U.S. government are not Spanish at all — but Basque.
The Basques live on both sides of the Pyrenees. The majority resides in Spain. Basque culture, language, and origin, however, are unrelated to those of Spain. Although a small nation, the Basques played a leading role in Spain's exploration and colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Basque surnames are common in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Central and South America. Typical Basque surnames now regarded by the U.S. government as "Hispanic" include Aquirre, Arteaga, Echeverria, Garate, Iturbide, Uribe, Vizcaino, and Zavala. This is the equivalent of classifying Irish as English, Dutch as German, Poles as Russian, Koreans as Japanese, or Tibetans as Chinese.
The category ‘Hispanic' as a political tool
The "Hispanic" category serves two political functions.
Domestically, it is to create a "Hispanic nation" within the United States, inflate the numerical size of that "nation," assert that that "nation" has historically been a victim of white oppression, and insure such "nationals" become beneficiaries of all affirmative action programs.
Internationally, it is to legitimize and maintain "By use of this fiction, Spanish-speakers are able to continue their historic persecution of the languages, religions, and cultures of the non-Hispanic peoples with the blessing of the U.S. government.""Hispanic" power and privilege in the 18 countries of the Western Hemisphere dominated by Spanish-speakers. It does so by realizing the stated goal of such Spanish-speaking extremists as former Guatemalan military dictator and mass murderer, General Oscar Mejia Victores "We must get rid of the words ‘indigenous' and ‘Indian'." By adopting the term "Hispanic," the U.S. government is fulfilling the General's wish by denying the existence of all non-Hispanic populations — principally, Indians, but also Europeans and Asians. For example, non-Spanish-speaking Indians — the majority population of Guatemala and Bolivia, Italians — the plurality of the population of Argentina, and Chinese — a minority population in Mexico, do not exist in the eyes of the U.S. government. Just as in the former Soviet Union ethnic groups that fell out of favor with the Communist Party officially ceased to exist and became an "unpeople."
Instead, each of the 18 countries is viewed as a homogenous "Hispanic" subgroup — "Argentine," "Bolivian," "Cuban," "Guatemalan," "Mexican," etc. This is the clear intent of Directive No. 15. And it is how the Census Bureau identifies people from those countries. The attempt is to convince the public that each of these 18 Spanish-speaker-dominated countries is a "nation" just as the Germans, Irish, and Tibetans are nations. By use of this fiction, Spanish-speakers are able to continue their historic persecution of the languages, religions, and cultures of the non-Hispanic peoples with the blessing of the U.S. government. Since the U.S. government officially denies that non-Hispanic peoples exist in those countries, the U.S. government can officially deny such people are being persecuted. For how can you persecute someone who does not "exist"?
That the term "Hispanic" is an example of political opportunism can be seen by two facts. First, neither the U.S. government, nor LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, or La Raza apply the methodology used to establish the "Hispanic" category consistently. If anyone of "Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race" is "Hispanic," then anyone of "British culture or origin, regardless of race" (i.e., Egypt, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, etc.) should be recognized as "Britannic," and anyone of "French culture or origin, regardless of race" (i.e., Algeria, Congo, Haiti, Vietnam, etc.) should be recognized as "Gallic." But this is not done.
If this methodology was applied consistently, then, just as Argentina is recognized as a "Hispanic" country because of its "Spanish culture," thereby, denying the official existence of its non-Spanish majority population (Italians, Germans, British, etc.), then the United States would have to be recognized as a "Britannic" country because of its "British culture," from law to literature, and its "Hispanic" minority population would have to be denied official existence. Such consistency would effectively put an end to LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza.
Second, the U.S. government and LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza all promote racial/ethnic identities. There are no Americans, only African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native-Americans, Pacific Island-Americans, and non-Hispanic white-Americans (a derogatory euphemism for European-Americans officially employed by the U.S. government which also employs the terms "hillbilly" and "Swamp Yankee" as official synonyms). This methodology, however, is not applied to Mexico and the other Spanish-speaking dominated countries of the Western Hemisphere. If it was, there would be no "Mexicans" only African-Mexicans, Asian-Mexicans, European-Mexicans, Indian-Mexicans, Mestizo-Mexicans, and Mulatto-Mexicans. Each category could be further broken down — i.e., Chinese-Mexicans, Basques-Mexicans, Mayan-Mexicans, etc. The same would happen to the other 17 "Hispanic" countries. This would pose a greater threat to LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza than recognition of the United States as a "Britannic" country.
Official recognition of the ethnic, racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of "Latin" America would jeopardize the continued political and economic domination of Spanish-speakers over a number of countries, either in part or in whole — i.e., Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. It would make the term "Hispanic" untenable in the United States either as an official "ethnic" category or as a rhetorical designation for an "oppressed minority." The result would be a dramatic fall in the number of people officially classified as "Hispanic," while those still identified as "Hispanic" would be recognized as members of a historically racist and oppressive community. LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza would lose power, influence, and the ability to present themselves as credible "civil rights" organizations.
The support given by the U.S. government to "Hispanic" hegemony, however, goes beyond official classification. It extends to direct action. When "Hispanic" control over any of the 18 Spanish-speaking dominated countries in the Western Hemisphere is threatened the U.S. government intervenes to preserve it.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when "Hispanic" control over Guatemala was endangered by an armed Indian insurgency the U.S. government, claiming that the insurgency was a Communist plot, successfully intervened with military aid to prop up the "Hispanic" regime.
During the 1980s the Miskito, Sumo, and Rama Indians fought the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua to regain their freedom. Their land, historically known as the "Mosquito Coast," comprises between one-quarter and one-third of the territory of Nicaragua and was only annexed by Nicaragua, with the blessings of the U.S. government, in 1894. In the 1980s, the U.S. government worked with the anti-Sandinista Nicaraguan "Contras" to defeat them. The Spanish-speaking "Contras," the Spanish-speaking Sandinistas, and the U.S. government shared the same fundamental position — "Hispanic" hegemony must be preserved and Indian independence must be suppressed.
This year, by threatening to impose economic sanctions if they were successful, the U.S. government was able to defeat revolts by Indians and others which were about to topple the "Hispanic" regimes of Ecuador and Bolivia.
On-going American actions in Guatemala and Bolivia refute the assertion that the U.S. government supports "democracy" or "human rights." Whose "democracy"? Whose "human rights"?
Joseph Fallon is a frequent contributor to The Social Contract. He is a published researcher and author on topics of immigration and American demography.
Reprinted with permission.
