Labels

Showing posts sorted by date for query good guys. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query good guys. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, September 27, 2026

The Demonization Of Arabs And Muslims – Biblicism Institute

 The vilification of Arabs and Muslims did not come about as a naturally occurring phenomenon. It was carefully planned and executed.

“Israel has been demonizing Muslims for 60 years and has created the image of Muslims as terrorists wearing suicide bombs,” revealed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

LET THE DEMONIZATION BEGIN

Dayan and fake dangerTo set the stage for their defamatory propaganda, Israel enlisted Jewish-dominated Hollywood to depict Arabs in a very unflattering light – something Tinseltown has since been doing faithfully for decades.

Arabs must be seen as the villains and the Jews as the good guys in order for Israel to tighten its grip on the stolen territories of Palestine and on those of Syria (Golan Heights) and Lebanon (Shebaa Farms and KfarShuba Heights), while its people commit crimes with impunity.

“The villain of choice today is the Arab. To be an Arab in America today is to be an object of contempt and ridicule by television under the guise of entertainment. To me this anti-Arab image on entertainment manifests itself in the politics of America,” wrote Professor Jack Shaheen.

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-demonization-of-arabs-and-muslims/ 

Saturday, August 8, 2026

Israel’s Attempt Now to Take Over the U.S. Government Completely

 Judge Napolitano, 7 August 2026

>> Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. [He’s a libertarian. But he is an anti-imperialist one, and this is the reason why he is good on reporting about international relations.] Welcome to this special edition of the intelligence community roundup today with Larry Johnson, Pepe Escobar and Scott Ritter. Larry, Pepe, Scott, thank you very much. All double duty for you guys this week. Thank you so much for uh giving us all this time. There’s a lot for us to talk about particularly with respect to negotiations uh involving uh the strait of Hormuz. But before we get there to a subject matter that I think is of profound importance which has not been on the top of the fold this week but is bubbling up as it sits in the hopper somewhere in the House of Representatives or the Senate. This is the proposal by Senator Tom Cotton endorsed by the White House to merge the IDF and the Pentagon, the Mossad and the CIA in such a way as to share intelligence and military secrets. Scotty, how dangerous is this to American sovereignty and to American security? >> It’s fatal. Uh, look, the United States is the United States of America. We’re a constitutional republic. Um, that’s the only thing we are. We’re we’re not anything other than that. If uh if if we don’t adhere to the Constitution, the values of the Constitution, u we’re no longer the United States of America. We’re not the United States of Israel. Israel is not the 51st state. Israel is a sovereign nation. There needs to be a Chinese wall separating the United States from Israel. But it’s not just this the, you know, the the underlying current uh, you know, the philosophy behind this is somehow American and Israel are the same that they’re just like us. No, Israel has been elevated by the US counter intelligence community as a critical threat. That means Israel is carrying out active espionage against the United States as we speak. Their number one targets are defense industrial targets and our national security. Jonathan Pollard, one of the greatest traitors in American history, you know, has now, you know, taken his parole and and gone to Israel. He compromised the the the greatest secrets we had, the Bible about how we did signals intelligence. Uh he gave that to Israel and then Israel sold it to the Soviet Union to get preferential treatment to get people out [from the USSR]. So Israel sold America’s secrets to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Israel is not the friend of the United States. Israel is an enemy of the United States. If you don’t view Israel as a parasite and America is the host and understand what it means when the parasite attaches itself to the host, then you don’t understand how utterly devastating these this legislation being proposed is. It would be the end of America, the death of America. We have to stop this at all costs. >> Larry, as I understand this, it is not that the intelligence community, which we know is very close to the MOSSAD to begin with, but it has the option to tell the MOSSAD to go take a hike. If this legislation passes, it loses that option. It It’s not it may share, it’s that it must share unless the president of the United States personally intervenes. >> Yeah, I mean it just it surrenders the United States uh to uh is Israeli interests. There’s no other way to look at it

Full text:
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/israels-attempt-now-to-take-over 

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Ken Meyercord on "So-Called Holocaust Denial", by Kevin Barrett - The Unz Review

Ken Meyercord, who spent years as Washington, DC’s most controversial talk show host, writes:

Inspired by a trip to the Sundance Film Festival in Utah last January, I’ve been submitting my magnus opus, So-called Holocaust Denial, to film festivals around the world. It’s won some awards.

Lest you think this is some tremendous breakthrough in thwarting the censorship surrounding the Holocaust, let me tell you what I’ve learned about the film festival business: it’s a racket. There are hundreds of so-called festivals out there but most consist of no more than a website and a repository for submission fees. They don’t actually hold a festival, just announce the winners on their website while providing no opportunity for an audience to view the films. I’ve submitted my film to some 25 festivals and, despite winning at four (with 15 or so still to be heard from), I can’t say for certain if anyone has actually watched my film—not even a reviewer, much less an audience. There are legitimate festivals out there who host a real festival and show the winners to a live audience, but it’s hard to tell the legit from the fraudulent online. Still, I consider the $20-25 submission fee worth it if there is hope at least a reviewer or two will actually watch the film. (You can watch the film here).

P.S. I’ve reached the limit of my financial resources ($500). If you think this is a worthy endeavor (despite the caveats above), I would welcome any financial help you are willing (and able) to offer (all contributions will remain anonymous). you can do so through my ZELLE account (kiaskfm@verizon.net), Note that I am not a non-profit (501c3) organization. If you prefer, you can make a tax-deductible contribution through The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH.com)here.

Interview Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. I’m Kevin Barrett, bringing you interesting people doing good work, whether in written form or— sometimes—filmmakers. And that would be Ken Meyercord, an intrepid filmmaker and TV host out of Washington, D.C. who has, for quite some time, been putting heretical material on the D.C. airwaves. And he’s got a new film out. I’m not sure quite how new. It’s called So-Called Holocaust Denial. So, hey, Ken, welcome. How’s it going?

Ken Meyercord: Hi. It is not very new. I did it in January.

Kevin Barrett: …So-Called Holocaust Denial. That’s a provocative title. And we all know that there are atrocities. And there were World War II atrocities. This is what happened to Dresden. But that wasn’t the Germans that did that, was it?

Ken Meyercord: No, they didn’t do it at all. The good guys did. This was their work. And I was mentioning to you earlier, I just discovered a documentary made by 2001. It was on the History Channel. I mean, it’s big time. But one of their episodes, there are about 15 of them, was called The Aftermath of the War. And they talked about the fact that a quarter of all German housing was destroyed by the end of the war, and the cities firebombed and nothing much left of them and whatnot, and how they were starving, millions of Germans, or a million at least, according to James Bacque. And that was in his book, Other Losses. And between the starvation and… the German POWs after the war spent the winter of 1945-46 out in the cold, digging foxholes for themselves. So a number of them died too in that winter. Anyway, this is a great book about all that. But the movie, and I should have got a clip up of it, The War in Color. It’s called that because they discovered a bunch of color photography that had never been seen before on the war. This is not one of them. But they talked about the aftermath. And usually that’s not included in World War II documentaries. You know, we just, we won the war and everybody’s happy and freedom and authoritarian. Marshall plan, right.

Kevin Barrett: whole thing. Yeah, we rebuilt Germany, treated the Germans so nicely. Yeah, right.

Ken Meyercord: Yeah. Anyway, so that’s, and Dresden was the showcase of what we did to the German cities.

Kevin Barrett: It almost looks like Gaza, doesn’t it?

Ken Meyercord: Well, interestingly, no. These buildings are still standing because they weren’t bombed with explosives, but with fire bombs. So buildings, the concrete and steel buildings survived, but everything else was demolished.

Kevin Barrett: It’s a ravaged landscape in any case, city-scale.

Ken Meyercord: Yeah. And I just realized in making my movie—I can’t believe it never occurred to me. One of the most impactful images that convinces people how horrible the Holocaust was is the shoits of the piles of bodies in the concentration camps.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we might actually have some of those. Let me see… Is this a pile of bodies?

Ken Meyercord: That is a pile of bodies, interestingly. That’s a pile of German dead in Dresden being cremated. Or an attempt to cremate them. And the interesting thing about that is there’s a Zionist outfit out there called March for Life, I think it is. And they use that in their tours. They take young Jewish kids of tours of the concentration camps, and they use this shot in their publicity, thinking, well, it’s a pile of people being cremated, it must be Jews.

Kevin Barrett: Right.

Ken Meyercord: In fact, it’s Germans.....


https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/ken-meyercord-on-so-called-holocaust-denial/ 

Sunday, May 3, 2026

Ain't Nobody Happy - by Vox Day - Swiping should not be confused with sex

 Deltaman writes in to point out that the fact women are rejecting low-status men on social media does not mean that the Alphas of the world are necessarily cleaning up any more comprehensively than before.

Dating applications have not engineered a hyper-promiscuous elite of men who hoard physical sexual access; instead, they have manufactured a severe market distortion. By providing an illusion of limitless upward mobility, these platforms artificially inflate expectations and effectively price average women out of the dating pool, despite the fact that top-tier men are bound by the logistical and biological limits of their own sexual bandwidth....


https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/aint-nobody-happy?publication_id=2265630&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=y7h5a&utm_medium=email 

....Those are some of my conclusion beyond the data included. The data does do a reasonable job that the Chads are not sleeping with dozens of women per year but that’s actually irrelevant to the dating market if the average man on a dating app is functionally invisible.

I have to admit that I don’t pay very much attention to the current state of the dating market anymore, but it is true that the information that led everyone to conclude that the 80/20 attraction that Hoemath and others have pointed out meant that the attraction was being translated into sexual activity is nearly 15 years out of date.

And the new studies, which indicate that it’s not just the men who are being ignored does tend to correspond a lot more harmoniously with the endless laments of average women that there are “no good men” and that they haven’t even been hit on for an extended period of time.

The chads aren’t any busier than they have historically been, and they aren’t any more interested in average women than they have historically been. Basically, the 4s through 6s are rejecting the average guys, but they’re not getting anything out of it, because the Alphas and Bravos are simply ignoring them.

Friday, February 20, 2026

Why Deltas Fail in Leadership - by Vox Day - Sigma Game

 A man laments the SSH rank of his new boss:

For probably the first time in my life I’ve worked under a delta leader for an extended period of time. He’s a good dude and lacks any leadership chops. I hate it, and I see why it creates resentment.

If you’re a delta put in a leadership position, try to adopt the attitude “I will tear someone’s throat out, internal or external, for the sake of my guys”.

Inaction when your team is getting screwed is a one-way bullet train to be hated.

Now, I’m not privy to any of the details, but on the basis of what we know about Delta strengths and weaknesses, I think there are probably three problems compounding each other here:

  • Delta narcissism

  • Delta passiveness

  • Delta conflict-avoidance

Deltas always struggle in management and leadership positions because they don’t take personal interest or accountability in their subordinates or the situations faced by those subordinates. It’s not as if they try to set them up to fail, but that’s not infrequently the result.


https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/why-deltas-fail-in-leadership?publication_id=2265630&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=y7h5a&utm_medium=email 

Summary and Review of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz, Part 1 of 2 – The Occidental Observer

 “The ‘gas chambers’ were wartime propaganda hoaxes.”

 The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry by Arthur R. Butz

The apogee of banned books.

*         *         *

Over the past dozen or so years, my reading choices have reflected a greater movement in my soul — I have crossed the Rubicon of “conventional conservatism” into the red-pilled land of the dissident right. To be sure, I am a relative nobody — just my own version of Winston Smith who has progressively discovered that the curated version of reality that I have been inculcated to accept has been largely fabricated. Like Winston Smith, I discovered that the past (i.e., “history”) is in a constant state of alteration. Like Winston Smith, I live in an era in which objective truth itself is being destroyed. For whatever reason, I am drawn by an almost-pathological contrarianism to read and contemplate that which I have been told to avoid. Now, many years later I hold views that make me, by conventional standards, a deplorable of the first rank — worse, perhaps, because I am educated and well read.

In reading a variety of banned books and authors, I had yet to touch a work that attacked the singularity from which all banishments flow: the Holocaust. One can hold a variety of “deplorable” views and still retain some semblance of a public life even if such intellectual persuasions are deemed unforgiveable by elite culture. However, a revisionist (or a “denier”) of the Holocaust is deemed so foul — so awful — so heretical that it destroys the possibility of any public life in the modern West. The day is coming when these modern witch hunts end, and it is coming sooner that people realize.

So, I took the time recently to dip my toe into — dare I say it — Holocaust revisionism. In my intellectual journey, I have touched upon aspects of Holocaust mythology by reading — quite intensely at times — the suffering of the German people during and after the war and the moral bankruptcy of the “good guys” of WWII (i.e., the Allies). The modern orthodoxy that surrounds WWII and the post-war settlement is crucial to understand the “Pottersville” that we call the modern West — dissenting from it is tantamount to heresy in past ages. In that sense, I became a political heretic by reading politically heretical works.

To be candid, I have had serious reservations for some time about the standard Holocaust narrative although there was never any reason for me to focus on it. It is not that I doubt Jews — and other non-Germans — suffered through expulsion and exploitative slave labor that took place during total war. If that is a genocide, I do not deny it. I don’t think anyone denies that. Notwithstanding that proviso, the idea that the Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry through gassings, etc., always struck me as farfetched. It always reeked of the same outlandish elements of WWI propaganda against the “Hun” bayoneting Belgian babies. For full disclosure, I am ancestrally “Hun” or German. I know my people. I do not think they were (or are) capable of it — not only in the macabre sense but also in its gross stupidity. I have always viewed it — at least internally — as its own form of blood libel against my people.

Questioning the Holocaust in any fashion comes at a great personal cost. While I am undoubtedly contrarian, outsiders seldom understand the cost — the conscious cost — that comes from intellectual dissidence and political heresy of this type. True, there is something liberating in seeking the truth no matter the cost, but the unfurling of each layer of dissidence further isolates the dissident. Some people — especially the congenitally empathetic people of northwestern Europe — just want to get along. I fight an invisible battle within myself between my desire for truth (no matter the cost) and my predisposition to get along and understand the “other.” Be that as it may, the truth-seeking part of my being has gained the upper hand over my empathic amiability. Reading something like Arthur Butz’s takedown of the Holocaust narrative then followed a series of intellectual and moral steps. To take them all at once would be to careen down the entire flight of stairs. Taking them, however, one step and one book at a time led me to Butz.

So here I am — as if an inner compulsion towards understanding the truth drives me — reading and reviewing Arthur Butz’s work, which follows herein. Again, to demonstrate how powerful the persecution that follows from questioning the Holocaust narrative, reading — and certainly reviewing — this book is enough to get anyone in the United States fired. That alone speaks to the level of cultural and political totalitarianism that exists. It is, to say the very least, a dangerous book to take seriously. So be it.

What strikes me about an author like Butz is his fearlessness and imperviousness to outside pressure. Butz, a native of New York City, was born in 1933. He is an American electrical engineer and a long-time faculty member at Northwestern University, which is, at least for the uninitiated, one of the finest universities in the United States. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and he completed his PhD at the University of Minnesota. The only reason he remains a faculty member at Northwestern University is that he was tenured in 1974 — he is as ostracized at Northwestern as a tenured professor can be because of his views and research on the Holocaust. The tapestry of the academy will permit — and even celebrate — a variety of anti-social views such as acclaiming White genocide, championing Stalinism, blaspheming Christ, cheering violence, or defending the worst sexual depravity. All these outlandish views find academics who will defend their substance or at least see them as being cloaked in the First Amendment view that lauds their “courage.”

But Butz has no academic champions, and that lacuna should tell us something about the moment of time in which we live. Think about it — numerous professors openly espouse the desirability of White genocide — genocide of me and my children, and they are openly celebrated by the academy. The double standard is real: see it applied to those who question the Holocaust narrative based upon assessments of the evidence without any ostensible guile and they are instantly turned into “untouchables.” Whatever moment of history this is, it cannot last much longer. Butz accordingly has always been an army of one. Setting aside his lack of qualifications as an historian, Butz is a very, very smart individual (an MIT graduate and engineer after all) who has demonstrated an almost otherworldly obtuseness to outside pressure.

He is also an unusual suspect to have taken such a stance. While, at least to my knowledge, Butz has not provided a detailed public account of his personal motivations or a precise “origin story” for his interest in the Holocaust. However, based on his own statements in contemporary interviews around the time of his book’s publication, he described becoming interested through reading various books on the subject and studying the records of the Nuremberg Trials. He began his research in the summer of 1972, leading to the completion of his manuscript (which became The Hoax of the Twentieth Century) by the following spring. No sources indicate a specific triggering event, personal experience, or earlier ideological bent—such as prior involvement in “far-right” circles. Indeed, this is a man who is an elite academic and was educated at — and educating at — some of the most elite American institutions. That he would effectively throw away his standing as an elite is curious, to say the very least. In a sense, he is that one strange bird that followed an intellectual curiosity with an otherworldly tenacity and absolute moral belief in the truth. He is the classic pattern of low conformity (lack of intimidation by groupthink); high openness (vision of possibilities others miss); high cognitive abilities (comprehension of how systems work); and a strong internal compass (willing to bear the social opprobrium). Regardless of whether he is right or not, men like Butz fascinate me — they fearlessly challenge orthodoxies and systems. If such a man and type confront a thoroughly corrupt system, heroes are born........

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2026/02/19/summary-and-review-of-the-hoax-of-the-twentieth-century-by-arthur-r-butz/ 

Friday, February 6, 2026

Classic Western Cinema and the American Experience By Boyd D. Cathey

 In many respects our film industry represents what has happened in our culture. At its very finest it is capable of shining a vivid light on our beliefs and values, portraying them, dissecting them, and, like other art forms, it may become an instrument to affect or even shape our outlook and our politics.

In the United States the first significant commercial film ever produced and shown was a Western: The Great Train Robbery (1903), starring Bronco Billy Anderson. It was just twelve minutes long. American film culture began, thus, with a Western. It was from the classic Western that crime dramas and adventure films were spun off. One could well argue that major American crime movies up through, say, The Untouchables or even some more recent representations were “Westerns dressed up with cops and robbers.” And those magnificent adventure films about space exploration—the Star Wars and Star Trek series—are they not Westerns transported into the relative infinity of space and time, with our unquenchable desire to explore new frontiers “where no man has gone before”?

Indeed, it was famed Hollywood director Elia Kazan who once remarked that “the Western was the only film genre to have originated in America.”

It is the Western that represents so well and encapsulates so aptly the movement of American history, the aspirations and insatiable curiosity of our citizens, and just how we as a people overcame various challenges in building what became the United States of America. It is a story of conquering frontiers as a symbol for the growth and evolution of the American nation. It offers graphically and sometimes with violence the effects of right and wrong actions, and the absolute requirement for law and order in any civilized society. And it is, at its finest, a chronicle of great persons—some real, some idealized, others made up—by whose hands a nation was fashioned.

We hold those persons up as heroes and as models. Thus, a Davy Crocket, a Wild Bill Hickok, a Sam Houston, a Buffalo Bill, a Jesse James—all real flesh-and-blood people in our past—have vividly emerged from the pages of our history books and have entered our consciousness, into our everyday lives. Sometimes, as in the case of a Billy the Kid or maybe the Clantons of Old Tombstone, they become iconic representations of the “bad guys”—of the less savory symbols of our history. But in all cases, they have become reference points that make our history alive and tangible.

The better Westerns become vehicles for memory and memorialization of history and heroes that oftentimes can seem remote or forgotten. In this sense, the Western took over the role of the great historic legends and inherited myths—the Sagas from Scandinavia, the legend of the Holy Grail in England and Brittany, or King Arthur and the Round Table. And in more recent times, as the nation has seemed to sink into decay and moral uncertainty, the Western has—often graphically—represented that, too.

As much of Hollywood has moved strongly to the ideological Left over the past decades, the Hollywood Western also has also reflected that movement in the subjects and messages it seeks to portray. Indeed, the fact that since the late 1960s and early 1970s the Western has receded as a major film genre is, in itself, significant. For the Western, more than other cinematic manifestations, is autobiographical about the growth, trials, and, above all, successes of and pride in the American experience. Since certainly the late 1960s, Vietnam, and the great success of cultural Marxism in our society, the role of the Western as a reflection of the triumph of traditional “good” over “evil,” of the ever-advancing and intrepid frontiersman triumphing over natural hazards, over the elements and fierce aborigines, has receded. America no longer celebrates those heroes; if it celebrates “heroes” at all, it is the vaunted pioneers in civil rights, a Susan B. Anthony or a Martin Luther King, or hitherto unknown feminists (who, save for political correctness, should have remained unknown).

Right and wrong, black and white are muddied; we live in an age of the anti-hero, where inherited and tried-and-true standards of morality and moral conduct are not only shunted aside, but often ridiculed.

What does John Wayne in, for example, The Searchers or She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, have to tell us in our society now where even the concept of duty and obedience to moral right is largely downplayed and considered unsophisticated by the dominant culture?

In one of the last great classic Western epics, Sam Peckinpah’s Ride the High from 1962, Joel McCrea is asked by his co-star, Randolph Scott, if he doesn’t really want more in life than just what appears to Scott to be his existence as a lonely, lowly paid deputy marshal. McCrea’s character, Steve Judd, responds laconically in one of those immortal lines that epitomizes both the representative and the didactic roles of the American Western: “All I want is to enter my house justified.” That is, I want to fulfill my duty and appointed role in society, to obey and keep the law, to receive the precious legacy of the culture I inherited, perhaps add to it a bit, and then pass it on, unsullied, to my children and my posterity.

Is this not the message that the classic Western offered us, and, as well, was inculcated into the imaginations of millions of young boys and girls, as well as older adults, during its heyday? Was this not the message of Matt Dillon on TV’s “Gunsmoke” or Ben Cartwright of the Ponderosa?

In that superb John Ford Western, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, also from 1962, after Jimmy Stewart has recounted to the assembled newsmen the long history of how he accidentally took the credit for John Wayne’s gun down of the infamous bandit Liberty Valance (played deliciously by Lee Marvin) and how it propelled him to fame and to the United States Senate—and how what has been believed for years was essentially built on a legend—a stunned news reporter replies: “This is the West, sir. When legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

America—the America we have loved and wish to preserve and restore—has been dying a slow death for years for lack not only of genuine heroes, but for lack of sometimes shadowy, often-times mythical, legends. For our society, our culture, is not just built on the quantifiable advances of science and materiality, or on the history of new “civil rights” laws, or on the growth of the sports and entertainment industry. Every culture has its legends, its quasi-mythical past that inspires it and adds a certain attractive richness and purpose to its existence. Without that, something integral, something very real and essential in the history of those entities would be lacking.

I remember going to see Ride the High Country with my dad at the old Ambassador Theater in downtown Raleigh. It was one of those indelible and intensely moving experiences that always remains with me. For my father, growing up in the Charlotte area, which had also been the home of Randolph Scott, the event was special for him. After the movie, he took the time to explain to me that the Scott character who, initially, had skipped out on McCrea but returned to help him fight one last battle with the bad guys (led by James Drury), had earned redemption and paid the price for his “sin,” by returning. McCrea, in one of the most memorable death scenes in all film, has a final conversation with Scott. Scott tells him: “Don’t worry, I will take care of everything.” (Including getting the stolen gold shipment back into rightful hands.) McCrea replies: “Hell, I always knew you would—you just forgot for a while.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/02/no_author/917221-2/ 

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

How Jobs Become ‘Jobs Americans Just Won’t Do’ - American Thinker

In the eighties, I had a friend who worked for me on and off.  He was a competent handyman and could do an oil change without screwing it up, something that was always useful in an auto shop, which I ran.  Eventually, however, he got a better paying job as a drywaller.

Anyone who has ever done a home project with even a small drywall repair knows how difficult it is not to have even a small repair stick out like a sore thumb.  Stevie was good and patient.  He has that ability to measure with his eye.  And so he was a very good drywaller, making a respectable wage with some benefits.

But about a decade later, he came back to my shop, needing work.  He explained that his business had been taken over by mostly Hispanic workers, who worked as sub-contractors and were paid not by the hour, but by the number of sheets of drywall they hung.  No benefits, of course.  Their work may not have been great, but it was acceptable.

In all likelihood, many if not most of these new drywallers were illegal aliens.  And in a one-decade cycle, drywalling became one of those jobs Americans just won’t do.

There is no such thing as a job Americans just won’t do.  There are jobs Americans don’t want to or can’t get hired to do at the prevailing wage....

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/12/how_jobs_become_jobs_americans_just_won_t_do.html 

Three years ago, the men at the end of this chain showed up with tow trucks and flatbeds and seemed “American” in their speech and demeaner.  Over the past year and half, this has changed.  Guys wearing shorts and sandals (not a scrap of safety gear, such as boots or steel-toed shoes, or at least long pants) with little to no English started showing up with what looked like converted landscaper’s trailers pulled by pickup trucks.  Often, they could not communicate and spoke into their phones in strange tongues (not Spanish).  Through inquiry, I found that most of these guys came from “the Stans” (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan...also one from the Republic of Georgia).  It was clear from their frequent phone calls that they were directed by personnel located outside the United States.  How did they get here?  Who found this loophole to take over this seemingly insignificant industry?  What lack of laws, regulation, and common sense allows this?

So another set of jobs is suddenly “work Americans won’t do.”

There seems to be no stopping of the flow of immigrants, legal, illegal with green cards, without green cards, with H1-B visas and without.  I truly believe that the president is doing all he can do, but now it is time for Congress to step up to the plate and call a halt to all immigration for 25 years.  If there is a dire refugee crisis somewhere, then refugee camps can be set up outside the United States that can act as true temporary safe havens for genuine refugees.  If there is a group of refugees who seem like a good fit into our culture, Congress can go into session, carve out and exemption, and pass it.

But perhaps Congress as envisioned in the Constitution is just one more job Americans won’t do.