0 comment Sunday, November 30, 2014 | admin
A Russian political analyst, Igor Panarin, is predicting the breakup of the United States.
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.
[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.
I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.
As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.
As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.
Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.
As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.
Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.
Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.
How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.
[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.
I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.
As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.
As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.
Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.
As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.
Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.
Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.
How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.
Labels: Demographics, Disunity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Secession
0 comment Friday, November 28, 2014 | admin
Why would any of us want to cheer on the invasion and demographic transformation of another American community, especially one which has until very recently been homogeneous and liveable?
Schadenfreude, of course. It's one of my pet peeves regarding our side; the tendency to cheer on the demographic destruction of our own. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're all hurt when some part of America or the West in general is in danger of being lost or transformed for the worse. Our homeland shrinks each time this happens.
The community in question is Nantucket, Massachusetts. Now, despite my maternal New England roots, I've never visited New England, not even when I lived in the New York City area. I always intended to do so, but never got around to it. I've been in touch with some distant cousins on that side, but found them standoffish, at least in comparison to my kin in the South. Still, I wish them the best and I don't want to see them swamped by invaders, and I don't want the communities founded and built by our common ancestors to be lost and inherited by people who despise us and all we stand for.
One of the reasons given by some of the people who are gloating over the 'diversification' of Nantucket is that it is inhabited by rich White liberals, supposedly mostly blueblood WASP types, who deserve the worst things that can happen to them and their hometown.
However, this page which provides data on Nantucket, seems to show that people of English descent make up a scant 19.5 percent of the town's population.
Ancestries: English (19.5%), Irish (17.5%), French (7.0%), Italian (6.9%), German (6.8%), Scottish (6.0%).
Those figures don't account for everyone, so one wonders who the rest are, apart from the obvious minorities. Are they people who are so mixed as not to know their ancestry, or who call themselves just Americans? And as always I am certain that the statistics reflect far fewer immigrants than are actually present.
The Irish, French, and Italian-descended groups combined constitute a larger percentage than the English.
From all I know of New England (and granted, I haven't been there), very few areas remain, except perhaps the remote rural areas, which are populated mostly by original-stock WASP descendants. Whenever I read news stories datelined Massachusetts, I notice that Anglo-Saxon names are outnumbered by Italian, Irish, French, and even Portuguese surnames. I notice that the urban areas, according to what I read, are heavily minority, and there appear to be many Caribbean Islanders in New England, and many Brazilians.
So where are all these blue-blood WASPs supposed to be? Many of them, like one of my great-grandfathers, long since went West, pioneering back in the 19th century. Most of the descendants of these New England pioneers tend to be in the Midwest, which is now the last bastion of many predominantly White communities. I know from my family records that many of our related families went West to the Great Lakes states, and farther West to the Oregon territory. Some of their descendants are now solid heartland Americans, and not the effete New England liberals of many people's imagination.
I suppose there are some who have held on in the old stronghold, but it seems to me that WASPs are not the dominant group in Massachusetts these days. Time to find a new bogeyman.
And even liberal Whites can come to their senses and come 'into the light', as it were. Demographic transformation, however, is forever, more often than not. We should not be wishing that on any of our people, regardless of their politics. Every community that is 'taken over' is one more piece of our beautiful country that may be irretrievably lost, and it may be one less place of refuge for us or our children if and when our own communities become hostile and unliveable.
Schadenfreude, of course. It's one of my pet peeves regarding our side; the tendency to cheer on the demographic destruction of our own. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're all hurt when some part of America or the West in general is in danger of being lost or transformed for the worse. Our homeland shrinks each time this happens.
The community in question is Nantucket, Massachusetts. Now, despite my maternal New England roots, I've never visited New England, not even when I lived in the New York City area. I always intended to do so, but never got around to it. I've been in touch with some distant cousins on that side, but found them standoffish, at least in comparison to my kin in the South. Still, I wish them the best and I don't want to see them swamped by invaders, and I don't want the communities founded and built by our common ancestors to be lost and inherited by people who despise us and all we stand for.
One of the reasons given by some of the people who are gloating over the 'diversification' of Nantucket is that it is inhabited by rich White liberals, supposedly mostly blueblood WASP types, who deserve the worst things that can happen to them and their hometown.
However, this page which provides data on Nantucket, seems to show that people of English descent make up a scant 19.5 percent of the town's population.
Ancestries: English (19.5%), Irish (17.5%), French (7.0%), Italian (6.9%), German (6.8%), Scottish (6.0%).
Those figures don't account for everyone, so one wonders who the rest are, apart from the obvious minorities. Are they people who are so mixed as not to know their ancestry, or who call themselves just Americans? And as always I am certain that the statistics reflect far fewer immigrants than are actually present.
The Irish, French, and Italian-descended groups combined constitute a larger percentage than the English.
From all I know of New England (and granted, I haven't been there), very few areas remain, except perhaps the remote rural areas, which are populated mostly by original-stock WASP descendants. Whenever I read news stories datelined Massachusetts, I notice that Anglo-Saxon names are outnumbered by Italian, Irish, French, and even Portuguese surnames. I notice that the urban areas, according to what I read, are heavily minority, and there appear to be many Caribbean Islanders in New England, and many Brazilians.
So where are all these blue-blood WASPs supposed to be? Many of them, like one of my great-grandfathers, long since went West, pioneering back in the 19th century. Most of the descendants of these New England pioneers tend to be in the Midwest, which is now the last bastion of many predominantly White communities. I know from my family records that many of our related families went West to the Great Lakes states, and farther West to the Oregon territory. Some of their descendants are now solid heartland Americans, and not the effete New England liberals of many people's imagination.
I suppose there are some who have held on in the old stronghold, but it seems to me that WASPs are not the dominant group in Massachusetts these days. Time to find a new bogeyman.
And even liberal Whites can come to their senses and come 'into the light', as it were. Demographic transformation, however, is forever, more often than not. We should not be wishing that on any of our people, regardless of their politics. Every community that is 'taken over' is one more piece of our beautiful country that may be irretrievably lost, and it may be one less place of refuge for us or our children if and when our own communities become hostile and unliveable.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Ethnic Division, Illegal Immigration, Multiculturalism
0 comment Friday, November 14, 2014 | admin
According to this story which appeared in the UK Telegraph some 10 months ago:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote.
[...]
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
[...]
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended � even if this wasn't its main purpose � to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
[...]
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. "Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. ''
[Emphasis mine]
I was not blogging at the time this story broke last year, and I was not reading political blogs in general, so I have no idea how much discussion this generated among the right-wing bloggers. It should have generated a lot of anger but little surprise.
I think a lot of us have long believed that this whole 'enrichment by enforced diversity' was not simply a method of dealing with spontaneous demographic change, as our ruling classes imply, but a deliberate and malicious policy. I've said that this whole demographic disaster that is being visited on us was either done through abysmal incompetence or deliberate malice. I don't think our ruling classes are as incompetent as they are malicious, or hostile to us, the people of Western Christendom.
I particularly noticed the phrase in this article about 'rubbing the Right's noses in diversity.' Very telling. So at least one of their convoluted motivations was a vengeful attitude toward ethnoconservative citizens of our countries: ''Those xenophobic bigots don't like diversity? Well, we'll make sure they get it, good and hard.''
The left, at least the true-believing, 'mad dog' liberals as CWNY terms them, have at least as much malice and loathing towards White, especially Christian fellow-citizens as they have love for Diversity. Diversity is just one more weapon, one more battering ram, to be used against us. For these unhinged lefties, it isn't about love for poor downtrodden Third Worlders, it's about hate for their own neighbors.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote.
[...]
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
[...]
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended � even if this wasn't its main purpose � to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
[...]
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite. "Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. ''
[Emphasis mine]
I was not blogging at the time this story broke last year, and I was not reading political blogs in general, so I have no idea how much discussion this generated among the right-wing bloggers. It should have generated a lot of anger but little surprise.
I think a lot of us have long believed that this whole 'enrichment by enforced diversity' was not simply a method of dealing with spontaneous demographic change, as our ruling classes imply, but a deliberate and malicious policy. I've said that this whole demographic disaster that is being visited on us was either done through abysmal incompetence or deliberate malice. I don't think our ruling classes are as incompetent as they are malicious, or hostile to us, the people of Western Christendom.
I particularly noticed the phrase in this article about 'rubbing the Right's noses in diversity.' Very telling. So at least one of their convoluted motivations was a vengeful attitude toward ethnoconservative citizens of our countries: ''Those xenophobic bigots don't like diversity? Well, we'll make sure they get it, good and hard.''
The left, at least the true-believing, 'mad dog' liberals as CWNY terms them, have at least as much malice and loathing towards White, especially Christian fellow-citizens as they have love for Diversity. Diversity is just one more weapon, one more battering ram, to be used against us. For these unhinged lefties, it isn't about love for poor downtrodden Third Worlders, it's about hate for their own neighbors.
Labels: Celebrate Diversity, Demographics, Enforced Diversity, Mass Immigration, Treason
0 comment Wednesday, November 5, 2014 | admin
I've just come from a forum where a group of people, mostly British, were discussing the question of whether to emigrate from their country (as the media have been telling us they are doing), or to stay and try to defend and preserve their country, or what may be left of it after decades of mass immigration and multicultural madness.
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
Labels: Demographics, Ethnic Solidarity, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, White Flight
0 comment | admin
...and apathy?
A: I don't know and I don't care.
Okay, it's an old joke. But it seems relevant to my post today.
Earlier I happened to be watching a show on BBC America with a friend. The show was 'How Clean Is Your House?' (I confess, I am fascinated with these cleaning shows). In the episode, Aggie and Kim, the ''cleaning gurus" were in the Tower Hamlets borough of London helping to fight an infestation of rats. Apparently rats are increasing substantially in numbers in the UK. I guess that's what a huge increase in urban crowding plus squalid conditions brings.
But during the course of the program, Aggie and Kim visited a school in the area, and I was so shocked by the fact that I saw not one White British face in the classroom (except for those of Kim and Aggie, and maybe, possibly, the teacher) that I remarked aloud to my friend "There's not one British child there! That's the future of Britain.'
Granted, London, or one area of London does not represent all of Britain, just as New York or L.A. don't represent America. But all that we are reading about demographic trends in the UK, coupled with the pro-diversity, pro-immigration fanaticism of the elites spells a mostly nonwhite future for the UK. Now, I've been reading that and contemplating it for some time now, but somehow seeing it in this TV show in the form of the absence of rosy-cheeked British children in that classroom sort of brought it home visually for me.
But here's the dilemma I began to ponder: my friend reacted somewhat to the facts as I pointed them out to her, but it's obvious that although she may find it unfair or surprising, she clearly does not share my chagrin or my outrage about the loss of the UK and the marginalizing (or disappearance) of what was, historically, one of the great nations of people in the world.
To her, it's obviously not an emotional issue or even a visceral issue as it is for me. Maybe the fact that I have always been an Anglophile and the fact that the majority of my ancestors hailed from those isles makes it much more personal and hence more tragic to me.
But even when we talk about the homeland of my friend's ancestors, which is also being invaded and demographically swamped with third-worlders, she does not have any reaction other than one of detached annoyance. Her attitude seems to be, implicitly, ''that's too bad, but what can you do?" It's an attitude of resignation and acceptance.
And many people who may care somewhat about America are indifferent to what is happening in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Maybe we who have a larger sympathy with our brethren elsewhere in the West are a 'different', anomalous group of people. I am beginning to think so, and that is not a promising fact if it is true.
So here's the question I am mulling over. We often assume, those of us who are troubled by the demographic assault on our homeland, that what is needed is to 'wake people up' to the facts, and that, having awoken, they will rally to the cause. But will they?
It seems to me that for many people, knowledge alone will not arouse any impulse toward self-defense or defense of our people. Knowledge is not what's lacking, in most cases. Many people have heard the facts recited, but they simply refuse to process it, or they shrug and say 'what do we do?' and go on about their lives as if everything were fine.
We can impart knowledge to people, and that is something I try to do somewhat on this blog as well as in real life, but there has to be more. We need to cause people CARE about what is happening. If they don't intrinsically feel great love for this country or for their own people and heritage, they will not be roused to act in any way. What has happened to real love for people and country, or more immediately, home, hearth, and kin? It seems most people are content to hide their heads in the sand while our country is destroyed.
Can people who do not care be moved to care? Or is that feeling something that is either there, or it isn't?
I've been accused of being too subjective on this blog; I plead guilty. First, I'm a woman, and women are by nature prone to being more subjective and more emotional. We are the weaker sex in that sense. On the other hand, sometimes it is emotion and subjectivity that give us the motivation to stand up and to do what we can to stave off impending disaster. Those who are jaded and bereft of any deep attachment toward their people and their home will remain jaded and detached.
Can we succeed in stimulating any kind of positive emotional response in the uncaring and the indifferent? I don't know, but I certainly intend to keep on trying.
A: I don't know and I don't care.
Okay, it's an old joke. But it seems relevant to my post today.
Earlier I happened to be watching a show on BBC America with a friend. The show was 'How Clean Is Your House?' (I confess, I am fascinated with these cleaning shows). In the episode, Aggie and Kim, the ''cleaning gurus" were in the Tower Hamlets borough of London helping to fight an infestation of rats. Apparently rats are increasing substantially in numbers in the UK. I guess that's what a huge increase in urban crowding plus squalid conditions brings.
But during the course of the program, Aggie and Kim visited a school in the area, and I was so shocked by the fact that I saw not one White British face in the classroom (except for those of Kim and Aggie, and maybe, possibly, the teacher) that I remarked aloud to my friend "There's not one British child there! That's the future of Britain.'
Granted, London, or one area of London does not represent all of Britain, just as New York or L.A. don't represent America. But all that we are reading about demographic trends in the UK, coupled with the pro-diversity, pro-immigration fanaticism of the elites spells a mostly nonwhite future for the UK. Now, I've been reading that and contemplating it for some time now, but somehow seeing it in this TV show in the form of the absence of rosy-cheeked British children in that classroom sort of brought it home visually for me.
But here's the dilemma I began to ponder: my friend reacted somewhat to the facts as I pointed them out to her, but it's obvious that although she may find it unfair or surprising, she clearly does not share my chagrin or my outrage about the loss of the UK and the marginalizing (or disappearance) of what was, historically, one of the great nations of people in the world.
To her, it's obviously not an emotional issue or even a visceral issue as it is for me. Maybe the fact that I have always been an Anglophile and the fact that the majority of my ancestors hailed from those isles makes it much more personal and hence more tragic to me.
But even when we talk about the homeland of my friend's ancestors, which is also being invaded and demographically swamped with third-worlders, she does not have any reaction other than one of detached annoyance. Her attitude seems to be, implicitly, ''that's too bad, but what can you do?" It's an attitude of resignation and acceptance.
And many people who may care somewhat about America are indifferent to what is happening in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Maybe we who have a larger sympathy with our brethren elsewhere in the West are a 'different', anomalous group of people. I am beginning to think so, and that is not a promising fact if it is true.
So here's the question I am mulling over. We often assume, those of us who are troubled by the demographic assault on our homeland, that what is needed is to 'wake people up' to the facts, and that, having awoken, they will rally to the cause. But will they?
It seems to me that for many people, knowledge alone will not arouse any impulse toward self-defense or defense of our people. Knowledge is not what's lacking, in most cases. Many people have heard the facts recited, but they simply refuse to process it, or they shrug and say 'what do we do?' and go on about their lives as if everything were fine.
We can impart knowledge to people, and that is something I try to do somewhat on this blog as well as in real life, but there has to be more. We need to cause people CARE about what is happening. If they don't intrinsically feel great love for this country or for their own people and heritage, they will not be roused to act in any way. What has happened to real love for people and country, or more immediately, home, hearth, and kin? It seems most people are content to hide their heads in the sand while our country is destroyed.
Can people who do not care be moved to care? Or is that feeling something that is either there, or it isn't?
I've been accused of being too subjective on this blog; I plead guilty. First, I'm a woman, and women are by nature prone to being more subjective and more emotional. We are the weaker sex in that sense. On the other hand, sometimes it is emotion and subjectivity that give us the motivation to stand up and to do what we can to stave off impending disaster. Those who are jaded and bereft of any deep attachment toward their people and their home will remain jaded and detached.
Can we succeed in stimulating any kind of positive emotional response in the uncaring and the indifferent? I don't know, but I certainly intend to keep on trying.
Labels: Britain, Demographics, Displacement, Diversity, Mass Immigration
0 comment Thursday, October 30, 2014 | admin
In yesterday's mail, among the advertising flyers, there was one of those Wal-Mart ads, which many of you probably received. On the front was a picture of four children in Hallowe'en costumes, and I couldn't help noticing the 'multicultural' makeup of the group of children. One of them was black, or mixed-black, one obviously Mexican, one of indeterminate (possibly Asian) race, and off to the left was one lone white child, a blonde girl.
In the early days of civil rights agitation, angry protesters picketed TV stations to demand the hiring of black reporters or anchors. In one rather absurd incident, back in 1970, a group picketed a major retailer because their mannequins were too white, and the protesters demanded the placement of black mannequins with Afro hairstyles -- 'white' hair would not be acceptable. The rationale behind the demands was always that any group of people -- or mannequins, apparently -- had to reflect the actual percentages of each race in society. However as we've seen, those quotas apparently have shifted to making whitey a minority in the media and in advertising. A cursory look at the demographics of actors in advertising and the numbers of minorities in the news media would lead us to conclude that minorities must now in fact be a majority, or close to it.
When I showed the Wally World advertising to a friend who was here at the time, and asked 'do you think they are sending a message?' she understood what I meant, and agreed. She then proceeded to tell me that in our local Christian school, the children in the younger grades are being taught Spanish. It's not as if it's an elective course in the upper grades as before, but Spanish is taught to all students in the lower grades. Mind you, this is in a town which has a rather low percentage of Hispanics, if you believe the official census figures from a few years ago. We've seen major demographic changes within a few short years in many areas, though my area is still fairly homogenous.
I can believe that a public school, which is bound to obey the dictates of multiculturalism, would do such a thing, but a private, Christian-run school? I'm afraid my once-conservative, Calvinistic neighbors have bought into the modern, liberalizing 'emergent church' phenomenon, and are now adopting many of the ideas that used to belong only to those watered-down liberal denominations.
But as to the demographic trends in my town, and county, officially Hispanics make up only 5 percent of our town -- up from 1-2 percent in the previous count. But there are signs: in the supermarket where I shop, sometimes local schoolchildren are taken on field trips there to see how the supermarket operates, and how people work. Recently one second-grade class had left a handmade thank-you message to the manager, thanking him for letting them visit. The children signed their names. Among the usual Kaydens and Jaidyns and Taylors and Tanners and Mykaylas, there were several Hispanic names such as Guadalupe, Cruz, Marisol, Javier. A quick calculation of the number of Hispanic names makes it look as though the class was about one-fourth Hispanic. I fully expect the ratio to grow. In ten years' time, what will it be?
The little girl in the Wal-Mart ad will be representative of white American kids in another ten years, probably, outnumbered 3 to 1. In some areas, such as in border states, this is already the case.
There are relatively few Hispanics in my town -- as yet -- but those who are here seem to be having a bigger share of the children. And my town is one with a higher-than-average family size, being mostly populated by Christians who still believe in large families. Still, the numbers are not in our favor.
We have see the handwriting on the wall, and though it's in Spanish, we can read the message.
In the early days of civil rights agitation, angry protesters picketed TV stations to demand the hiring of black reporters or anchors. In one rather absurd incident, back in 1970, a group picketed a major retailer because their mannequins were too white, and the protesters demanded the placement of black mannequins with Afro hairstyles -- 'white' hair would not be acceptable. The rationale behind the demands was always that any group of people -- or mannequins, apparently -- had to reflect the actual percentages of each race in society. However as we've seen, those quotas apparently have shifted to making whitey a minority in the media and in advertising. A cursory look at the demographics of actors in advertising and the numbers of minorities in the news media would lead us to conclude that minorities must now in fact be a majority, or close to it.
When I showed the Wally World advertising to a friend who was here at the time, and asked 'do you think they are sending a message?' she understood what I meant, and agreed. She then proceeded to tell me that in our local Christian school, the children in the younger grades are being taught Spanish. It's not as if it's an elective course in the upper grades as before, but Spanish is taught to all students in the lower grades. Mind you, this is in a town which has a rather low percentage of Hispanics, if you believe the official census figures from a few years ago. We've seen major demographic changes within a few short years in many areas, though my area is still fairly homogenous.
I can believe that a public school, which is bound to obey the dictates of multiculturalism, would do such a thing, but a private, Christian-run school? I'm afraid my once-conservative, Calvinistic neighbors have bought into the modern, liberalizing 'emergent church' phenomenon, and are now adopting many of the ideas that used to belong only to those watered-down liberal denominations.
But as to the demographic trends in my town, and county, officially Hispanics make up only 5 percent of our town -- up from 1-2 percent in the previous count. But there are signs: in the supermarket where I shop, sometimes local schoolchildren are taken on field trips there to see how the supermarket operates, and how people work. Recently one second-grade class had left a handmade thank-you message to the manager, thanking him for letting them visit. The children signed their names. Among the usual Kaydens and Jaidyns and Taylors and Tanners and Mykaylas, there were several Hispanic names such as Guadalupe, Cruz, Marisol, Javier. A quick calculation of the number of Hispanic names makes it look as though the class was about one-fourth Hispanic. I fully expect the ratio to grow. In ten years' time, what will it be?
The little girl in the Wal-Mart ad will be representative of white American kids in another ten years, probably, outnumbered 3 to 1. In some areas, such as in border states, this is already the case.
There are relatively few Hispanics in my town -- as yet -- but those who are here seem to be having a bigger share of the children. And my town is one with a higher-than-average family size, being mostly populated by Christians who still believe in large families. Still, the numbers are not in our favor.
We have see the handwriting on the wall, and though it's in Spanish, we can read the message.
Labels: Demographics, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Wal-Mart
0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 | admin
This recent article discusses the phenomenon of black flight. We read a great deal about so-called "white flight", but what with the massive influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, in recent decades, it's not only whites that are fleeing, but blacks.
The media have succeeded in downplaying the stories of clashes between blacks and Hispanics in California and elsewhere, but there is no denying that the races, in general, don't get along. And blacks are not any more likely than whites (probably less so) to welcome the transformation of their neighborhoods and towns into Spanish-speaking enclaves.
The article describes the surge in the black population of Victorville, California, as blacks move there from the greater Los Angeles area.
The article does not deal with the white aspect of this situation: are white people then in turn displaced from towns like Victorville, as black people double in population there? One would think so, especially considering the increased crime which has accompanied the demographic change:
''Ken Jones, a high-school dropout who is learning construction skills, says his family moved from Los Angeles to get him away from gangs. It worked�he describes his life in Victorville as a "retirement". But he says gangs and crime are becoming entrenched. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of robberies in Victorville increased by 62%. "They bring their lifestyle with them," says Jim Melton, a youth worker.''
Of course they bring their lifestyle with them; this should go without saying. But it is an article of liberal faith these days that people have no intrinsic nature; they are mere products of their environment. If they live in an inner-city slum, that environment causes them to be more crime-prone and to be poor and undereducated. The liberal would never think it the other way: the inner-city slum is a slum because of the traits of the people who inhabit it. Poverty is a result of bad life-choices in many cases, not the cause.
So yes, people bring their ghetto lifestyle with them when they move to quiet little suburbs. And those quiet little suburbs will not be quiet for long.
And the immigrants who are now such a substantial proportion of California's population all brought their 'lifestyles' with them from Mexico or India or China or wherever they arrived from. So their presence will lead to a replication of the conditions they left behind. We see this happening, and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberal dogma.
So blacks are fleeing the immigrant tsunami, and whites are fleeing the influx from the ghettos as well as from the third world.
Why is it that only whites are considered blameworthy for packing up and leaving a transformed area? So many of the articles written about "white flight" take a critical tone, and describe "white flight" as nothing but a manifestation of 'racism' and bigotry. Why is this? Most minorities and white liberals say that 'racism' is a white 'sickness' and that all whites are innately racist. Why, then, is it somehow necessary for minorities to be able to live in proximity to these 'racist' whites, and to be educated with them and work with them? Think about it: it makes no sense. Wouldn't blacks prefer to live among their own, especially since they complain that whitey discriminates against them and treats them rudely? Similarly with Hispanics and other immigrants: they complain of 'gringo' racism and general bad behavior toward them. Why on earth would minorities then complain bitterly when racist whitey does not choose to live among them? Why would they even resort to lawsuits and the use of government force to compel whitey to associate with them?
Another tenet of liberal faith is that separation is bad, immoral, and downright evil.
Why?
Why do blacks and other minorities want to follow 'racists' and remain in close proximity to them? Is this not irrational and counterintuitive? Separation is in some situations highly desirable and healthy for all parties, especially when relations are strained and clashes appear inevitable.
I realize the rationale that is offered for why minorities insist on requiring white people to associate with them. The rationale is that whites keep all good things for themselves and refuse to share the best with non-whites, so they must be forced to allow non-whites to attend their superior schools in their superior and more livable neighborhoods. Non-whites "know" that their schools and neighborhoods are inferior and dysfunctional precisely because whitey has monopolized everything good for himself, and cheated non-whites of their rightful share of all the good things.
White schools supposedly have more money and more resources and more 'pull' with authorities and so they are therefore better than mostly minority schools. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, the parents, the home life of the families, so says the liberal dogma. It has to do with 'discrimination' and "institutional racism."
The answer is more contact among the races and more money of course.
Blacks and other minorities see white flight as 'racism' and 'hate' because they think it is a deprivation of their lawful right to associate with whites, even forcibly.
So our controlled liberal media dutifully tsk-tsk about 'white flight', describing it as evidence of ongoing racism on the part of whites.
I've said before, and I believe, that people have a natural affinity for their own kind; people prefer to live among people similar to themselves. We are comfortable with people who have very similar values, customs, preferences, and standards. Like attracts like; birds of a feather flock together, as the old saying has it.
Given this natural affinity for those like ourselves, it is understandable that blacks and Hispanics want to live among their own and worship in churches with others of similar habits and customs. But yet, despite their very obvious preferences for their own, they still complain and raise a fuss at any sign of "white flight" or of any hint of separation or ''segregation''. Why this paradox?
I think they recognize, deep down if not consciously, that the 'better', more desirable neighborhoods and schools and towns ARE better and more desirable because whites tend to create more harmonious, livable, and well-functioning institutions and communities. They realize, although they would never acknowledge it, that they do not create livable places for themselves, but can only seek out what has already been created by others. I suppose this fact must surely foster a lot of resentment: imagine feeling dependent on someone you resent and even despise. It must be a very unpleasant state of being.
But my concern right now is: with the vast game of musical chairs that is being forced on us by our 'elites', what now, as blacks are being displaced by opportunistic immigrants, and whites are now being displaced yet again?
In the past, anyone choosing for whatever reason to become an expatriate might relocate to a congenial Western European country, or another Anglophone country. But now, all these countries are being transformed too, as our possessed rulers are engaged in this frenzied rush to third-world status.
Our enemies among the Aztlan 'reconquista' forces taunt us 'gringos', telling us to ''go back to Europe, Pilgrim!"
Unfortunately this is not a good plan at the moment, as the Camp of the Saints invasion is underway in the lands of our ancestors.
Most of us, in any case, love this country, or at least love our people, and would consider emigration only as a last resort. But where is there a place in this country that is still relatively untouched by the government-assisted invasion? My plan, before I realized how far-gone my country was, involved going back to Texas and finishing my life in the place where several generations of my family lived and died, and being buried with my kin in the family cemetery in south Texas. Now the handwriting is on the wall: it may be that the Trans-Texas Corridor will cut right through that part of Texas, through that very place where I had hoped to sleep one day. And even if it doesn't, the reconquista is practically a fait accompli there; one day I expect that the Lone Star flag will be replaced by the vulture flag of Mexico, and my ancestors' toils in Texas, and the blood they shed, will have been in vain.
So, I considered the Southeast, hoping that some corner of that area would survive with Southron culture intact. But that, too, seems unlikely as I hear of the all-out invasion of the Southeast; there is not only a large Mexican colony there but the 'refugee industry' is feverishly working to settle many exotic people in the Southeast. It looks as though the elites have decided that we old Americans can run but we can't hide. They are, I am convinced, out to foil "white flight" by ensuring that every place is as multicultural as every other place. No pristine corners of old America are to be allowed to survive intact. I find this all very creepy and malevolent. What kind of system wages war on its own people, and unleashes a planned invasion? I am convinced that there is method to this madness; it is not accident. It is chaos, but it is deliberately fostered chaos.
Where is there to flee? Do any of you live in areas which are still intact, or are we all under siege?
I know some of you have talked of relocating, feeling that the cause is lost, and there is nothing to do but move elsewhere. Some have considered Europe or other English-speaking countries; others insist that Europe is worse off than America. Still others have said the opposite is true; Europe has a smaller percentage of foreigners in their midst than we in America, and Europeans have the advantage of a strong national heritage, whereas we in the U.S. have in too many cases bought the 'proposition nation' propaganda or our own heritage is too mixed or too remote to have a strong identity as our European cousins have.
What's the future for us? Is it cowardly or defeatist or disloyal to consider moving, even within our own country?
Should we stand our ground where we are, or is it a lost cause? Where are the places which are likely to survive with enough of their original character intact?
If emigration is the best option, what is the best destination? I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of running to another country; I think, ideally, Western countries should have very tight immigration policies. Each country should be for the historic people of that country; no country should be held responsible for taking in immigrants from other failed countries. I respect the right of a country to shut the doors to outsiders. Nobody owes it to us to take us in.
Some think that there should be a common overriding 'European' identity, with which many of us could align. But I don't think Europeans feel this way; they have strong national feelings. For instance, some have argued that it's fine for Polish people to immigrate en masse to say, the UK or Ireland "because they are white and they will eventually assimilate and fit in." I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Polish people are not just like British or Irish people, despite their white European origin. Poles have a strong national identity and Polish colonies in Ireland or Britain would be out of place. Polish people should remain in Poland and improve it, just as Mexicans should stay in Mexico and work to improve their dysfunctional country.
Likewise I don't think European countries should be expected to welcome American 'refugees.'
Personally I would never move to a country in which I would be a fish out of water, a country to which I could never assimilate. I think anybody who moves to a place with a different culture should plan to blend in fully, and if that is not possible, they should not go at all.
As for me, I will probably finish out my days in America; my ancestors came here 400 years ago, and some of them many thousands of years ago. I'm a little too old and set in my ways to emigrate but I respect the feelings of those for whom that choice seems the best one.
What are my readers' thoughts and experiences with relocating?
The media have succeeded in downplaying the stories of clashes between blacks and Hispanics in California and elsewhere, but there is no denying that the races, in general, don't get along. And blacks are not any more likely than whites (probably less so) to welcome the transformation of their neighborhoods and towns into Spanish-speaking enclaves.
The article describes the surge in the black population of Victorville, California, as blacks move there from the greater Los Angeles area.
The article does not deal with the white aspect of this situation: are white people then in turn displaced from towns like Victorville, as black people double in population there? One would think so, especially considering the increased crime which has accompanied the demographic change:
''Ken Jones, a high-school dropout who is learning construction skills, says his family moved from Los Angeles to get him away from gangs. It worked�he describes his life in Victorville as a "retirement". But he says gangs and crime are becoming entrenched. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of robberies in Victorville increased by 62%. "They bring their lifestyle with them," says Jim Melton, a youth worker.''
Of course they bring their lifestyle with them; this should go without saying. But it is an article of liberal faith these days that people have no intrinsic nature; they are mere products of their environment. If they live in an inner-city slum, that environment causes them to be more crime-prone and to be poor and undereducated. The liberal would never think it the other way: the inner-city slum is a slum because of the traits of the people who inhabit it. Poverty is a result of bad life-choices in many cases, not the cause.
So yes, people bring their ghetto lifestyle with them when they move to quiet little suburbs. And those quiet little suburbs will not be quiet for long.
And the immigrants who are now such a substantial proportion of California's population all brought their 'lifestyles' with them from Mexico or India or China or wherever they arrived from. So their presence will lead to a replication of the conditions they left behind. We see this happening, and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberal dogma.
So blacks are fleeing the immigrant tsunami, and whites are fleeing the influx from the ghettos as well as from the third world.
Why is it that only whites are considered blameworthy for packing up and leaving a transformed area? So many of the articles written about "white flight" take a critical tone, and describe "white flight" as nothing but a manifestation of 'racism' and bigotry. Why is this? Most minorities and white liberals say that 'racism' is a white 'sickness' and that all whites are innately racist. Why, then, is it somehow necessary for minorities to be able to live in proximity to these 'racist' whites, and to be educated with them and work with them? Think about it: it makes no sense. Wouldn't blacks prefer to live among their own, especially since they complain that whitey discriminates against them and treats them rudely? Similarly with Hispanics and other immigrants: they complain of 'gringo' racism and general bad behavior toward them. Why on earth would minorities then complain bitterly when racist whitey does not choose to live among them? Why would they even resort to lawsuits and the use of government force to compel whitey to associate with them?
Another tenet of liberal faith is that separation is bad, immoral, and downright evil.
Why?
Why do blacks and other minorities want to follow 'racists' and remain in close proximity to them? Is this not irrational and counterintuitive? Separation is in some situations highly desirable and healthy for all parties, especially when relations are strained and clashes appear inevitable.
I realize the rationale that is offered for why minorities insist on requiring white people to associate with them. The rationale is that whites keep all good things for themselves and refuse to share the best with non-whites, so they must be forced to allow non-whites to attend their superior schools in their superior and more livable neighborhoods. Non-whites "know" that their schools and neighborhoods are inferior and dysfunctional precisely because whitey has monopolized everything good for himself, and cheated non-whites of their rightful share of all the good things.
White schools supposedly have more money and more resources and more 'pull' with authorities and so they are therefore better than mostly minority schools. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, the parents, the home life of the families, so says the liberal dogma. It has to do with 'discrimination' and "institutional racism."
The answer is more contact among the races and more money of course.
Blacks and other minorities see white flight as 'racism' and 'hate' because they think it is a deprivation of their lawful right to associate with whites, even forcibly.
So our controlled liberal media dutifully tsk-tsk about 'white flight', describing it as evidence of ongoing racism on the part of whites.
I've said before, and I believe, that people have a natural affinity for their own kind; people prefer to live among people similar to themselves. We are comfortable with people who have very similar values, customs, preferences, and standards. Like attracts like; birds of a feather flock together, as the old saying has it.
Given this natural affinity for those like ourselves, it is understandable that blacks and Hispanics want to live among their own and worship in churches with others of similar habits and customs. But yet, despite their very obvious preferences for their own, they still complain and raise a fuss at any sign of "white flight" or of any hint of separation or ''segregation''. Why this paradox?
I think they recognize, deep down if not consciously, that the 'better', more desirable neighborhoods and schools and towns ARE better and more desirable because whites tend to create more harmonious, livable, and well-functioning institutions and communities. They realize, although they would never acknowledge it, that they do not create livable places for themselves, but can only seek out what has already been created by others. I suppose this fact must surely foster a lot of resentment: imagine feeling dependent on someone you resent and even despise. It must be a very unpleasant state of being.
But my concern right now is: with the vast game of musical chairs that is being forced on us by our 'elites', what now, as blacks are being displaced by opportunistic immigrants, and whites are now being displaced yet again?
In the past, anyone choosing for whatever reason to become an expatriate might relocate to a congenial Western European country, or another Anglophone country. But now, all these countries are being transformed too, as our possessed rulers are engaged in this frenzied rush to third-world status.
Our enemies among the Aztlan 'reconquista' forces taunt us 'gringos', telling us to ''go back to Europe, Pilgrim!"
Unfortunately this is not a good plan at the moment, as the Camp of the Saints invasion is underway in the lands of our ancestors.
Most of us, in any case, love this country, or at least love our people, and would consider emigration only as a last resort. But where is there a place in this country that is still relatively untouched by the government-assisted invasion? My plan, before I realized how far-gone my country was, involved going back to Texas and finishing my life in the place where several generations of my family lived and died, and being buried with my kin in the family cemetery in south Texas. Now the handwriting is on the wall: it may be that the Trans-Texas Corridor will cut right through that part of Texas, through that very place where I had hoped to sleep one day. And even if it doesn't, the reconquista is practically a fait accompli there; one day I expect that the Lone Star flag will be replaced by the vulture flag of Mexico, and my ancestors' toils in Texas, and the blood they shed, will have been in vain.
So, I considered the Southeast, hoping that some corner of that area would survive with Southron culture intact. But that, too, seems unlikely as I hear of the all-out invasion of the Southeast; there is not only a large Mexican colony there but the 'refugee industry' is feverishly working to settle many exotic people in the Southeast. It looks as though the elites have decided that we old Americans can run but we can't hide. They are, I am convinced, out to foil "white flight" by ensuring that every place is as multicultural as every other place. No pristine corners of old America are to be allowed to survive intact. I find this all very creepy and malevolent. What kind of system wages war on its own people, and unleashes a planned invasion? I am convinced that there is method to this madness; it is not accident. It is chaos, but it is deliberately fostered chaos.
Where is there to flee? Do any of you live in areas which are still intact, or are we all under siege?
I know some of you have talked of relocating, feeling that the cause is lost, and there is nothing to do but move elsewhere. Some have considered Europe or other English-speaking countries; others insist that Europe is worse off than America. Still others have said the opposite is true; Europe has a smaller percentage of foreigners in their midst than we in America, and Europeans have the advantage of a strong national heritage, whereas we in the U.S. have in too many cases bought the 'proposition nation' propaganda or our own heritage is too mixed or too remote to have a strong identity as our European cousins have.
What's the future for us? Is it cowardly or defeatist or disloyal to consider moving, even within our own country?
Should we stand our ground where we are, or is it a lost cause? Where are the places which are likely to survive with enough of their original character intact?
If emigration is the best option, what is the best destination? I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of running to another country; I think, ideally, Western countries should have very tight immigration policies. Each country should be for the historic people of that country; no country should be held responsible for taking in immigrants from other failed countries. I respect the right of a country to shut the doors to outsiders. Nobody owes it to us to take us in.
Some think that there should be a common overriding 'European' identity, with which many of us could align. But I don't think Europeans feel this way; they have strong national feelings. For instance, some have argued that it's fine for Polish people to immigrate en masse to say, the UK or Ireland "because they are white and they will eventually assimilate and fit in." I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Polish people are not just like British or Irish people, despite their white European origin. Poles have a strong national identity and Polish colonies in Ireland or Britain would be out of place. Polish people should remain in Poland and improve it, just as Mexicans should stay in Mexico and work to improve their dysfunctional country.
Likewise I don't think European countries should be expected to welcome American 'refugees.'
Personally I would never move to a country in which I would be a fish out of water, a country to which I could never assimilate. I think anybody who moves to a place with a different culture should plan to blend in fully, and if that is not possible, they should not go at all.
As for me, I will probably finish out my days in America; my ancestors came here 400 years ago, and some of them many thousands of years ago. I'm a little too old and set in my ways to emigrate but I respect the feelings of those for whom that choice seems the best one.
What are my readers' thoughts and experiences with relocating?
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Demographics, Displacement, Immigration
0 comment Monday, October 20, 2014 | admin
This article, by Frank Zoretich, appeared in the Albuquerque Tribune nearly seven years ago, in 2000.It's a lengthy piece, reporting on the ideas of Charles Truxillo, a 'Professor of Chicano Studies' who said that the
Southwest shall secede from U.S.
Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico, suggests "República del Norte" would be a good name for a new, sovereign Hispanic nation he foresees straddling the current border between the United States and Mexico.
The Republic of the North -- he predicts its creation as "an inevitability" -- would include all of the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado."
Stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, it would also include the northern tier of current Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas.
Its capital would probably be Los Angeles. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being "by any means necessary."
But in a recent interview at a coffee shop near the UNM campus, Truxillo said it was "unlikely" civil war would attend its birth.
Instead, he said, the creation of the Republic of the North will be accomplished by political process, by the "electoral pressure" of the future majority Hispanic population throughout the region rather than by violence.
"Not within the next 20 years but within 80 years," he said. "I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students' kids will live in it, sovereign and free."
Truxillo said it's his task to help develop a "cadre of intellectuals" to begin thinking about the practicalities of how the Republic of the North can become a reality.''
A cadre of intellectuals? Please; I have seen your Chicano 'intellectuals' and they have not a shred of logic or wisdom or knowledge in a whole crowd of them. They are irrational, childish, and lacking in respect for truth and facts.
In the past, of course, wars have erupted when states seceded from either parent nation -- including the U.S. Civil War to keep the South in the Union and, in Truxillo's quick description, "the Alamo and all that" when Texas declared itself independent of Mexico.
Truxillo said the U.S. Civil War settled the question of secession militarily but not in a legal sense. States do have the right to secede, he maintained, if -- as was untrue in the 1860s -- the rest of the country is willing to let them go.''
Let me interject here: Truxillo may be an affirmative action professor of some bogus discipline called 'Chicano studies' but he is ignorant here as regards state's rights. But let's go on:
How realistic is it? That's one of the key issues," Truxillo said. "It's not unfeasible as a premise -- and a realistic possibility when you consider global geopolitical trends. It could happen with the support of the U.S. government."
Yes, and obviously our rogue U.S. government is providing its full support to you and your co-ethnics.
He listed a number of international developments that he said would have seemed "far-fetched in the 1950s," including the breakup of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the apparently imminent creation of an independent West Bank Palestinian state agreed to by Israel, and ballot-box separatist movements aimed at achieving a Quebec independent of Canada.
The "tide of history" is moving the U.S.-Mexico border region toward political autonomy, Truxillo said.''
Well, I can't gainsay him there; it looks as though, tragically for us, he was right.
Truxillo goes on to relate how he 'learned' the 'truth' about the Southwest being stolen from his Hispanic ancestors by evil Anglos. He learned this from a radical 'Chicano' who, in 1967, participated in a takeover of a courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, N.M. He claims that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which Mexico surrendered claim to the Southwest, was not legitimate, and that the United States had not honored the terms of that treaty.
None of the rights of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were fulfilled," he told Tijerina. "None of the obligations were upheld. You told us this was our country, our patria, and that we should fight for our rights, that all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence.
"We will one day be a majority and reclaim our birthright by any means necessary -- and we shouldn't shy away."
[emphasis mine]
Who told Truxillo that he and his people (and why aren't Americans your people, Charles? You're American-born, probably of American-born parents) should 'fight for their rights'? Or that 'all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence'? Which of our founders said that? To take that Marxist nonsense as being part of American tradition is to pervert American tradition, which is what I said was happening: the enemies of the West, including unfortunately our homegrown enemies, pervert the meaning of our Constitution and our founding philosophies, just as they steal and corrupt the teachings of Christianity.
But notice his ominous words about Mexicans reclaiming 'their birthright' by any means necessary.
Even now, despite all the visible evidence that this takeover effort is well underway, there are the usual suspects, who try to dismiss the reconquista as a 'myth' and a conspiracy theory. And then there are the pestilential bleeding-heart types who say 'I know lots of very nice Hispanic people; it's only a few who are the extremists.' Heaven save us from the nice, stupid people in our country.
Truxillo says that some American-born Hispanics will resist the reconquista idea, but he predicted they would have a kind of identity crisis as the momentum for Hispanic independence grows. This is something I have predicted, too: Americanized Hispanics may seem to be on our side but many, especially the young, will find they are ambivalent and conflicted, and may become re-Hispanicized and ethnically militant, as young Moslems in Europe have done. Blood is thicker than 'national ideals.' Ethnicity trumps the 'proposition nation'. Truxillo's words:
There will be the negative reaction, the tortured response of someone who thinks, 'Give me a break. I just want to go to Wal-Mart.' But the idea will seep into their consciousness, and cause an internal crisis, a pain of conscience, an internal dialogue as they ask themselves: 'Who am I in this system?'"
Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border "there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections," Truxillo said. "Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again."
Read the rest of the article. The Anglo-American professors who are consulted by the reporter have their heads stuck in the sand, although to be fair, this was in 2000, before the illegal invasion was as far advanced as it is now. I wonder if these professors were interviewed today, would they have changed their tune?
A La Raza activist, Pena, is interviewed, and he says that Mexicans were, at that time, not organized enough to mount a successful independence movement. He notes, tellingly, that a 'Chicano' separatist movement couldn't have succeeded because they lacked the firepower. Now, of course, they have several tens of millions of footsoldiers within our borders, some of them heavily armed gang members. And even more importantly, they are accomplishing their objective without having to use the firepower; they are doing it the easy way, by demographics and manipulation of the native Anglo population -- and with the willing collaboration of the government.
If Truxillo and his reconquista buddies retake this country, it won't have been accomplished honorably or legitimately; it will have been done by sneaky, underhanded means, by stealth, deception, and manipulation. Again, our basic chivalric values are being used against us by sneaks and opportunists.
This link quotes Truxillo, in another source, saying
'A new age of nationalism is sweeping the planet. Norteños are like Palestinians, Quebecois and Sri Lanka Tamils.''
However, I don't believe that, once having achieved a solid majority and control of the institutions in the Southwest that this new 'Aztlan' would actually secede or declare autonomy. No way. They will simply remain attached to the U.S. Why be independent and become another loser country like Mexico if you can cling to Uncle Sam and his moneybags? And further, they are smart enough to realize that they can control the entire country if they simply keep doing what they are doing now. They would be extremely foolish to stop with the Southwest. I am sure these grasping reconquistadores won't settle for less than the whole country. They've already decided that as 'indigenous' people, this whole continent is rightfully theirs.
By any means necessary, as he said.
Obviously Truxillo and his fellow reconquistadores have counted us out already. He is counting on our nationalism not asserting itself in opposition to his. Maybe this 'new age of nationalism' he is talking about may hold some surprises for him and his invader friends.
Labels: Const, Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Mexico, Nationalism, Revisionist History
0 comment Thursday, October 2, 2014 | admin
The New York Times gushes about the wonders of interracial families, which, in the multicult's world-view, are inherently superior to monoracial, specifically, White families.
I suppose the zeal of the multicultists to ensure that everybody has an available nonwhite partner out there must be a big factor in their big push, since 1965, to de-Whiten America. After all, in a country with a small nonwhite population, Whites would be too likely to marry one another and have White children. And that is a highly undesirable state of affairs for the multicultists. So the percentage of nonwhites had to be increased drastically in order to accelerate things.
Many people have themselves convinced that the government's eagerness for mass immigration is due mostly to the desire for cheap labor on the part of business, but now we have liberals and 'progressives' more or less openly admitting what the older generations said back in the era of the Civil Rights Revolution: that intermarriage was an ultimate goal of such 'activism.'
The older generations said that then, and they were called 'bigots' for even suggesting that intermarriage was an implicit goal of 'desegregation' but now the media cheerfully and openly admit it.
And here's the scary part: the liberal/multiculti mindset thinks that intermarriage is so good, and indeed, so imperative for America, that they are willing to entertain the idea of governmental policies meddling in people's marital choices, as this Slate article on interracial marriage suggests:
...All these numbers may be climbing, but they remain low. What's more, the white-black marriage rate lags significantly behind rates of white intermarriage with other, nonblack races. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, 52 percent of Native Americans and 40 percent of Asians married outside their race, while only 6 percent of blacks did so. The racism that kept Alabama's constitution unchanged has hardly been eradicated. Whether these habits will change on their own, with the maturation of a more tolerant generation, or whether full social acceptance of black Americans will require a concerted governmental effort, is unknowable. In the meantime, we can take only meager pride in achieving a society in which interracial marriage is safe, legal, and, alas, rare.''
I wonder if Mr. Greenberg is married to a nonwhite spouse?
What kind of 'concerted governmental effort', one wonders, would be contemplated? Penalizing those who participate in 'racist' marriages with those of their own race? Making such marriages a 'hate-crime'? Incentives for interracial marriages? What?
First, the laws against interracial marriage were overturned and now the homosexual agenda is following that precedent to press for same-sex marriage as a 'right.'
However, going from merely allowing irregular or unnatural marriages to take place to actively promoting them via government policy and funding is another step towards totalitarianism. On the one hand, first leftists claim that the government should take a hands-off approach to marriage, it being a choice between 'consenting adults.' but now suddenly government should be meddling in our personal choices. How does that work?
To say that government has no right to dictate who we may marry, at least in regards to male and female, is one thing, but to then turn around and agitate for the government to promote mixed-race marriages is illogical.
But there can be little doubt that there is an agenda being promoted, and that the results of the recent election seem to have given the government and the media propagandists the green light to push forward, full speed ahead, with that Babelizing agenda.
(H/T James Edwards)
I suppose the zeal of the multicultists to ensure that everybody has an available nonwhite partner out there must be a big factor in their big push, since 1965, to de-Whiten America. After all, in a country with a small nonwhite population, Whites would be too likely to marry one another and have White children. And that is a highly undesirable state of affairs for the multicultists. So the percentage of nonwhites had to be increased drastically in order to accelerate things.
Many people have themselves convinced that the government's eagerness for mass immigration is due mostly to the desire for cheap labor on the part of business, but now we have liberals and 'progressives' more or less openly admitting what the older generations said back in the era of the Civil Rights Revolution: that intermarriage was an ultimate goal of such 'activism.'
The older generations said that then, and they were called 'bigots' for even suggesting that intermarriage was an implicit goal of 'desegregation' but now the media cheerfully and openly admit it.
And here's the scary part: the liberal/multiculti mindset thinks that intermarriage is so good, and indeed, so imperative for America, that they are willing to entertain the idea of governmental policies meddling in people's marital choices, as this Slate article on interracial marriage suggests:
...All these numbers may be climbing, but they remain low. What's more, the white-black marriage rate lags significantly behind rates of white intermarriage with other, nonblack races. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, 52 percent of Native Americans and 40 percent of Asians married outside their race, while only 6 percent of blacks did so. The racism that kept Alabama's constitution unchanged has hardly been eradicated. Whether these habits will change on their own, with the maturation of a more tolerant generation, or whether full social acceptance of black Americans will require a concerted governmental effort, is unknowable. In the meantime, we can take only meager pride in achieving a society in which interracial marriage is safe, legal, and, alas, rare.''
I wonder if Mr. Greenberg is married to a nonwhite spouse?
What kind of 'concerted governmental effort', one wonders, would be contemplated? Penalizing those who participate in 'racist' marriages with those of their own race? Making such marriages a 'hate-crime'? Incentives for interracial marriages? What?
First, the laws against interracial marriage were overturned and now the homosexual agenda is following that precedent to press for same-sex marriage as a 'right.'
However, going from merely allowing irregular or unnatural marriages to take place to actively promoting them via government policy and funding is another step towards totalitarianism. On the one hand, first leftists claim that the government should take a hands-off approach to marriage, it being a choice between 'consenting adults.' but now suddenly government should be meddling in our personal choices. How does that work?
To say that government has no right to dictate who we may marry, at least in regards to male and female, is one thing, but to then turn around and agitate for the government to promote mixed-race marriages is illogical.
But there can be little doubt that there is an agenda being promoted, and that the results of the recent election seem to have given the government and the media propagandists the green light to push forward, full speed ahead, with that Babelizing agenda.
(H/T James Edwards)
Labels: Babelism, Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Racial Division, Social Engineering
0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
The recent events at the Iowa state fair are known to all of you, I'm sure. The attacks by a group of 30 to 40 blacks on White individuals was at first said to be 'unconnected to race,' then 'possibly racially motivated' and today, spokesmen are denying that any real evidence of racial motives is present.
Apparently the report written by a police officer is now being questioned; the victim's account is being discounted, seemingly.
The officer says
"I�m color-blind when it comes to preparing my police reports," Murillo said. "Any and all information that comes from a credible source that I believe may be pertinent or relevant to a follow up investigation of a serious crime is always included in my police reports because that�s the way I�ve been instructed to prepare them for 32 years."
Police Chief Judy Bradshaw stood behind Murillo�s handling of the matter. She said she regrets that some details of the report were misinterpreted and led some to think the information came from the victim, who told police he did not see his attackers and could not provide a description.''
The officer appears to have a Hispanic name so surely he cannot be thought guilty of White bias in reporting what happened. But it is hard not to believe that political correctness is driving the reporting of this case. We know that this happens. We know the media are hopelessly and shamelessly leftist and 'pro-diversity' in their reporting. We know that police departments, too, are under the sway of the 'diversity' dogma, just as our military. Think about the way the Fort Hood massacre was handled by our military, with Gen. Casey's remarks that the worst tragedy would be if our commitment to diversity were sacrificed or words along those lines. As if loss of life is trivial compared to ''diversity.''
Meanwhile, the victim alluded to in this piece is in the hospital, suffering from serious injuries. But heaven forbid that anybody sully the name of holy diversity. We can't have that.
I am going to say that anybody who is so diversity-besotted as to actively try to push it on their area bears some responsibility for any harm that comes to innocent people as a result of their misguided efforts.
I will say right here that the officials in Iowa who pushed and lobbied and pleaded for ''diversity'' in their state should be called to account.
Shouldn't some of the people of Iowa start to question whether there was a 'need', as their pandering officials claimed, to make the state more 'diverse'? Anybody who lives in a diversity-enriched area could tell them that this kind of wanton violence is one of the undiscussed consequences of diversity. Yet every day we are told by our officials and our 'news' media and our academics how 'diversity' is a must in the so-called global marketplace, and that we are in need of enrichment by it.
We could call the victims of these assaults, and so many others like them, 'collateral damage,' in the struggle for sacred diversity.
Sam Francis wrote a piece way back in spring, 2001 about the 'diversity' obsession on the part of Iowa's officials.
''Last September, the state�s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants�namely 350,000 of them�to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa "diversify." For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of "diversity," the real reason behind the governor�s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy. The governor�s plan had the support of what at the time were called "business and civic leaders"�that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.
But those who don�t so profit�the vast majority of Iowans � didn�t care much for the governor�s plan. Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal. A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn�t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city "has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences."
As suggested above, the invocation of "diversity" has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much "diversity" is enough and how much is too little. For that matter, it would be nice to know why "diversity" is a good thing at all. How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more "diversity"? What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently "diverse"? Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don�t say.''
Spring, 2001, seems so very long ago. That was before 9/11, and it was about, oh, 10 or 15 million immigrants and refugees ago. Have we learned nothing since then?
I suppose we can let the Iowan citizens off the hook, and say they were hoodwinked by their elected officials, but then we have to explain away their voting patterns in the 2008 election. Iowa was one of the erstwhile 'lily white' states that embraced The One. It appears the average Iowan must still be infatuated with their new-found diversity.
Maybe they are a microcosm of America, at least of heartland America in the age of political correctness; it remains to be seen whether they or the country at large will learn from experience, or continue to embrace delusion.
Apparently the report written by a police officer is now being questioned; the victim's account is being discounted, seemingly.
The officer says
"I�m color-blind when it comes to preparing my police reports," Murillo said. "Any and all information that comes from a credible source that I believe may be pertinent or relevant to a follow up investigation of a serious crime is always included in my police reports because that�s the way I�ve been instructed to prepare them for 32 years."
Police Chief Judy Bradshaw stood behind Murillo�s handling of the matter. She said she regrets that some details of the report were misinterpreted and led some to think the information came from the victim, who told police he did not see his attackers and could not provide a description.''
The officer appears to have a Hispanic name so surely he cannot be thought guilty of White bias in reporting what happened. But it is hard not to believe that political correctness is driving the reporting of this case. We know that this happens. We know the media are hopelessly and shamelessly leftist and 'pro-diversity' in their reporting. We know that police departments, too, are under the sway of the 'diversity' dogma, just as our military. Think about the way the Fort Hood massacre was handled by our military, with Gen. Casey's remarks that the worst tragedy would be if our commitment to diversity were sacrificed or words along those lines. As if loss of life is trivial compared to ''diversity.''
Meanwhile, the victim alluded to in this piece is in the hospital, suffering from serious injuries. But heaven forbid that anybody sully the name of holy diversity. We can't have that.
I am going to say that anybody who is so diversity-besotted as to actively try to push it on their area bears some responsibility for any harm that comes to innocent people as a result of their misguided efforts.
I will say right here that the officials in Iowa who pushed and lobbied and pleaded for ''diversity'' in their state should be called to account.
Shouldn't some of the people of Iowa start to question whether there was a 'need', as their pandering officials claimed, to make the state more 'diverse'? Anybody who lives in a diversity-enriched area could tell them that this kind of wanton violence is one of the undiscussed consequences of diversity. Yet every day we are told by our officials and our 'news' media and our academics how 'diversity' is a must in the so-called global marketplace, and that we are in need of enrichment by it.
We could call the victims of these assaults, and so many others like them, 'collateral damage,' in the struggle for sacred diversity.
Sam Francis wrote a piece way back in spring, 2001 about the 'diversity' obsession on the part of Iowa's officials.
''Last September, the state�s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, was infected with the idea that what Iowa really needs are more immigrants�namely 350,000 of them�to be imported from Third World countries to help poor, backward, white Iowa "diversify." For all the pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of "diversity," the real reason behind the governor�s plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state, is losing population and needs more people to boost its economy. The governor�s plan had the support of what at the time were called "business and civic leaders"�that is, those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more immigration brings.
But those who don�t so profit�the vast majority of Iowans � didn�t care much for the governor�s plan. Some 58 percent thought Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition to the proposal. A more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration Des Moines Register, shows that number hasn�t changed and also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines think their city "has enough racial, ethnic and cultural diversity for their needs and preferences."
As suggested above, the invocation of "diversity" has become a kind of dogma that is never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how much "diversity" is enough and how much is too little. For that matter, it would be nice to know why "diversity" is a good thing at all. How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more "diversity"? What benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because it is not sufficiently "diverse"? Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know, don�t say.''
Spring, 2001, seems so very long ago. That was before 9/11, and it was about, oh, 10 or 15 million immigrants and refugees ago. Have we learned nothing since then?
I suppose we can let the Iowan citizens off the hook, and say they were hoodwinked by their elected officials, but then we have to explain away their voting patterns in the 2008 election. Iowa was one of the erstwhile 'lily white' states that embraced The One. It appears the average Iowan must still be infatuated with their new-found diversity.
Maybe they are a microcosm of America, at least of heartland America in the age of political correctness; it remains to be seen whether they or the country at large will learn from experience, or continue to embrace delusion.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Multicultists, Propaganda
0 comment Friday, September 12, 2014 | admin
Will wonders never cease? The New York Times, inexplicably, tells some truths on immigration. Whatever brought this about, I wonder?
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people � the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey�s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota�s methods of data analysis.
A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.
The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs � an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''
Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.
But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Among the report�s findings:
*
The nation�s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.
*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived � the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship � 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation�s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation�s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation�s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''
[all emphases mine]
Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.
The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.
One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?
And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.
I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'
Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds
Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people � the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.
Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey�s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota�s methods of data analysis.
A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.
The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs � an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''
Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.
But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007
Among the report�s findings:
*
The nation�s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.
*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived � the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.
*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.
*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.
*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.
*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.
*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship � 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.
*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation�s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.
[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation�s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation�s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''
[all emphases mine]
Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.
The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.
One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?
And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.
I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'
Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.
Labels: Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Legal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Open Borders
0 comment Wednesday, September 3, 2014 | admin
Blogger ''Jetbrane'' at the Iron Ink blog muses on the coming demographic turning point, the predicted loss of our majority status in 2042. He quotes a line of dialogue from the movie 'Braveheart':
The trouble with Scotland is that it�s full of Scots�.If we can�t get them out, we�ll breed them out."
apparently spoken by King Edward 'Longshanks' in the movie. Whether he actually said such a thing in real life I don't know; I do know Hollywood, and even 'conservative' Mel Gibson sometimes puts words in the mouths of historical personages that may or may not be established as words they actually spoke.
Assuming Edward said this, or harbored sentiments along those lines, it is certain that our present-day rulers, who have the temerity to pretend that 'representative government' still exists, do in fact harbor the intent to replace us or 'breed us out'.
So Jetbrane's analogy is an apt one. He continues:
Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film "Rob Roy." I�ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.
The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America.''
He makes reference to the recent report of the dwindling numbers among the White majority, and our looming loss of majority status in 2042. As he says, this coming change is not an accident or the result of some freak occurrence, but is an engineered, deliberate transformation of America, produced by collusion between government and the schools (government-run) and lately, by our mainline churches -- and even now, by some formerly conservative churches which have become infatuated with the liberal 'emergent' church movement.
And of course the faceless 'globalist' manipulators are the force at the center of it all.
It�s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.''
Amen to that. I also find it passing odd; I cannot understand how people can have become so utterly captured by this PC, one-world ideology in such a short time.
In the time of William Wallace, of course it was not some kind of sinister, worldwide plan as it appears to be now; it was simply the usual struggles over territory and power.
But as to why the many Americans wildly cheer on Braveheart and the Scots defeating the stereotypically-evil 'Saxons' while obtusely remaining blind to the obvious parallels with what is happening to us today, I can't quite explain.
Maybe some of you who have seen the movie Braveheart can clarify this for me: in the movie, was it made clear that 'Braveheart' Wallace was actually fighting to preserve his kin, his heritage, his birthright? Or was it shown as simply a battle for an abstract ideal like 'freedom'?
I have seen many promos for the movie, with Braveheart, face painted blue, bellowing ''Freedom!!!' The impression I got from that image is that maybe the movie soft-pedals the angle of fighting for one's people, hearth and home and heritage, while emphasizing that Braveheart was willing to fight or die for 'Freedom!' rather than blood and soil.
If I am wrong, I am confident some of you will correct me.
Even if the movie did not present the struggle between the Scots and the English this way, I have a suspicion than many historically illiterate Americans would read it this way nonetheless. We have been fed so much of this abstract proposition stuff that we seem to think that our country came into existence solely on that basis, and that all of our forefathers shed their blood and died in past wars solely for abstract ideas like 'Freedom!' or, (perish the thought) 'democracy' rather than for kin, home, hearth, and posterity.
I truly think that the idea of a nation consisting of a people tied mostly by blood and birth, and only incidentally by ideas and ideals, is a foreign one to many Americans today, especially those born after the P.C. reign began.
So now we have a populace who can bristle with indignation over the plight of Braveheart's Scots, threatened with loss of their land and possibly their very existence as a people, yet somehow these Americans cannot perceive any analogy to their own situation.
One more side note about how Americans seem to have embraced the Braveheart movie, cheering on the Scots against the 'villainous' Sassenachs: maybe because of our own Revolutionary struggle against the British, many Americans are inclined to see the British as villains in these historical movies. And the fact that most such movies portray the English as foppish, effete scoundrels does not help much, either.
I think it fairly likely that, of an average Braveheart audience, most of the people watching (who were probably nearly all White, I would wager) who were cheering the defeat of the English were themselves likely to be of more English ancestry than Scots. But somehow the English end up being the side we cheer against. It's ironic. Is this just part of our somewhat knee-jerk sympathies for the 'underdog'? I think it's a dangerous tendency to automatically assume that the 'underdog' is the good guy, and that sympathy of ours is no small part of our suffering millions of immigrants to overrun us. We see them as the poor underdogs, and maybe we feel it would be ungallant of us to treat them sternly. It might appear much like beating up on a weakling, so we try to be magnanimous and treat them as unthreatening objects of charity.
I am descended from people on both sides of the conflict shown in Braveheart; I am not anti-Scots in any way. I love Scottish culture and the Scots people I have met. I just wish that we needn't villainize the English in the process of showing these historical struggles. The Scots and the English are really near cousins, as recent DNA studies have shown. We should not have to pick a side; they are all our kin.
But back to the blog entry. In the comments following, the usual arguments about how 'White' is not an ethnicity, unlike Scots, are made. And also the argument about 'cultural adoption' by immigrants: if the brown-skinned folk who are coming to take our places can adopt our culture, where's the problem?
The discussion never reaches the conclusion, as I have, that race or ethnicity and culture are intertwined, but it's a somewhat interesting discussion nonetheless.
One commenter somewhat grudgingly says 'American' may be an ethnicity but that we are too young to be a 'race'. At least the commenter does not say that 'race' is only a social construct, but that's rather faint praise.
We have to somehow surmount this common notion that it's somehow abhorrent or radical to assert that Americans are an ethnicity or that any mention of the White race being somehow part of American identity is verboten. There is no escaping the fact that the founding stock of this country was White and that they were conscious of that fact, and that they were predominantly of English, or more broadly, British descent.
The truth is never 'racist'. It just is.
It should not have to be so difficult to get more Americans to see what is glaringly obvious about our demographic jeopardy, but the indoctrination has been so thorough and so characterized by propaganda overkill, that it will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.
The trouble with Scotland is that it�s full of Scots�.If we can�t get them out, we�ll breed them out."
apparently spoken by King Edward 'Longshanks' in the movie. Whether he actually said such a thing in real life I don't know; I do know Hollywood, and even 'conservative' Mel Gibson sometimes puts words in the mouths of historical personages that may or may not be established as words they actually spoke.
Assuming Edward said this, or harbored sentiments along those lines, it is certain that our present-day rulers, who have the temerity to pretend that 'representative government' still exists, do in fact harbor the intent to replace us or 'breed us out'.
So Jetbrane's analogy is an apt one. He continues:
Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film "Rob Roy." I�ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.
The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America.''
He makes reference to the recent report of the dwindling numbers among the White majority, and our looming loss of majority status in 2042. As he says, this coming change is not an accident or the result of some freak occurrence, but is an engineered, deliberate transformation of America, produced by collusion between government and the schools (government-run) and lately, by our mainline churches -- and even now, by some formerly conservative churches which have become infatuated with the liberal 'emergent' church movement.
And of course the faceless 'globalist' manipulators are the force at the center of it all.
It�s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.''
Amen to that. I also find it passing odd; I cannot understand how people can have become so utterly captured by this PC, one-world ideology in such a short time.
In the time of William Wallace, of course it was not some kind of sinister, worldwide plan as it appears to be now; it was simply the usual struggles over territory and power.
But as to why the many Americans wildly cheer on Braveheart and the Scots defeating the stereotypically-evil 'Saxons' while obtusely remaining blind to the obvious parallels with what is happening to us today, I can't quite explain.
Maybe some of you who have seen the movie Braveheart can clarify this for me: in the movie, was it made clear that 'Braveheart' Wallace was actually fighting to preserve his kin, his heritage, his birthright? Or was it shown as simply a battle for an abstract ideal like 'freedom'?
I have seen many promos for the movie, with Braveheart, face painted blue, bellowing ''Freedom!!!' The impression I got from that image is that maybe the movie soft-pedals the angle of fighting for one's people, hearth and home and heritage, while emphasizing that Braveheart was willing to fight or die for 'Freedom!' rather than blood and soil.
If I am wrong, I am confident some of you will correct me.
Even if the movie did not present the struggle between the Scots and the English this way, I have a suspicion than many historically illiterate Americans would read it this way nonetheless. We have been fed so much of this abstract proposition stuff that we seem to think that our country came into existence solely on that basis, and that all of our forefathers shed their blood and died in past wars solely for abstract ideas like 'Freedom!' or, (perish the thought) 'democracy' rather than for kin, home, hearth, and posterity.
I truly think that the idea of a nation consisting of a people tied mostly by blood and birth, and only incidentally by ideas and ideals, is a foreign one to many Americans today, especially those born after the P.C. reign began.
So now we have a populace who can bristle with indignation over the plight of Braveheart's Scots, threatened with loss of their land and possibly their very existence as a people, yet somehow these Americans cannot perceive any analogy to their own situation.
One more side note about how Americans seem to have embraced the Braveheart movie, cheering on the Scots against the 'villainous' Sassenachs: maybe because of our own Revolutionary struggle against the British, many Americans are inclined to see the British as villains in these historical movies. And the fact that most such movies portray the English as foppish, effete scoundrels does not help much, either.
I think it fairly likely that, of an average Braveheart audience, most of the people watching (who were probably nearly all White, I would wager) who were cheering the defeat of the English were themselves likely to be of more English ancestry than Scots. But somehow the English end up being the side we cheer against. It's ironic. Is this just part of our somewhat knee-jerk sympathies for the 'underdog'? I think it's a dangerous tendency to automatically assume that the 'underdog' is the good guy, and that sympathy of ours is no small part of our suffering millions of immigrants to overrun us. We see them as the poor underdogs, and maybe we feel it would be ungallant of us to treat them sternly. It might appear much like beating up on a weakling, so we try to be magnanimous and treat them as unthreatening objects of charity.
I am descended from people on both sides of the conflict shown in Braveheart; I am not anti-Scots in any way. I love Scottish culture and the Scots people I have met. I just wish that we needn't villainize the English in the process of showing these historical struggles. The Scots and the English are really near cousins, as recent DNA studies have shown. We should not have to pick a side; they are all our kin.
But back to the blog entry. In the comments following, the usual arguments about how 'White' is not an ethnicity, unlike Scots, are made. And also the argument about 'cultural adoption' by immigrants: if the brown-skinned folk who are coming to take our places can adopt our culture, where's the problem?
The discussion never reaches the conclusion, as I have, that race or ethnicity and culture are intertwined, but it's a somewhat interesting discussion nonetheless.
One commenter somewhat grudgingly says 'American' may be an ethnicity but that we are too young to be a 'race'. At least the commenter does not say that 'race' is only a social construct, but that's rather faint praise.
We have to somehow surmount this common notion that it's somehow abhorrent or radical to assert that Americans are an ethnicity or that any mention of the White race being somehow part of American identity is verboten. There is no escaping the fact that the founding stock of this country was White and that they were conscious of that fact, and that they were predominantly of English, or more broadly, British descent.
The truth is never 'racist'. It just is.
It should not have to be so difficult to get more Americans to see what is glaringly obvious about our demographic jeopardy, but the indoctrination has been so thorough and so characterized by propaganda overkill, that it will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.
Labels: American Identity, Demographics, Displacement, Ethnic Differences, Ethnic Identity, History, Political Correctness
0 comment Tuesday, September 2, 2014 | admin
Pat Buchanan has a new book coming out, as reported by Drudge:
NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES 'END OF AMERICA'
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET
**Exclusive**
"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."
The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.
This time, Buchanan goes all the way:
"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."
The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America�s global commitments.
The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.
U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.
The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.
The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.
A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.
All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.''
Read the rest at Drudge Report, as linked above.
I don't see how any sentient person can fail to realize that we are in an unprecedented situation here in America, the like of which we have never experienced. However, the human tendency is to try to deny troubling realities and to pretend that all is well.
In some situations, that is a laudable tendency, to try to maintain a positive outlook, but in many situations it does not serve us well at all. In order to take appropriate action, we have to first acknowledge that the situation demands a response. The longer we delay responding, assuring ourselves and others that things are just fine, the more difficult it will be to rectify the situation, and usually the more costly.
The first reaction I had when I read the synopsis is: what, then, does Pat propose can be done? Apparently he does offer recommendations, such as:
� A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops
� A purge of neoconservative ideology and the "Cakewalk" crowd" from national power.
� To avert a second Cold War, the United States should "get out of Russia�s space and get out of Russia�s face," and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union
� To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
� To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers
� To prevent America becoming "a tangle of squabbling nationalities" Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a "timeout" on all immigration.''
I can't disagree on most of those points, especially the last part about a timeout on immigration.
But is it possible that Pat is sensationaliizing the situation in an effort to sell books? I ask this only because I know people will make that accusation, and the fact is, Buchanan has been predicting doom and gloom for a while now, and people will say, 'well, the sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?'
The fact is, I see him on MSNBC as a regular commentator on Tucker Carlson's show. And Buchanan seems to see the Republican party as the preferred vehicle for conservatives to take part in our system. Sometimes I wonder what his actual political position is now vis-a-vis the GOP? To my mind, the crisis we are in will require, to use the cliche, thinking outside the box, recognizing that our two existing political parties are a huge part of the problem, and as such cannot be expected to provide a solution.
What say all of you to Buchanan's diagnosis and prescriptions? Any thoughts?
NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES 'END OF AMERICA'
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET
**Exclusive**
"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."
The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.
This time, Buchanan goes all the way:
"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."
The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America�s global commitments.
The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.
U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.
The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.
The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.
A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.
All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.''
Read the rest at Drudge Report, as linked above.
I don't see how any sentient person can fail to realize that we are in an unprecedented situation here in America, the like of which we have never experienced. However, the human tendency is to try to deny troubling realities and to pretend that all is well.
In some situations, that is a laudable tendency, to try to maintain a positive outlook, but in many situations it does not serve us well at all. In order to take appropriate action, we have to first acknowledge that the situation demands a response. The longer we delay responding, assuring ourselves and others that things are just fine, the more difficult it will be to rectify the situation, and usually the more costly.
The first reaction I had when I read the synopsis is: what, then, does Pat propose can be done? Apparently he does offer recommendations, such as:
� A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops
� A purge of neoconservative ideology and the "Cakewalk" crowd" from national power.
� To avert a second Cold War, the United States should "get out of Russia�s space and get out of Russia�s face," and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union
� To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
� To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers
� To prevent America becoming "a tangle of squabbling nationalities" Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a "timeout" on all immigration.''
I can't disagree on most of those points, especially the last part about a timeout on immigration.
But is it possible that Pat is sensationaliizing the situation in an effort to sell books? I ask this only because I know people will make that accusation, and the fact is, Buchanan has been predicting doom and gloom for a while now, and people will say, 'well, the sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?'
The fact is, I see him on MSNBC as a regular commentator on Tucker Carlson's show. And Buchanan seems to see the Republican party as the preferred vehicle for conservatives to take part in our system. Sometimes I wonder what his actual political position is now vis-a-vis the GOP? To my mind, the crisis we are in will require, to use the cliche, thinking outside the box, recognizing that our two existing political parties are a huge part of the problem, and as such cannot be expected to provide a solution.
What say all of you to Buchanan's diagnosis and prescriptions? Any thoughts?
Labels: American Society, American Sovereignty, Demographics, Mass Immigration, Societal Decay
0 comment Saturday, August 30, 2014 | admin
From an article called Not So Huddled Masses: Multiculturalism and Foreign Policy
by Scott McConnell
The modest contemporary literature on the connection between America�s immigration and foreign policies contains this assertion by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, from the introduction to their 1974 volume Ethnicity: Theory and Experience: "The immigration process is the single most important determinant of American foreign policy . . . This process regulates the ethnic composition of the American electorate. Foreign policy responds to that ethnic composition. It responds to other things as well, but probably first of all to the primary fact of ethnicity."
Yet, the authors noted a nearly complete absence of discussion of the issue, and they pursued it little themselves. Rather, they tossed it in as a supplement to their general argument: ethnicity was not going to wither away, leaving only colorful residues for annoyance or celebration. It would remain a primary form of social life in the United States.
Nonetheless, ethnicity played little role in the foreign policy battles of the 1960s and 1970s.''
This is an interesting piece, though I take issue with certain of his presuppositions.
He does correctly note that the 1965 Immigration Act was a turning point, and he makes the connection between the passage of that Act and the Civil Rights Revolution of the years preceding. On this blog I've mentioned that Ted Kennedy himself said that the Immigration Act was a natural extension of the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that 'civil rights' for American-born blacks also extended to the 'civil right' to immigrate here for all nonwhite peoples. To continue immigration restriction, especially when the restrictions favored European immigrants, would be seen in the light of our newfound ideology as 'discrimination', and that, above all, was not to be allowed.
In any case, the backers of the 1965 act did not imagine huge demographic changes: there would be, they claimed, some modest increase in the number of Greek and Italian immigrants but not much else. The sheer inaccuracy of this prediction was already apparent by the early 1970s. The 1965 Act allowed entry of immigrants from any country, so long as they possessed certain job skills or family members living here or had been granted refugee status themselves.
The family reunification provision soon became the vital engine of immigrant selection. By the 1980s, it had greatly increased numbers of Asians and of Hispanics�the latter mostly from Mexico. The European population of the country was now in relative decline�from 87 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 2008. If immigration continues at present rates (and barring a long-term economic collapse, it is likely to), by 2040, Hispanics will make up a quarter of the American population.''
I think he, (along with most who discuss this subject of demographics) greatly underestimates the numbers of Mexicans and other Hispanics who are here now (who knows how many?) and the number who are still coming. The government has consistently, and I think deliberately, lowballed their figures so as to allay the concerns of many people. And obviously, the low estimates produce an inaccurate prediction of how many will be here by 2040. I am convinced that White Americans will be a minority before that date. All the signs are there.
McConnell discusses the role played by ethnicity in our past foreign policy. He describes how the various ethnic groups in America influenced our country towards neutrality in both world wars, as conflicting ethnic interests caused heated disagreements about the right course of action.
In any event, America�s intra-European divisions began to melt away quickly after Pearl Harbor, as military service became the defining generational event for American men born between 1914 and 1924. The mixed army squad of WASP, Italian, German, Jew, and Irish became a standard plot device for the popular World War II novel and film.''
But did those wartime movies simply reflect the reality of the 'melting pot' America which had unified around the patriotic cause? Or were the movies meant to try to create such a reality and influence the real world? There was probably some of the latter involved. I've noticed how many World War II era movies were heavy on the 'one big American family' storyline, with each European ethnicity being celebrated and given positive treatment. Did the old distrusts and animosities evaporate during the War, or did they just get swept under the carpet for the duration?
McConnell connects the new post-war ethnic activism to the Cold War, with many Eastern Europeans being very anti-Communist.
Eastern Europeans lobbied for the rollback of Soviet rule, enshrining it as a GOP platform plank if not a practical commitment. Americans of East European background remained staunchly anti-Communist long after anti-Communism surrendered its luster in the aftermath of Vietnam, allying with neoconservative Jews and hamstringing Nixon and Kissinger�s détente policy. As anti-Communism became an engine of Americanization, the Cold War showcased the hyphenated American.''
I've noted too that the Cold War also became further incentive for America to embrace egalitarianism and to aggressively push 'civil rights', as a response to Communist propaganda. The old Soviet Union found that for many Americans, our Achilles' heel was the racial inequality that they saw in America. And the Soviets, being fully committed to egalitarian ideology, believed that any inequalities were the result of oppression and discrimination, not of any innate differences among the races. So they focused on the racial divisions in our country, seeing this as a way of discrediting our claims of being a free country with 'liberty and justice for all.' The Soviets, in addition to emphasizing in their propaganda how we were a country of haves and have-nots, a country with extremes of wealth and poverty, liked to accuse us of being racially backward. And our elected officials seemed especially stung by these allegations from the Soviets. They felt that we had to show the world we were making progress on 'racial unity' and thus win the propaganda war, the public relations war.
Now, we seem committed to continuing this 'multicultural', proposition nation image that was so deliberately crafted in the 60s and onward.
McConnell downplays the potential foreign policy influence of Hispanics, seeing them as not particularly loyal to the Mexican state, which they see as corrupt. I wonder if he noticed all those demonstrations a few years ago, in which Mexicans (and other Latinos) aggressively carried their national flags? Has he ever been through a Mexican neighborhood and seen how many Mexican flags fly? Granted these are anecdotes, not hard evidence, but I would say the Latinos, whether Mexican or other Latin Americans, are highly ethnocentric, aggressively so, as they have always been. He confuses loyalty to a state or regime with loyalty to their ethnic nation and their culture.
How can it be that we have always been a neighbor to Mexico, yet few Americans seem to know much about Mexicans, other than the stereotypes and the pro-Hispanic propaganda put out by the RNC et al?
McConnell, like most conservatives, seems almost exclusively concerned with the fortunes of political parties rather than the well-being and the future of the American people, the core, American population. I get the sense that he thinks we are already history, or soon will be, and this does not bother him.
He cavalierly describes the end of 'Anglo-Protestantism':
For if solidifying the American nation required a re-invigorated Anglo-Protestant culture, the initiative would have to come to a considerable degree from Anglo-Protestants themselves. Reading Huntington (and Kennan as well), one cannot but sense that what they really seek is a revival of something resembling the American national elite of the 1940s and 1950s, exemplified by the foreign policy "wise men" of the Truman era (of whom Kennan was one). But that particular Protestant elite, whose cousins held the commanding positions of America�s industries and universities, was more or less banished from the national stage in the 1960s. Not only is its return impossible; it barely exists. What has replaced it as the dynamic core of American Protestantism is the evangelical culture Bacevich describes, rooted in the South and West, whose attitudes were epitomized by the Bush-Cheney administration.
If the emergence of an American elite able to cement a strong national identity and coherent national interest is unlikely, what options remain for a country now irreversibly multicultural? Huntington saw the choice as either imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism, both of which would erode what is unique about America.''
He describes paleoconservatives (among which he includes immigration restrictionists and 'America Firsters') as being future losers in the 'immigration wars.'
And yet he does not seem to see that it is America as we have known it which is being lost.
I suppose this is the fruit of seeing America as a political entity or an ongoing 'proposition' rather than a nation made up of a specific core group of people and a continuous tradition.
by Scott McConnell
The modest contemporary literature on the connection between America�s immigration and foreign policies contains this assertion by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, from the introduction to their 1974 volume Ethnicity: Theory and Experience: "The immigration process is the single most important determinant of American foreign policy . . . This process regulates the ethnic composition of the American electorate. Foreign policy responds to that ethnic composition. It responds to other things as well, but probably first of all to the primary fact of ethnicity."
Yet, the authors noted a nearly complete absence of discussion of the issue, and they pursued it little themselves. Rather, they tossed it in as a supplement to their general argument: ethnicity was not going to wither away, leaving only colorful residues for annoyance or celebration. It would remain a primary form of social life in the United States.
Nonetheless, ethnicity played little role in the foreign policy battles of the 1960s and 1970s.''
This is an interesting piece, though I take issue with certain of his presuppositions.
He does correctly note that the 1965 Immigration Act was a turning point, and he makes the connection between the passage of that Act and the Civil Rights Revolution of the years preceding. On this blog I've mentioned that Ted Kennedy himself said that the Immigration Act was a natural extension of the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that 'civil rights' for American-born blacks also extended to the 'civil right' to immigrate here for all nonwhite peoples. To continue immigration restriction, especially when the restrictions favored European immigrants, would be seen in the light of our newfound ideology as 'discrimination', and that, above all, was not to be allowed.
In any case, the backers of the 1965 act did not imagine huge demographic changes: there would be, they claimed, some modest increase in the number of Greek and Italian immigrants but not much else. The sheer inaccuracy of this prediction was already apparent by the early 1970s. The 1965 Act allowed entry of immigrants from any country, so long as they possessed certain job skills or family members living here or had been granted refugee status themselves.
The family reunification provision soon became the vital engine of immigrant selection. By the 1980s, it had greatly increased numbers of Asians and of Hispanics�the latter mostly from Mexico. The European population of the country was now in relative decline�from 87 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 2008. If immigration continues at present rates (and barring a long-term economic collapse, it is likely to), by 2040, Hispanics will make up a quarter of the American population.''
I think he, (along with most who discuss this subject of demographics) greatly underestimates the numbers of Mexicans and other Hispanics who are here now (who knows how many?) and the number who are still coming. The government has consistently, and I think deliberately, lowballed their figures so as to allay the concerns of many people. And obviously, the low estimates produce an inaccurate prediction of how many will be here by 2040. I am convinced that White Americans will be a minority before that date. All the signs are there.
McConnell discusses the role played by ethnicity in our past foreign policy. He describes how the various ethnic groups in America influenced our country towards neutrality in both world wars, as conflicting ethnic interests caused heated disagreements about the right course of action.
In any event, America�s intra-European divisions began to melt away quickly after Pearl Harbor, as military service became the defining generational event for American men born between 1914 and 1924. The mixed army squad of WASP, Italian, German, Jew, and Irish became a standard plot device for the popular World War II novel and film.''
But did those wartime movies simply reflect the reality of the 'melting pot' America which had unified around the patriotic cause? Or were the movies meant to try to create such a reality and influence the real world? There was probably some of the latter involved. I've noticed how many World War II era movies were heavy on the 'one big American family' storyline, with each European ethnicity being celebrated and given positive treatment. Did the old distrusts and animosities evaporate during the War, or did they just get swept under the carpet for the duration?
McConnell connects the new post-war ethnic activism to the Cold War, with many Eastern Europeans being very anti-Communist.
Eastern Europeans lobbied for the rollback of Soviet rule, enshrining it as a GOP platform plank if not a practical commitment. Americans of East European background remained staunchly anti-Communist long after anti-Communism surrendered its luster in the aftermath of Vietnam, allying with neoconservative Jews and hamstringing Nixon and Kissinger�s détente policy. As anti-Communism became an engine of Americanization, the Cold War showcased the hyphenated American.''
I've noted too that the Cold War also became further incentive for America to embrace egalitarianism and to aggressively push 'civil rights', as a response to Communist propaganda. The old Soviet Union found that for many Americans, our Achilles' heel was the racial inequality that they saw in America. And the Soviets, being fully committed to egalitarian ideology, believed that any inequalities were the result of oppression and discrimination, not of any innate differences among the races. So they focused on the racial divisions in our country, seeing this as a way of discrediting our claims of being a free country with 'liberty and justice for all.' The Soviets, in addition to emphasizing in their propaganda how we were a country of haves and have-nots, a country with extremes of wealth and poverty, liked to accuse us of being racially backward. And our elected officials seemed especially stung by these allegations from the Soviets. They felt that we had to show the world we were making progress on 'racial unity' and thus win the propaganda war, the public relations war.
Now, we seem committed to continuing this 'multicultural', proposition nation image that was so deliberately crafted in the 60s and onward.
McConnell downplays the potential foreign policy influence of Hispanics, seeing them as not particularly loyal to the Mexican state, which they see as corrupt. I wonder if he noticed all those demonstrations a few years ago, in which Mexicans (and other Latinos) aggressively carried their national flags? Has he ever been through a Mexican neighborhood and seen how many Mexican flags fly? Granted these are anecdotes, not hard evidence, but I would say the Latinos, whether Mexican or other Latin Americans, are highly ethnocentric, aggressively so, as they have always been. He confuses loyalty to a state or regime with loyalty to their ethnic nation and their culture.
How can it be that we have always been a neighbor to Mexico, yet few Americans seem to know much about Mexicans, other than the stereotypes and the pro-Hispanic propaganda put out by the RNC et al?
McConnell, like most conservatives, seems almost exclusively concerned with the fortunes of political parties rather than the well-being and the future of the American people, the core, American population. I get the sense that he thinks we are already history, or soon will be, and this does not bother him.
He cavalierly describes the end of 'Anglo-Protestantism':
For if solidifying the American nation required a re-invigorated Anglo-Protestant culture, the initiative would have to come to a considerable degree from Anglo-Protestants themselves. Reading Huntington (and Kennan as well), one cannot but sense that what they really seek is a revival of something resembling the American national elite of the 1940s and 1950s, exemplified by the foreign policy "wise men" of the Truman era (of whom Kennan was one). But that particular Protestant elite, whose cousins held the commanding positions of America�s industries and universities, was more or less banished from the national stage in the 1960s. Not only is its return impossible; it barely exists. What has replaced it as the dynamic core of American Protestantism is the evangelical culture Bacevich describes, rooted in the South and West, whose attitudes were epitomized by the Bush-Cheney administration.
If the emergence of an American elite able to cement a strong national identity and coherent national interest is unlikely, what options remain for a country now irreversibly multicultural? Huntington saw the choice as either imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism, both of which would erode what is unique about America.''
He describes paleoconservatives (among which he includes immigration restrictionists and 'America Firsters') as being future losers in the 'immigration wars.'
And yet he does not seem to see that it is America as we have known it which is being lost.
I suppose this is the fruit of seeing America as a political entity or an ongoing 'proposition' rather than a nation made up of a specific core group of people and a continuous tradition.
Labels: American Identity, Demographics, Hart-Celler Act, Immigration Restrictionists, Mass Immigration, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession
0 comment Thursday, August 28, 2014 | admin
A recent discussion on this blog addressed the question of potential scenarios for a breakup of the United States. What about the possibility of a political solution to our pressing problems? Is it plausible? Can it be done by political means, presumably by means of working within the existing system?
I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.
The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.
Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'
I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.
However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?
So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?
Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.
Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.
Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?
Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?
I've made it pretty clear that I no longer think it can be done, simply because the two existing parties have both been subverted and destroyed from within. Not too many years ago I wouldn't have imagined that I would become one of those cynics who says 'the system is rigged' or 'no matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.' But I have lost faith in our system. I have no confidence that the electronic voting system is honest, or that various forms of voter fraud (which are known to occur) haven't decided the outcome of our elections. And even if the casting and counting of ballots were scrupulously honest and above board, it seems that the candidates at a national level are handpicked by people behind the scenes. The candidates are pre-chosen in ways that give us little say or little choice. In this last travesty of an election, we had two candidates who were in favor of amnesty, for example, and who differed little on crucial matters that beset our country, such as race relations.
The primary system, too, was seemingly rigged in a way that skewed the results.
Never have I had so little trust in 'the system.'
I spent a lot of time and bandwidth arguing for a third party which would represent some alternative to the status quo, a party which would represent traditional America, or at least a party which is not one more variation on the same old PC themes. The Constitution Party seemed an acceptable alternative, as did Ron Paul's candidacy, though Paul and his followers insisted on race-denial.
However it seems that both those alternatives made a dismal showing, in part because some voters on the right felt that the possible scenarios would not allow for ''throwing one's vote away'' on a third party, and so they felt compelled to vote for McCain or in some bizarre cases, for Obama on the 'worse is better' theory. How's that working out, by the way?
So, given that for the moment we seem to be stuck with the existing two major parties, both of which have seriously failed us, what chance do we have for staying with the status quo and turning this ship around before we hit the lethal iceberg, in 2042 or before?
Read the discussion at Sailer's blog on the question 'What can the GOP do to revive itself?' However, if you don't want to be completely demoralized and discouraged, best not read it. The impression I get from many of the comments is that most people think 'winning' by compromising in various ways (stop 'gay-bashing', get rid of those annoying Christians, ''reach out'' to some minority or other, go libertarian, etc.) is the only thing.
Sailer's commentariat is, I would guess, slightly to the right of most Americans and even they are far to my left.
Even if the GOP somehow was revivified and regenerated into a recognizably conservative, American party, the part of the White majority, do we even have time to use electoral means to avert the crises which loom ahead? Will it be possible to do so after four years (at least) of the reckless 'remaking America?' Could a 'remade' America even be put back together again, or would it, like Humpty Dumpty, be irreparably broken?
Would even an ideal political party be enough to offset the changing demographics of America, and the intractable problems of dozens of competing nationalities, races, and religions under one 'American' tent, however big?
Labels: Conservatism, Democracy, Demographics, Gop, Political Parties, Politics, Social Change
0 comment Sunday, August 17, 2014 | admin
Reading around the Internet today, I kept coming across discussions about Obama and the frequently-repeated belief that his election will lead to some kind of turnaround in our favor. I suppose it could be said, then, that people on the right as well as on the left believe Obama's 'change' mantra, and somehow, both ends of the political spectrum believe that he is capable of working some kind of positive change, whether by accident or intentionally.
I hate to keep flogging the deceased equine, but let me go at this one more time from a slightly different angle. Assuming that Obama is incapable of delivering on his promises of 'healing' and 'unifying' and bridging the racial gap, assuming that a New Golden Age is not within his powers of manifestation, and assuming that things actually grow demonstrably worse (as most on the right assert) -- this is where it all breaks down for me. Suppose an economic collapse occurs, followed by conditions worse than in the depths of the Great Depression, which some believe will happen. Why should the masses of people out there, given their general cluelessness and passivity, suddenly begin to blame Obama, or even to be disillusioned with him?
Will the media desert Obama, or will they, like the good cult followers they are, cover for him and blame the crisis on the right?
If Obama fails in the sense that his agenda is thwarted in Congress (which I actually can't imagine happening), will the people blame Obama, or his opponents (who will of course be 'racists'?)
I think that just as when Bill Clinton ran into opposition and trouble, the left and the unthinking masses who are led this way and that will circle the wagons and support their beleaguered President.
Any economic crisis will likely be blamed on the greedy capitalists, who, as 'everybody' knows, are all WASPs who live in lily-white enclaves.
And if, as some foresee, there is a galvanizing of the White majority, what then? Any action, even lawful and legitimate, will likely be shown in the media as 'extremism' and the response will be to vilify any attempt by majority White Americans to press for their own interests.
The incident over the weekend of the church shooting is already being portrayed as 'right-wing extremism', and it will be followed by a lot of earnest condemnations of 'right-wing gun nuts' and bigots, with renewed calls for gun control and monitoring of 'right-wing hate sites' and groups. The man was deranged, to go after children and unarmed churchgoers, but he will be described as typical of White male 'right-wingers.'
And if some on 'our side', which means anybody White and right-wing, act out, that will only provide a pretext for more repressive laws and policies, and more ramping-up of PC propaganda.
I just don't see that the worsening situation, which will come regardless of who is elected in November, will automatically act in our favor. That's where I just can't take the giant leap of faith required to be a believer in the Worse Is Better, Vote Obama movement.
Oddly, it appears that on the left or among the 'moderate'/populist faction, many people are convinced we are on the cusp of some kind of momentous change, but of course they diagnose our problems very differently, and prescribe very different kinds of therapy for us.
I found a link at Occidental Dissent to James Howard Kunstler's blog, (which I won't mention because of its vulgar name), to a Kunstler article about 'Rebecoming', which seems to be his idea of this change that is supposed to be upon us, where the ugliness of modern America will be swept away by something along the 'small-and-local-is-beautiful' lines. Now, I happen to believe that small and local are beautiful. I happen to agree that what America has become, with strip malls, Wal-Marts, trashy entertainment and directionless, dispirited people, is not what America should be, or used to be.
However, both Kunstler's take and that of most of his readers seem to focus on what they no doubt perceive as 'White trash' culture, although no one uses that term specifically. They discuss women with tattoos (I agree about that), video games, drugs, and NASCAR. The last item seems to be a slap at Southron people, since the South is the basic fan base of NASCAR, though many heartland Yankees like it, too. But I get the sense that the people at Kunstler's blog look down on lower-class Whites as being the problem. If only everybody were educated and refined as the upper middle classes.
They leave out the obvious fact that of course working-class middle America is dispirited and demoralized; what can we expect after decades of dumbed-down schools and 'entertainment', all promoted by educated upper-middle-class and wealthy liberals? They mention thuggish, underclass behavior on the part of Whites (though they scrupulously avoid racial labels), but they fail to see or acknowledge how the liberal racial agenda has acted as a way of spreading underclass behaviors to the general population.
They ignore how 'free trade' has all but destroyed our manufacturing base, and how much of our agriculture has also been destroyed, leaving many previously hard-working Whites without the hope of work other than low-wage, part-time McJobs, and leaving some to nothing more than unemployment benefits, if they are lucky.
Many of the people they apparently despise were once people who had well-paying blue-collar jobs, with security, and now these people find themselves adrift. These people are mostly ignored by the Republicans, and because most are White, are now written off by Democrats as well.
Kunstler and his fans seem to remind me of Bill Kauffman, the populist/agrarian writer. I admire a lot of what Kauffman has to say, and have linked to his pieces. He writes wonderfully, and expresses a nostalgia for lost America -- but like Kunstler, he seems unwilling or unable to see that the old America that was so much better, so much more liveable and safe and clean and well-ordered, was so because of the people who made it what it was. Change the people, by means of liberal propaganda and maleducation and depraved entertainment, and you change America. Replace Americans with people from retrograde Third World environments, and again, you change America for the worse.
It's all well and good to lament for what America once was, or might still be, given the right circumstances, but a recipe is only as good as the ingredients. The right ingredients in the right proportions are necessary. You can't change the people of America, or exchange the people for others, and wonder why it just isn't the same.
But the message I take away from Kunstler's piece and his commenters' reactions is that everybody, right and left -- and center -- see that America is in great distress. Everybody can read the 'mene, mene, tekel, upharsin' on the wall, but not everybody can decipher it. And unfortunately, though lots of people see the need for a cure, not many of us agree on what medicine is needed, or even which doctor should prescribe and administer it.
And seemingly everybody thinks that a change, any change, is bound to be a change for the better. But the problem is, how can so many different opinions lead to any kind of constructive change?
Everybody seems to be cheering on some kind of apocalypse, and thus we all seem to be following the first pied piper who comes along.
I hate to keep flogging the deceased equine, but let me go at this one more time from a slightly different angle. Assuming that Obama is incapable of delivering on his promises of 'healing' and 'unifying' and bridging the racial gap, assuming that a New Golden Age is not within his powers of manifestation, and assuming that things actually grow demonstrably worse (as most on the right assert) -- this is where it all breaks down for me. Suppose an economic collapse occurs, followed by conditions worse than in the depths of the Great Depression, which some believe will happen. Why should the masses of people out there, given their general cluelessness and passivity, suddenly begin to blame Obama, or even to be disillusioned with him?
Will the media desert Obama, or will they, like the good cult followers they are, cover for him and blame the crisis on the right?
If Obama fails in the sense that his agenda is thwarted in Congress (which I actually can't imagine happening), will the people blame Obama, or his opponents (who will of course be 'racists'?)
I think that just as when Bill Clinton ran into opposition and trouble, the left and the unthinking masses who are led this way and that will circle the wagons and support their beleaguered President.
Any economic crisis will likely be blamed on the greedy capitalists, who, as 'everybody' knows, are all WASPs who live in lily-white enclaves.
And if, as some foresee, there is a galvanizing of the White majority, what then? Any action, even lawful and legitimate, will likely be shown in the media as 'extremism' and the response will be to vilify any attempt by majority White Americans to press for their own interests.
The incident over the weekend of the church shooting is already being portrayed as 'right-wing extremism', and it will be followed by a lot of earnest condemnations of 'right-wing gun nuts' and bigots, with renewed calls for gun control and monitoring of 'right-wing hate sites' and groups. The man was deranged, to go after children and unarmed churchgoers, but he will be described as typical of White male 'right-wingers.'
And if some on 'our side', which means anybody White and right-wing, act out, that will only provide a pretext for more repressive laws and policies, and more ramping-up of PC propaganda.
I just don't see that the worsening situation, which will come regardless of who is elected in November, will automatically act in our favor. That's where I just can't take the giant leap of faith required to be a believer in the Worse Is Better, Vote Obama movement.
Oddly, it appears that on the left or among the 'moderate'/populist faction, many people are convinced we are on the cusp of some kind of momentous change, but of course they diagnose our problems very differently, and prescribe very different kinds of therapy for us.
I found a link at Occidental Dissent to James Howard Kunstler's blog, (which I won't mention because of its vulgar name), to a Kunstler article about 'Rebecoming', which seems to be his idea of this change that is supposed to be upon us, where the ugliness of modern America will be swept away by something along the 'small-and-local-is-beautiful' lines. Now, I happen to believe that small and local are beautiful. I happen to agree that what America has become, with strip malls, Wal-Marts, trashy entertainment and directionless, dispirited people, is not what America should be, or used to be.
However, both Kunstler's take and that of most of his readers seem to focus on what they no doubt perceive as 'White trash' culture, although no one uses that term specifically. They discuss women with tattoos (I agree about that), video games, drugs, and NASCAR. The last item seems to be a slap at Southron people, since the South is the basic fan base of NASCAR, though many heartland Yankees like it, too. But I get the sense that the people at Kunstler's blog look down on lower-class Whites as being the problem. If only everybody were educated and refined as the upper middle classes.
They leave out the obvious fact that of course working-class middle America is dispirited and demoralized; what can we expect after decades of dumbed-down schools and 'entertainment', all promoted by educated upper-middle-class and wealthy liberals? They mention thuggish, underclass behavior on the part of Whites (though they scrupulously avoid racial labels), but they fail to see or acknowledge how the liberal racial agenda has acted as a way of spreading underclass behaviors to the general population.
They ignore how 'free trade' has all but destroyed our manufacturing base, and how much of our agriculture has also been destroyed, leaving many previously hard-working Whites without the hope of work other than low-wage, part-time McJobs, and leaving some to nothing more than unemployment benefits, if they are lucky.
Many of the people they apparently despise were once people who had well-paying blue-collar jobs, with security, and now these people find themselves adrift. These people are mostly ignored by the Republicans, and because most are White, are now written off by Democrats as well.
Kunstler and his fans seem to remind me of Bill Kauffman, the populist/agrarian writer. I admire a lot of what Kauffman has to say, and have linked to his pieces. He writes wonderfully, and expresses a nostalgia for lost America -- but like Kunstler, he seems unwilling or unable to see that the old America that was so much better, so much more liveable and safe and clean and well-ordered, was so because of the people who made it what it was. Change the people, by means of liberal propaganda and maleducation and depraved entertainment, and you change America. Replace Americans with people from retrograde Third World environments, and again, you change America for the worse.
It's all well and good to lament for what America once was, or might still be, given the right circumstances, but a recipe is only as good as the ingredients. The right ingredients in the right proportions are necessary. You can't change the people of America, or exchange the people for others, and wonder why it just isn't the same.
But the message I take away from Kunstler's piece and his commenters' reactions is that everybody, right and left -- and center -- see that America is in great distress. Everybody can read the 'mene, mene, tekel, upharsin' on the wall, but not everybody can decipher it. And unfortunately, though lots of people see the need for a cure, not many of us agree on what medicine is needed, or even which doctor should prescribe and administer it.
And seemingly everybody thinks that a change, any change, is bound to be a change for the better. But the problem is, how can so many different opinions lead to any kind of constructive change?
Everybody seems to be cheering on some kind of apocalypse, and thus we all seem to be following the first pied piper who comes along.
Labels: American Culture, Demographics, Liberalism, Populism, Societal Decay, Western Decline