0 comment Monday, November 10, 2014 | admin
This story and a later one are interesting in a couple of ways. First, though, we all knew, those of us who care about these things, that this was a deliberate plan. We knew that it was being carried out contrary to the wishes of the people of the UK, just as the same kind of thing is going on here and in all Western countries. An excerpt:
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Labels: Ethnic Cleansing, France, Free Speech, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Tyranny, Uk
0 comment Monday, October 6, 2014 | admin
Recently, this article from The Guardian appeared, announcing that the non-White populatioln of Britain had reached 9.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, says starkly that
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
Labels: Anti-White, Ethnic Cleansing, Globalism, Leftism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Treason
0 comment Tuesday, September 2, 2014 | admin
This story broke last week.
Texas Hispanics Fuel State's Population Growth
HOUSTON � A phenomenal surge in Hispanics has fueled the population growth in Texas, which gained more people over the last decade than any other state, according to United States Census Bureau figures released on Thursday.
People who identify themselves as Hispanic accounted for two-thirds of the state�s growth in the last decade. Hispanics now make up 38 percent of the state�s 25.1 million people, up from 32 percent a decade ago.
At the same time, demographers say, the growth in the population of white people who are not Hispanic has slowed markedly, rising by only 4 percent. Non-Hispanic whites now make up just 45 percent of the Texas population, down from 52 percent in 2000.''
This story is not surprising, since Texas became majority nonwhite a few years back.
There's been some gloating around the conservative discussions about this online, since so many people from other immigrant-saturated states were criticized by Texans for letting mass immigration overwhelm them. Texans are advertised to be of sterner stuff, and more willing to defend their territory which was so hard-won.
So what happened to the famed Texan spirit?
Naturally I have a bias toward Texas, but I can be objective enough to say that in a sense Texas has been weakened by a couple of factors. The first one that comes to my mind is that Texas, like much of the South, has been heavily colonized by Northerners, even before illegal (and legal) immigration began to be utterly out of control. For economic reasons many Yankees came to Texas and other Southern states probably starting, in earnets, during the recession of the 70s. The high-tech industry in Texas was a magnet for a long while, luring many people from outside the South and eventually, outside the U.S.
The population started to grow a lot then, and this influx alone started to erode the old Texas culture and demographics.
One way and another, there are fewer descendants of the old Texas colonist stock now, while there are vastly increasing percentages of immigrants from all over the world, some who came legally, most illegally. But a great many people in Texas, it's probably safe to say, have no ties whatsoever to the core events of Texas history and no part in the heritage of that state.
Another element in this story is the fact that there has always been a Spanish-speaking population in Texas, considering that it was once part of Mexico. However there is a mistaken belief that Texas was heavily populated by Mexicans who were then conquered by Anglo colonists and made subject to them. This idea presupposes that the Mexicans you see in Texas today are the 'original' indigenous people, the rightful owners of the land, in much the same way that the liberal storyline makes Indians the rightful owners of the Americas, and our ancestors evil interlopers. The fact is, it's probably likely that the average Spanish-speaker you see in Texas is a relative newcomer, if he hasn't just swum the Rio Grande.
Yes, there was a Spanish-speaking (though not necessarily Mexican) population in Texas at the time of the Anglo-American colonists' arrival. I have read estimates of the total population as low as 20,000, and if that sounds like a lot of people, the territory in question was even larger than the present-day state of Texas, so that number shows it was sparsely populated. And it must also be remembered that many of the Spanish-speaking residents were of actual Spanish, meaning European, Iberian blood, very dissimilar to most of today's Mexicans.
And the fact that there has always been a certain percentage of Hispanic people in the state of Texas has led to a certain complacency about their presence. Most people in Texas take the presence of Mexicans for granted, and many Texans, especially today's politically corrected ones, will vociferously defend Mexicans, and will tell you emphatically that ''they fought at the Alamo alongside the Anglos'' or similar stories. Yes, there were some who did fight against Santa Anna's troops at the Alamo, but you can see the defenders' names listed, and note that there was hardly a 50-50 partnership.
I count roughly twelve names, of all those listed, who were Mexican or of Spanish descent. They were far outnumbered by Anglo-Americans.
Incidentally, the list is one of the 'revised' ones, which has added names that were not included in the original roll. (Interestingly for me, at least two of the new names are known kinsmen of mine, though I was already aware of another kinsman who died there.)
If you are interested, this link tells the story of how the list was 'corrected', although I can't help wonder if some of this was political 'correcting.'
For example, this quote is telling:
"The Alamo problem, as in all of history, is that we think what happened in the past is static," said Stephen L. Hardin, a historian at Victoria College, who wrote about the Alamo battle in the revised handbook. "When evidence to the contrary pops up, it shakes up things and we deny the new because it challenges long-held beliefs."
Oh, yes, all the history we know has been biased and colored by our prejudices, and let's remember, there are many versions of the truth, and who are we to try to exclude 'conflicting narratives?'
As usual, I'm digressing. My point was that Texas has been politically corrected to some extent like every place else, and the schools have been dumbed down to accommodate multiculturalism.
I will say, too, that in recent years, the social sanctions against intermarriage, which used to be very strong, have largely disappeared. And what happens when people marry out of their group is that group bonds and allegiances are weakened and eventually disappear. That's why all advertising and entertainment pushes the outmarrying meme so relentlessly these days. France's Sarkozy has come right out and said we need more métissage.
So yes, more Anglo Texans have Mexican-American neighbors and Mexican-American spouses and half-Mexican children or grandchildren, etc. And this makes people excessively optimistic that in time, ethnic conflicts will evaporate away and we will all get together and wonder why we used to be so mistaken, and we'll all have a good old laugh about the bad old days.
It's true that many Mexican-descended Texans have roots in the state that go back at least a few generations. Most of these are people who speak English accent-free, or close. They are fairly well assimilated to American (Anglo/White) ways, and they do not present the culture clash problems posed by recent immigrants. Some (few) may side with the older-stock Texans on matters of immigration, but I sense that many of the younger people may suddenly discover their Hispanic roots and reverse-assimilate, as has happened with many young European-born descendants of non-European immigrans. Why not, when the host culture is too cowed to defend itself, and the natural inhabitants of the country seem willing to capitulate? Exotic roots have a certain cachet in this multicult-dominated world, and in the last analysis, blood will out. Blood is thicker than water. It's thicker than 'assimilation.' Blood is thicker than civic citizenship.
I think some Texans may begin to realize that they have been too sanguine about the presence of millions of immigrants, and too quick to assume that they will all 'fit in' and be good neighbors . I suspect that there are some clueless people who think that the Latinos will be magnanimous in victory if we are accepting of them and affable towards them. I don't share that optimism.
One more factor that has enabled this situation to grow out of hand is that Texas is a big state, and there are still pockets where immigrants have not come to be a sizeable presence -- yet. As long as people still have a familiar and homogeneous community to retreat to, they will not feel the pressing nature of the problem.
We will see in the next few years whether Texas submits to Californication or whether the old Texas spirit that motivated our ancestors reasserts itself. Time is growing short; if people remain inert, then Texas will go gently into that night.
Texas Hispanics Fuel State's Population Growth
HOUSTON � A phenomenal surge in Hispanics has fueled the population growth in Texas, which gained more people over the last decade than any other state, according to United States Census Bureau figures released on Thursday.
People who identify themselves as Hispanic accounted for two-thirds of the state�s growth in the last decade. Hispanics now make up 38 percent of the state�s 25.1 million people, up from 32 percent a decade ago.
At the same time, demographers say, the growth in the population of white people who are not Hispanic has slowed markedly, rising by only 4 percent. Non-Hispanic whites now make up just 45 percent of the Texas population, down from 52 percent in 2000.''
This story is not surprising, since Texas became majority nonwhite a few years back.
There's been some gloating around the conservative discussions about this online, since so many people from other immigrant-saturated states were criticized by Texans for letting mass immigration overwhelm them. Texans are advertised to be of sterner stuff, and more willing to defend their territory which was so hard-won.
So what happened to the famed Texan spirit?
Naturally I have a bias toward Texas, but I can be objective enough to say that in a sense Texas has been weakened by a couple of factors. The first one that comes to my mind is that Texas, like much of the South, has been heavily colonized by Northerners, even before illegal (and legal) immigration began to be utterly out of control. For economic reasons many Yankees came to Texas and other Southern states probably starting, in earnets, during the recession of the 70s. The high-tech industry in Texas was a magnet for a long while, luring many people from outside the South and eventually, outside the U.S.
The population started to grow a lot then, and this influx alone started to erode the old Texas culture and demographics.
One way and another, there are fewer descendants of the old Texas colonist stock now, while there are vastly increasing percentages of immigrants from all over the world, some who came legally, most illegally. But a great many people in Texas, it's probably safe to say, have no ties whatsoever to the core events of Texas history and no part in the heritage of that state.
Another element in this story is the fact that there has always been a Spanish-speaking population in Texas, considering that it was once part of Mexico. However there is a mistaken belief that Texas was heavily populated by Mexicans who were then conquered by Anglo colonists and made subject to them. This idea presupposes that the Mexicans you see in Texas today are the 'original' indigenous people, the rightful owners of the land, in much the same way that the liberal storyline makes Indians the rightful owners of the Americas, and our ancestors evil interlopers. The fact is, it's probably likely that the average Spanish-speaker you see in Texas is a relative newcomer, if he hasn't just swum the Rio Grande.
Yes, there was a Spanish-speaking (though not necessarily Mexican) population in Texas at the time of the Anglo-American colonists' arrival. I have read estimates of the total population as low as 20,000, and if that sounds like a lot of people, the territory in question was even larger than the present-day state of Texas, so that number shows it was sparsely populated. And it must also be remembered that many of the Spanish-speaking residents were of actual Spanish, meaning European, Iberian blood, very dissimilar to most of today's Mexicans.
And the fact that there has always been a certain percentage of Hispanic people in the state of Texas has led to a certain complacency about their presence. Most people in Texas take the presence of Mexicans for granted, and many Texans, especially today's politically corrected ones, will vociferously defend Mexicans, and will tell you emphatically that ''they fought at the Alamo alongside the Anglos'' or similar stories. Yes, there were some who did fight against Santa Anna's troops at the Alamo, but you can see the defenders' names listed, and note that there was hardly a 50-50 partnership.
I count roughly twelve names, of all those listed, who were Mexican or of Spanish descent. They were far outnumbered by Anglo-Americans.
Incidentally, the list is one of the 'revised' ones, which has added names that were not included in the original roll. (Interestingly for me, at least two of the new names are known kinsmen of mine, though I was already aware of another kinsman who died there.)
If you are interested, this link tells the story of how the list was 'corrected', although I can't help wonder if some of this was political 'correcting.'
For example, this quote is telling:
"The Alamo problem, as in all of history, is that we think what happened in the past is static," said Stephen L. Hardin, a historian at Victoria College, who wrote about the Alamo battle in the revised handbook. "When evidence to the contrary pops up, it shakes up things and we deny the new because it challenges long-held beliefs."
Oh, yes, all the history we know has been biased and colored by our prejudices, and let's remember, there are many versions of the truth, and who are we to try to exclude 'conflicting narratives?'
As usual, I'm digressing. My point was that Texas has been politically corrected to some extent like every place else, and the schools have been dumbed down to accommodate multiculturalism.
I will say, too, that in recent years, the social sanctions against intermarriage, which used to be very strong, have largely disappeared. And what happens when people marry out of their group is that group bonds and allegiances are weakened and eventually disappear. That's why all advertising and entertainment pushes the outmarrying meme so relentlessly these days. France's Sarkozy has come right out and said we need more métissage.
So yes, more Anglo Texans have Mexican-American neighbors and Mexican-American spouses and half-Mexican children or grandchildren, etc. And this makes people excessively optimistic that in time, ethnic conflicts will evaporate away and we will all get together and wonder why we used to be so mistaken, and we'll all have a good old laugh about the bad old days.
It's true that many Mexican-descended Texans have roots in the state that go back at least a few generations. Most of these are people who speak English accent-free, or close. They are fairly well assimilated to American (Anglo/White) ways, and they do not present the culture clash problems posed by recent immigrants. Some (few) may side with the older-stock Texans on matters of immigration, but I sense that many of the younger people may suddenly discover their Hispanic roots and reverse-assimilate, as has happened with many young European-born descendants of non-European immigrans. Why not, when the host culture is too cowed to defend itself, and the natural inhabitants of the country seem willing to capitulate? Exotic roots have a certain cachet in this multicult-dominated world, and in the last analysis, blood will out. Blood is thicker than water. It's thicker than 'assimilation.' Blood is thicker than civic citizenship.
I think some Texans may begin to realize that they have been too sanguine about the presence of millions of immigrants, and too quick to assume that they will all 'fit in' and be good neighbors . I suspect that there are some clueless people who think that the Latinos will be magnanimous in victory if we are accepting of them and affable towards them. I don't share that optimism.
One more factor that has enabled this situation to grow out of hand is that Texas is a big state, and there are still pockets where immigrants have not come to be a sizeable presence -- yet. As long as people still have a familiar and homogeneous community to retreat to, they will not feel the pressing nature of the problem.
We will see in the next few years whether Texas submits to Californication or whether the old Texas spirit that motivated our ancestors reasserts itself. Time is growing short; if people remain inert, then Texas will go gently into that night.
Labels: Diversity, Ethnic Cleansing, Ethnic Competition, Illegal Immigration, Race Replacement, Texans, Texas History
0 comment Tuesday, July 22, 2014 | admin
At the C of CC website, there is a short piece about the demographic changes due to Hispanic immigration, and the growing percentages of Hispanics inn certain states.
''Some findings:
All states so far show substantial growth in the number of Hispanics. In several states, the Hispanic population more than doubled from 2000 to 2010. For example (in thousands)
Alabama (76 to 186)
Arkansas (87 to 186)
Maryland (228 to 470)
Mississippi (40 to 81)
North Carolina (379 to 800)
South Dakota (11 to 22)
It's pretty startling to see it in the numbers here, although anybody paying attention can see the changes being wrought.
The states listed above are states that heretofore had not had large Hispanic populations. Some of the Southeastern and deep South states had not ever had significant numbers of Mexicans in the past.
Some of the increase in numbers is due to 'natural increase', as Hispanics do tend to have more children, but it would appear that despite the occasional article in the controlled media telling us that the illegals are returning home, there are undoubtedly many new 'arrivals' each and every day.
The most absurd thing, in the face of this evidence, is the fact that the number of '12 million illegals' continues to be quoted as fact, even though the same figure has been used since at least 2005. Somehow, magically, there are always only '12 million illegal immigrants' in our country. "Always leave room for more" I suppose, is the rationale for continuing to use that same absurd figure.
''Some findings:
All states so far show substantial growth in the number of Hispanics. In several states, the Hispanic population more than doubled from 2000 to 2010. For example (in thousands)
Alabama (76 to 186)
Arkansas (87 to 186)
Maryland (228 to 470)
Mississippi (40 to 81)
North Carolina (379 to 800)
South Dakota (11 to 22)
It's pretty startling to see it in the numbers here, although anybody paying attention can see the changes being wrought.
The states listed above are states that heretofore had not had large Hispanic populations. Some of the Southeastern and deep South states had not ever had significant numbers of Mexicans in the past.
Some of the increase in numbers is due to 'natural increase', as Hispanics do tend to have more children, but it would appear that despite the occasional article in the controlled media telling us that the illegals are returning home, there are undoubtedly many new 'arrivals' each and every day.
The most absurd thing, in the face of this evidence, is the fact that the number of '12 million illegals' continues to be quoted as fact, even though the same figure has been used since at least 2005. Somehow, magically, there are always only '12 million illegal immigrants' in our country. "Always leave room for more" I suppose, is the rationale for continuing to use that same absurd figure.
Labels: Demographic Change, Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Immigration