Now, I want to emphasize something that doesn't get enough attention, even in the conservative precincts of the blogsophere and media.
Ultimately, it's all about ethnicity. The failure to recognize that means that about 98 percent of current political discourse is irrelevant. Meaningless. DOA. Noise. Void. Am I getting my point across?
Look: if you went to grade school more than 30 years ago, you were taught something called civics. It was about how government in these United States works. You were taught, among other things, that politicians and parties sought to win elections by appealing to what they hoped was a winning combination of interests. To some extent, they relied on argument to convince you to vote for them.
You learned about the debates between Stephen Douglas and that other guy — it's on the tip of my tongue — oh, thanks: Abraham Lincoln. They were opponents in the 1858 contest for Senator from Illinois. No TV, of course, or microphones, just two people debating the issues, in strong but gentlemanly terms. And people not only gathered to listen and judge, they traveled from many miles away, sometimes from other states, on horseback and in carriages.
Your teacher probably implied that something similar, making allowances for communications advances, still took place. Electioneering was about strategy and voting blocs and whatnot, but at the leading edge it was winning votes through making points that people could agree with or accept.
That was then. This is then converted into a sham. Oh, politicians carry on making speeches aplenty, the parties still have "platforms" (albeit no one even pretends to take them seriously). But, as I said, all that is meaningless now. Because demography is the only real playing field left.
Why spend energy convincing voters when all you have to do is import populations from the rest of the world, preferably the uneducated and poor, who know only one thing about the U.S.: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Simple as a circle.
Who cares what the law says? Borders, what borders? Just get the Somalis and Mexicans and Salvadoreans and Hmong here, make sure they know what's good for 'em, bus 'em to the polls, and Bob's your uncle. Millions of reliable voters, even if they happen to have left their identification (other than identification with their tribe) at home in their other pair of pants when they get to the voting place — how dare you ask for ID, you racist! Oh, yeah, amnesty, that's cool but it can wait. First things first.
Almost without exception this system benefits the Democrats. So why don't the Republicans object? Because they have their own constituency, corporations, who want coolie labor. So the two parties, who heap invective on one another till they're blue in the face, are actually hand-in-hand on immigration — come one, come all, it's a win-win!
But however much liberals try to pretend otherwise, you can't separate immigration from ethnicity. The more immigration, which is now almost entirely from the most backward parts of the globe, the smaller is the proportion of white, middle class citizens. Ergo, the smaller the proportion of the group that invented the United States of America and was still the majority preserving it through crises like the War Between the States, World War II, and the Cold War. Thanks, folks, but your day is over. We don't need you any more. Why don't you all just f-f-fade away?
And, unless things change bloody fast, they will. Not because they're talked into it — although the Left Establishment has done a fair job of convincing white people that they should be ashamed to consume oxygen.
No, convincing will be unnecessary. Population replacement is so much easier. It works amazingly quickly, once the majority of "Americans" are Third World immigrants with nothing to do but produce babies at prodigious rates, wipe tables and work the fast food drive-in window, and vote for their masters.
Demography. Ethnicity. Numbers. The future, until you change it.
4 comments:
OK I'm going to throw something else out there.
Demography is what it's all about when it comes to the exercise of political power within the current political framework. No doubt. The race with the most votes will win the elections and pass the laws.
But what decides the future of white America is not demography. I contend that we could be outnumbered by blacks 5-1 or 10-1 and still beat them easily in a war if we believed in ourselves and felt good about the cause.
This is what I think will determine our future: whether a critical mass of whites comes to understand that it is moral and good and normal for white Americans to think of themselves as a distinct people that is entitled to self-preservation.
If that awareness develops, the demographics don't matter. We will raise a revolution if necessary.
If that awareness does not develop, it wouldn't matter if we somehow maintained demographic control, because we'd simply take no action to protect our identiy as a people, even if we were the majority.
The critical task is to make a convincing, morally upright case that white Americans are indeed a distinct people that are as entitled to act to preserve ourselves as any Amazon tribe, group of Aborigines, American Indian tribe, or any other non-white identity group that white liberals would have no qualms granting the right to preserve their unique identity.
Look how angrily and eagerly white liberals try to destroy any notion that white Americans are a people. They can sense that if white Americans were to start to believe that, they'd have lost the game.
I've told this anecdote before, but it's illustrative of what I mean. Talking to an idealistic young woman acquaintance, recently graduated from a liberal university's political science program, I asked if those little remote tribes in the Amazon have the right to want to remain the way they are racially, culturally, and so on. Being a smart girl, she caught on to my meaning right away and smiled an embarassed smile and said "...so you're saying if they have that right, then do we too? Hmmmm....I will have to think about that." She had no answer to it. In all of her political science classes, in all of her discussions with friends, in all those years in high school, that analogy was never raised. And it stumped her. She had nothing else to say. That one analogy profoundly undercut her liberal worldview.
Let me add a few more things to the mix. First, from the blog In Mala Fide: "Tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist idiocracy." This is a good variant on Lee Kuan Yew's (first prime minister of Singapore) dictum that "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests; you vote in accordance with race and religion." Second, a comment from one Dlanor (I can't remember where I read it today) - "Immigrant socialists from minority cultures often blindly assume they can milk the American dream even as they retain the cultural values that precluded their countries of origin from ever achieving it. Libertines blindly assume they can graft a culture of unrestrained pleasure and permissiveness on an America that grew out of conservative values without destroying the American idea."
Sheila,
"Libertines" makes sense in the context where you quoted it. I read it at first, however, as "libertarians" and it applies equally. Libertarians believe you can graft a value system of pure economics and individualism onto a country that was based on rejection of complete self-regard and respect for a social contract and nothing will change.
I've said this elsewhere, but I think all it would take would be one good amnesty, say 12-20 million people, and a point of no return will have been crossed. 12-20 million instant Democratic voters would ensure that we would never again be able to vote our way back to anything resembling traditionalism.
So it seems that any amnesty is a more or less open declaration of war. At that point we'll begin to see hard rather than soft tyranny.
Post a Comment