Overheated? You bet. I've had it up to here with Mexicans invading my country and two governments — Mexico's and the United States's — acting as if Mexico already owns it. In its latest profile in arrogance, Mexico — are you ready for this? — is going to court in the United States to stop Arizona from enforcing federal law against illegal immigration. That is, the same kind of law that all countries, including Mexico, and even the European Disunion, have.
Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with [Mexican President] Calderon saying June 8 that the law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity" by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society.The worst abuses in the history of humanity? Please welcome a new variant of Godwin's Law, applied to rationalizing international aggression. This top dog of one of the Western world's most corrupt countries tells us that enforcing U.S. sovereignty against immigration criminals, including drug smugglers and gang members, is right up there with the Spanish Inquisition, the Muslim conquest of northern India, Pol Pot's regime, and the Holocaust.
I want to counter-sue Mexico for dumping its least productive, least educated, most criminal population on the United States and pursuing legal action against an American state for resisting. Arizonans, will you join me in a class action suit? Do you have a lawyer who is brave enough to fly down to Mexico City or Chihuahua or wherever and petition a Mexican court on our behalf? (Make sure he or she knows the risk of being assassinated.)
While we're getting that organized, let's boycott Mexico in every way possible. I intend to put a flea in the ear of anybody who says they're vacationing in Mexico. I won't even go to Mexican restaurants, and I don't care if they're owned by Mexicans or Tibetans … they're part of the "softening up" of the American population to accept hispanicization, along with store signs and packaging in English and Spanish.
Let's get on with it. No Iraqi ever called us "gringos."
12 comments:
Dinah,
Following your recent bout with mental illness, I am glad to see you are pursuing occupational therapy vigorously. Using search engines to find blogs containing the word "sue" and "suit" probably gets you a lot of blogs written by women named Sue and clothing store sites, but separating the wheat from the chaff and posting your advertising as comments keeps those old brain cells firing away!
While I don't ordinarily carry advertising here, I will make an exception for your obviously worthwhile cause. If you give me your address I will send a rate card. There is a discount for multiple insertions.
This stupidity by the Obama administration is very useful. Really, Obama is our best friend - he is so reliably stupidly left-wing. Look at the heat he's generating on the right. My fear is that the stupidity of the left will be curtailed by new Republican majorities before the white population has really had a chance to become throughly sick of them.
If the Republicans take Congress back this fall, you know it will be right back to the same crap as in the Bush years. Lots of RINO waffling and compromise. They'll want to seem "reasonable" and will compromise with Obama on things like amnesty.
Since the USA is lost to us at this point anyway, I really think our best chance is continued rule by far-lefties. It angers and hardens our side. It condenses vague discomfort into passionate conviction. Look how angry you are in your post - all because of the actions of a left-wing President. The worst that could happen to us is another lukewarm Republican compromiser.
Rick, do you agree that the USA is lost to us? Or do you hold out hope that the remaining white majority can someone regain control?
MnMark,
I can't answer your question with much conviction, because I don't get around much -- I go to work and do my best to make it worth my employer's while to keep me on the payroll, and that's almost my only direct interaction with people (except my wife).
It's hard to take the temperature of the rest of the country. I read bloggers, but they're not a representative sample, and media pundits (ditto).
It's safe to say that a lot of anger is building up at the leftist Establishment, and that's potentially good, but anger by itself isn't enough. The anger needs to be channeled into a counter-vision of where we are to go from here, and my impression is that such a vision is still pretty hazy.
A return to the original understanding of government outlined in the Constitution should be part of it, but the Leftworld (through accident or brilliant strategizing, I don't know which) has so changed the demography of the United States that it's hard to imagine the country as a whole returning to a system designed by and for an aristocracy of land owners of English ancestry.
Still, as you say, Obama and his hand-picked enforcers are abysmally out of touch with strong currents that run through the American character, which may not be dead, only sleeping. Dangerous as he is, perhaps even mad, Obama is neither particularly bright nor (maybe more important) shrewd. He's going to keep scoring goals for his opponents.
The idea of peaceful devolution of the United States into two or more nations is a tantalizing possibility. If you haven't already, check out the manifesto by "Jeffersonian" at Lawrence Auster's site. I wrote some commentary on it which I hope he'll publish.
Rick,
The demographics, as you mention, are they key. As long as we're an honest democracy where the votes are counted relatively honestly, the group that gets a large enough number of votes can pretty much have things their way. I think we're in a transition phase right now where the left, even though it can count on all the black votes and most of the latino votes, still needs a significant chunk of white votes to hold power. So there's still some time here for the power to fluctuate back and forth between far-left and center-right. So I expect we'll see centrist Republicans like Bush in control at least once more.
But I just don't foresee whites raising their birthrates above latinos. And as the leftists' hold on things becomes more secure, they will open the immigration gates wider and wider to consolidate it.
The rude surprise for white leftists will come when the latinos no longer need them as figureheads for a white liberal/latino/black leftwing coalition. I suspect that latinos generally despise white leftists for being gringos and for being, frankly, idiot gringos who don't have loyalty to their own kind. Useful idiots. White leftists have a lot of rude awakenings ahead of them, once this period of apparent triumph for them passes.
But the key thing, I think, is the demographics and the fact that it is already too late to be able to amend the Constitution to make the kinds of changes we'd need to be able to hold on to control of our nation: end birthright citizenship and legalize racial and religious discrimination.
I suppose it is still possible that there would be a set of circumstances whereby a centrist Republican would get a chance to pack the Supreme Court with rightwing whites and they would then reinterpret the Constitution to end birthright citizenship and legalize racial and religious discrimination. It's doubtful though.
--continued in next post--
So I think the possibilities for a within-the-current-legal-framework change that preserves control of the nation for our people are just about nil. The first reaction of whites to that realization is going to be discouragement, I suppose something like what white South Africans are going through. Defeatism. Gloating by mixed-race and non-whites.
The key question is this: will a critical mass of whites be angry and desperate enough once their quality of life erodes enough to develop a revolution?
And a related question is: how will younger whites react to this situation as time passes? Are they too brainwashed to be able to see themselves as part of a historic people that needs to fight for its survival? Having no firsthand memories of how good it was before, will they accept dhimmi status not knowing any better? Or is there something genetic in people, some kind of instinctive desire to flourish and live free, that will rise through all the PC brainwashing and spur them to fight?
I am betting on the latter. No doubt we will lose a big chunk of our people to interracial breeding. But you can't say we're sunk until we see how we react under hardship. The current environment is a poor one for judging our chances because there's abundant cheap food in the grocery stores, jobs and good money to be earned (for most people, and hope for it among all). The chances of having a hot car, a nice home, a pretty girlfriend, a good job, a safe neighborhood - these are all seemingly within reach of most whites. So there's not enough anger. It's easy to be idealistic. They say that a conservative is a just a liberal who's been mugged. And as things proceed there are going to be a lot of whites mugged by reality. For some it will take a deterioration in their neighborhood, or a child being bullied by a minority, or losing their job to a minority. Others might literally have to be assaulted by a minority, over and over, before they begin to question their beliefs. But that's what we're heading for and I think there is something in whites of northern European ancestry, some spirit of the wild warriors of the Germanic north, that will not tolerate being the shoeshine boys of a bunch of useless NAMs worthy of no respect.
Rick,
Can you think of instances in history when a nation riven by political, racial, and religious strife voluntarily and peacefully separated into new nations?
The only example of something similar that I can think of is Pakistan and Bangladesh splitting from India. So I suppose it is not completely impossible.
But it seems that the norm is that splits are not peaceful. They happen when a rebel faction gains enough power to declare themselves a separate country. Since it seems the international community is usually reluctant to recognize the legitimacy of the new country (perhaps to avoid encouraging disaffected groups within their own borders) it seems like what usually happens is that the rebel group gains defacto control of territory which the central government doesn't dare enter anymore.
One obstacle to a peaceful separation is the attitude of the great passive political center. The left-wingers and right-wingers would gladly get away from one another but those in the center are pretty comfortable and don't want to risk losing what they have. They like things the way they are. Without them I don't think you could get the substantial legal changes passed that would allow a separation to occur.
I think there's two realistic possible outcomes.
One is that while many whites are disaffected and angry, the liberal/multiculturalist mindset is too entrenched in the young and the government's power to oppress is too great and inertia is too great, and thus, with the exception of some pockets of resistance and holdouts, white America melts into the racial melting pot and disappears.
The other realistic possibility is that a revolutionary movement among right-wing whites determined to maintain our people and culture evolves, and fights and wins a war against white liberals and minorities, succeeding enough to gain permanent control over a portion of the US territory.
That's my sense of things...that we either fight, or we disappear.
MnMark - interesting comments. Whenever we discuss the future of this country, my husband takes your position - that there are enough angry white people who will defend themselves through force of arms, when push comes to shove. I would like to believe that's so. You can call me a defeatist, but note that even you admit that some people may have to be assaulted, again and again, before they begin to understand. My take is that far too many will be shuffling off to their deaths and still insisting "we're all equal, racism is bad."
Rick, when I saw the blurb (deliberately buried by the leftist Dallas Moron's News) about Mexico suing Arizona, I was actually astonished - and I'm the one who is always responding to my husband's anger at the latest outrage with cynicism and "get over it; we've been living through the looking glass for some time now." I've read other arguments for a national "divorce" and while I firmly believe in the right of secession, I don't believe I'll see a representative democracy again in my lifetime (and I'm not quite 52).
Sheila -
I understand your pessimism because at present it seems like there's a small fraction of whites who are angry enough to actually consider doing something to preserve themselves.
But you have to take into account the reasons for the current appearance of things:
-- inertia: it takes a while for the widely accepted social norms and outlooks to change. It took many decades, perhaps more than a century, for the current multicultural, relativist, liberal worldview to capture the media and educational institutions. It was a worldview that had surface appeal and didn't individually cost us much to adopt. I think the shallowness of that view will become apparent with astonishing rapidity when people are hungry and desperate, as I expect to be the case when the socialist utopia the lefties are trying to establish collapses, as they all do.
-- The percentage of the white population that are actually consciously committed to the Obama/Pelosi/left-wing worldview is quite small. They are only in power because of the support of NAMs and because the white center got sick of Bush. And this puny support among whites is during a really quite prosperous time when the stores are stuffed full of affordable food, the biggest health problem is obesity, and white people can mostly live their lives away from NAMs if they want to. One thing you can count on from blacks and Hispanics is that as their political power grows, they will engage in corruption, gloat, and rub it in our faces. They are not known for their sportsmanship. This will turn off the white center.
-- You don't even need the majority of whites to agree with us before action is possible. The Revolutionary War was driven by a committed, intelligent core of men who took action and brought along the rest. Something like 1/3 of the population were active supports of King George. Another 1/3 were the squishy middle that would go along with whoever won.
-- continued --
Look at what happens in countries where there aren't jobs and people are struggling to get by, and where there is racial/ethnic/religious/cultural diverity: people become radicalized. The youth get angry and reject the prevailing worldview. The prevailing worldview, the worldview that our youth have been steeped in, is multiculturalism. That's the orthodoxy now. When our society's failure becomes more evident, I doubt that white youth's response is going to be "we need even stronger discrimination against whites in the workplace!"
Multicultural America has never seen significant numbers of radicalized, angry white people. We've seen blacks burning down their neighborhoods, rioting every time there's a power outage, celebrating when OJ Simpson gets away with murder. We've seen latinos parading in our streets, waving Mexican flags and demanding amnesty. The Tea Party movement is just a first trickle of anger. The shouting and anger at the town halls last year is just the first little buzz. The multiculturalists are going to feel real fear when the radicalization moves to the next phase. They've never seen what angry white men are capable of once they see through the suicidal white liberal guilt and recognize the morality of their right to want to survive as a distinct people.
We're just not at the point yet where people have nothing to lose. But even now, already, there are rumblings of revolution, like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4&feature=player_embedded.
Rick, sorry for all the long posts. Just have a lot to say.
Wow, this Rick Barber is great.
Check out his video talking about the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. He actually names Islam as the enemy. I love it!
Video
MnMark is spot on. To date there have been two discussions at VFR regarding Jeffersonian's scenario, and in both I have opined that there will be no secession without a war, even if it's a very small one (my latest comment has yet to be posted).
There's a fine line between defeatism and realism. Someone who states that whites are absolutely doomed for reasons X, Y, and Z may think that he's simply being realistic, but his statement is obviously defeatist. Others (and I don't include Sheila in these examples) use defeatism as a way to sort of bow-out of the ongoing struggle, which frees them up to embrace hedonism. Still others are simply cowards who would no sooner take up a rifle than they would sever their own toes on a bet, and would much prefer to live out their days enjoying the comforts and wealth they've acquired.
For myself, whether we are eventually victorious is irrelevant. I've sworn an oath and thrown in with the rebels. To quote Ed Abbey: If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
Post a Comment