June 28: I'm leaving this posting up for another day or two. I want everyone interested to have a chance to read it and comment.
Well this could be the last time
This could be the last time
Maybe the last time
I don't know. Oh no. Oh no.
— Mick Jagger/Keith Richards
The Rolling Stones, "The Last Time"
But mainly, I think my entry for June 24 says all that can be said or needs to be said.
The political future of the United States is down to demographics. Period. I can appreciate a well-researched, eloquent argument about the Constitution, or federalism, or insane bail-outs, all that and more. But the arguments are futile.
If you find yourself in a heated discussion about our clueless presidential impostor, consider whether you would be better served saving your breath to cool your oatmeal with.
Don't believe me that demographics is all that matters anymore? Very well, let's step a few years into the future. A future that already exists.
There'll always be an England.
Here it is, today.
The Rolling Stones, "The Last Time"
This could be the last posting I ever write about politics. Sono molto serioso. There are other subjects of interest I've neglected.
But mainly, I think my entry for June 24 says all that can be said or needs to be said.
The political future of the United States is down to demographics. Period. I can appreciate a well-researched, eloquent argument about the Constitution, or federalism, or insane bail-outs, all that and more. But the arguments are futile.
If you find yourself in a heated discussion about our clueless presidential impostor, consider whether you would be better served saving your breath to cool your oatmeal with.
Don't believe me that demographics is all that matters anymore? Very well, let's step a few years into the future. A future that already exists.
There'll always be an England.
Here it is, today.
Britain has been building a soft tyranny to enforce multi-culturalism with great gusto, and the results are in.
Abigail Howarth
England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.One example will serve for many. Abigail Howarth, an 18-year-old lass, was not even allowed to apply for a training position with the Environmental Authority. She was told that "there was no point in her submitting an application because of her ethnic background."In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.
Abigail Howarth
Her disqualification? She is not only white, but English. If she'd been Welsh, Scottish, or Irish — or, it goes without saying, African, Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, etc. — she might have had a shot.
No white English need apply.
No white English need apply.
The population replacement that the globalist left-wing Establishment finds so convenient all over the Western world, and is chugging along in the United States, has passed the tipping point in Britain. A tight little island is more overcrowded by the day, and not because of the indigenous population. Where reproduction is concerned, the indigenes work to rule. Immigrant groups have the virtue of being neither English nor white, and the further virtue in the ruling elite's eyes of breeding enthusiastically (at the taxpayers' expense). They are the only future Britain has.
So you can bang on about the Failed Messiah's taste in generals, his gormless dealing with the oil spill, his love affair with regulations, and the congressional mob's profligacy. I might agree with you; most Americans might agree with you. But it doesn't matter.
Demography trumps everything.
This is what our corporate/liberal Establishment would love us to emulate.Immigrant baby boom drives up British population
by double the rate of previous decade
Numbers of people in the country went up by 394,000 to reach 61,792,000 by the middle of last year, the Office for National Statistics said. The increase of 0.6 per cent on the previous year means the population has been rising at the same rapid rate since the Millennium, mainly driven by high levels of immigration.
The latest leap in numbers has been pushed by growing birth rates more than immigration, the ONS said. It said that 45 per cent of last year’s population rise was brought about by immigration and 55 per cent by ‘ natural increase’ – the greater number of births than deaths.
But the rising birth rate is itself a product of immigration – one in four births last year were to mothers who were born outside Britain.
So you can bang on about the Failed Messiah's taste in generals, his gormless dealing with the oil spill, his love affair with regulations, and the congressional mob's profligacy. I might agree with you; most Americans might agree with you. But it doesn't matter.
Demography trumps everything.
8 comments:
I'm going to disagree again, Rick.
I think a people's identity, or their solidarity in that identity, triumphs everything.
The problem facing the English isn't the numbers of immigrants, it's the lack of solidarity in the English identity.
And even if/when the English become a minority in their own country, if they were to regain a belief in their own identity and the right to protect it, they could take the island back and expel the others, even if outnumbered, as long as their belief and passion was strong enough.
MnMark,
In practice it's hard to separate ethnicity and national identity. True, in the first period of mass immigration to this country, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the American identity and connection to the founders' principles were at their height -- so the assimilation of immigrant groups was reasonably successful. Aside from their being mainly European, which helped the process, there was a confident and self-respecting culture that attracted the newly arrived. Needless to say, that has changed.
While I don't want to argue with you, it seems to me that under today's circumstances, and given the sources of immigration, changing demographics cannot fail to help destroy such of our traditional national identity as we have left.
I don't discount the possibility that eventually a worthy new identity might evolve in lieu of the traditional one. But based on present evidence, it would take generations, with a great deal of dysfunction and conflict in between. Given a choice between that and preserving what we have, I vote for preservation.
When I refer to identity in the American context I really mean white American identity, not US identity. So when you point out that immigration is destroying our traditional national identity, I agree. That identity was ruined, I think, when the left succeeded in redefining it as "we are the country of immigrants".
But I'm not clear on exactly what you mean when you say you "vote for preservation." Preservation of what? Whites? The U.S.A.? White culture, but not necessarily whites themselves?
My identity is as a white American. You know, that big group of people who are white, speak English, are of Christian heritage, and are conservative. What I meant in my comment above was that the critical thing for the survival of that people is that they develop a strong identity AS a people. If we do that, then we will do just fine regardless of what the demographics of the U.S. are because we will act to preserve ourselves even if that requires revolution. But if we don't develop that identity, it wouldn't even matter if somehow the demographics didn't change...the young people would intermarry with others at a growing rate, would do nothing to protect the language and culture, and the more confident identity groups who live within the U.S. would gradually impose their culture, language, religion, and way of life on us.
A woken-up white America that sees itself as a people - that has a strong identity - is unbeatable. That's why I feel that white Americans developing an identity is even more important than demographics.
For myself, I find that I only secondarily think of myself as an American anymore. I'm a white guy. That's shorthand for the people I identify with. Watching the U.S. team play in the world cup briefly, I wondered how many of our players were actually of my people. It didn't look like many were. Looked mostly like a team of alien immigrants. And that vuvuzuela drone in the background was as bad as I've heard. Auster is right about liberalism leading to a descent into primal disorder and noise.
My traditional America isn't composed exclusively of whites. A little exogamy is good for a culture. It's fine to have a limited influx of Asians, including Indians, and a trickle of others.
But if what America traditionally represented is to be preserved or revived, whites should be in a solid majority, as they were before the 1965 immigration law committed us to opening the floodgates to immigrants with totally different cultural values, and many with lower IQs.
Of course I agree that for the devastating trend to change, white Americans must re-discover a strong, coherent, and proud identity. The more that demographics change the country into something that mimics the Third World, however, the less likely that is to happen.
I understand your disagreement -- you believe that only by seeing immigrant colonization becoming overwhelming will whites take up their own cause. Maybe, but I am afraid at that point it will be too late.
Must view - it is part of the same war.
Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, Yale fellow, “Distinguished Professor of the Year”, and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama’s intention is to “correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel.” Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim – to the point of “wanting to see the destruction of Israel.”
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/06/27/israel-“samson-option”-choice-in-absence-of-choice/#more-54421
DP111...thank you for that link. This is very important and should be viewed by everyone.
First, you are right : demographics is the most (do I mean "only"?) important issue.
Second, if I have caught your meaning, you have decided to drop what we call "la politique politicienne", to be free to deal with Politics -capital P- in the Grecian sense of the word...Once again, you could not be more right, and I could not agree more!
An example ? I am just back from Italy, "the motherland of music and arts" (my translation of what I read on placards!) ; well, their government has just decided that opera-houses would have to find sponsors in the future : the State has no money for useless activities such as music, neither have the local authorities...As it was written on the walls in Bologna : "un popolo senza teatro è un popolo morto"...Anybody really interested in the City affairs would agree ; but apparently, Italy is like the rest of the world, politics deals with money and power, not with culture.
Zazie,
Vous avez revenu! Merci pour écrire.
I do not understand "la politique" in the Grecian sense.
What I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, was that while it may make us feel better to bash (écraser) Obama or Sarkozy or to win some kind of temporary victory over them, the issue will be decided by the nature of the population.
Your politicians seem to want to ensure that France is a mixture of French and North Africans, ours want to make the United States a mixture of every country on earth. It will not work. Africans cannot become French, and don't want to. Our modern imported populations do not want to become Americans. They want to sponge off our dwindling prosperity and colonize us.
Nothing will decide the future of our countries except their ethnic makeup.
Post a Comment