The Alexandria shootings and the ‘agenda’

The left is pretty predictable in their habit of calling for gun control whenever any kind of mass shooting happens, and oddly (one might think) even when the shooter is one of their own, one of their fellow fanatic ideologues, like the latest perpetrator.

Actually many if not most of these kinds of shootings are done by lefties, though maybe the mainstream GOP types make too much of the political affiliations of the perps in cases like this. For example, they will gleefully mention that some deranged shooter or assailant was a ‘registered Democrat’ when the important fact that they shy away from mentioning is usually race. If the perpetrator is black, the cucked GOP types will mention his party affiliation long before dreaming of mentioning race or religion (if said perp happens to be, oh, say, Jewish. Some things cannot be mentioned. For instance, the Columbine shootings?)

But in this case, the shooter, in Alexandria, VA, was very much a Democrat and his motivations were political; his intended targets were Republicans or Trump supporters in particular it seems.

Now we’re reading of how the shameless, callous left has been celebrating the shootings on Twitter and other social media. I can’t say I’m surprised; they are without shame or scruple, and it still astounds me how they are able to pull their double standard routine time after time. They have the unmitigated gall to pretend to be compassionate, sensitive ‘pacifists’ and Gandhi-devotees (BTW Gandhi was not as pacifistic as he pretended to be; he just got others to gin up conflicts for him) who shrink from violence. Part of this shameless play-acting of theirs is to pretend to be mortified at the mere thought of firearms, while when one of their own wields a gun, especially in an act of attempted assassination, they cheer it on, and make heartless, cynical statements disparaging the victim(s), especially if said victims are White.

It’s all who is doing what to whom. They heartily approve of violence provided it’s done against White, right-wing males, or even semi-right-wing Whites.

How does one shame people for whom shame is a foreign emotion? How can one stir guilt or conscience in ‘people’ without any sense of guilt, and lacking even the semblance of a conscience?

The left, almost to a man (or woman, or whatever other gender they believe themselves to be) are the clinical definition of psychopaths or sociopaths. I often scoff at psychology/psychiatry as pseudo-science, but if such things as psychopaths and sociopaths exist, the left fits the definition. (Incidentally, it’s sort of delicious for me to be able to cite HuffPost for the definition of those terms; if anybody knows what those terms mean, it’s that crowd.)

  • Prone to nervousness, distress and temper meltdowns, not easily calm and suave like the psychopath

  • Usually not well-educated, often non-gainfully employed, the drifter type, the one whom everyone sees as “troubled” or “disturbed.”

  • Their crimes typically are sloppy rather than meticulously premeditated and planned.

  • Capable of emotional bonds with others, but this is difficult to achieve.

  • Despite the capability of emotional attachments, they disregard social mores as a whole.

Notice they cite Ted Bundy as an example of a psychopath. I will say Ted was just evil and twisted, and leave the faux science to the lefties. I am sure they picked Bundy because he was, firstly, White, second, male, and third, supposedly an active member of the Republican party. Why not cite Coral Eugene Watts or Charles Ng?

The left, in typical not-taking-responsibility fashion, will not own its terrorists or psycho-killers, and when forced to acknowledge them, fall back on victimology excuse-making and rationalizing: ‘victim of racism’ or ‘childhood abuse and poverty’, or in this case, driven to it by Donald Trump, I suppose.

But maybe the left’s constant calls for gun control might be muted if they admitted to themselves that they enjoy seeing their fellow lefty-fanatics blasting away at Evil Whitey Republicans. When guns are outlawed, only right-wing gun-nuts will have guns. No, wait, the lefties represent the lawless, criminal side of society, the side their “hearts” always bleed for, and their kind can always obtain weapons, laws or no laws.

 

Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.

 

My misgivings were valid

Or so it appears now, what with Trump’s launching of missile strikes on Syria. Now we can watch Lindsey Graham and John McCain gloat over getting what they wanted, and we get to hear Newt Gingrich’s smug statements about the ‘decisive action’ Trump is taking.

Praise from that bunch is equivalent to anathema, from my perspective. And it seems a lot of people on the alt-right agree with my feelings about this, while many of the ‘true believer’ diehards are sticking by Trump — but these seem mostly in the GOP faithful category. Like the FReeper who posted this, in response to those disenchanted with the ‘god-emperor”:

To: TrumpisRight

All the anti-Trump drama queens around here tonight should be listening to Newt on Fox right now.

He just said this is a historic week. Gorsuch confirmed, successful meetings with Egypt and Jordan, meeting today wirh China, and decisive action in Syria that just made Russia, Iran, Syria and NK take notice. Newt said Trump has a strong SoS, SecDef, and NSA and Trump is stronger than all of them. People trashing Trump tonight need to just get a life.”

I’ve not posted much about the Trump administration and their doings. I voted for Trump with some misgivings; I was not pleased to see the coterie of neocons and globalist-types that Trump gathered around him, and it seems as if one by one he was backing off his promises or half-promises, caving on too many important things. I refrained from blogging about that, hoping these things would just be aberrations, but it seems they were not.

Is Trump the passive victim of a ‘coup,’ as some say? Is he being ”played”, duped, given bad advice by the crowd of wormtongues around him, or is he consciously participating in a preplanned operation?

Early on I began to wonder: what if? What if he is a participant in some kind of psyops directed at the right, probably at the alt-right, as the media seemed obsessed with calling attention to the ‘evil, fascist’ alt-right during the campaign? Might the powers-that-be not have purposely run a candidate that could be made to appeal to the nationalist, non-PC, anti-globalist right wing, so much feared (it seems) by TPTB? By running a candidate that would give signals that he supported a populist, nationalist right agenda, maybe they thought they could corral and ‘tame’ such a movement, or co-opt it, making the alt-right feel they had a stake in ‘the system’, in mainstream politics, rather than in opposing the system.

They could thus de-fang the feared alt-right/populist right and, when the latter inevitably found out they were being gaslighted and fooled, disillusionment and demoralization would follow, and maybe a schism in the non-PC right, or even amongst the harmless, ‘cucked’ GOP, who would likewise break down into dissension and thus spend their energy in infighting (pro-Trump loyalists vs. disillusioned ex-Trump supporters). Or maybe I have read too many ‘conspiracy’ oriented speculations, and become too cynical.

Maybe we’ll never know. I do think our trust was betrayed, though as I said I was a skeptic already.

Meantime we have to wonder if this Syria thing will lead to war with Russia, and for Christians, whether this is the ‘Gog-Magog’ scenario we’re embarking on.

Syria intervention?

I don’t know if I have much to add to the discussion of the situation in Syria. Plenty of other bloggers on the right are talking about it. All I can say is that it gives me a feeling of déjà vu, of 2003 and the beginning of the Iraq war, which has proven to have been futile (as I and many others on the ‘real right’  then said it would be) and to have wasted many American lives.

Back then, the Republican faithful had become used to defending G.W. Bush in the face of the constant attacks from the left, who were then in the throes of ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’. And thus anybody on the right who criticized Bush was called names and basically read out of the Republican fold. Only the ‘paleocons’, the old right, and a few ‘traditionalists’ spoke out against the Iraq war, because in the face of all the anti-Bush feeling in the media, the GOP resorted to a blind loyalty that led them to rationalize every bad move Bush made, talking themselves into believing that he was a ‘master politician’ who had some grand, secret plan, some ‘strategery’, as Limbaugh called it, that would eventually bring triumph for himself and for Republicans. Of course Bush, the ultimate ‘shrewd poker player’ and political genius, never produced this grand triumph his faithful followers counted on. The war in Iraq was, as the doubters on the ‘old right’ predicted, a boondoggle, and a ‘quagmire’.

The ‘old right’ was right back in 2003. The ‘neocons’, who were hardly recognized by many Republicans for what they were then, have since unmasked themselves; surely we know better than to follow their failed policies? Or will blind loyalty cause us to repeat the blunders of the recent past?

I hope I am wrong in this case, but if this proposed Syrian adventure happens, it could be the Bush ‘quagmire’ all over again.

Victory

Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

A New ‘New Deal’

Donald Trump says ‘African-Americans’ deserve a ‘New Deal.‘ Not the old ‘New Deal’ which FDR offered to all Americans, but their own ‘New Deal.’ Apparently they haven’t gotten a fair shake.

The United States must set up a new commission involving the African American community to end the pattern of young people going from failed schools into lives of crime and imprisonment, Donald Trump told a campaign rally.

[…]I will… establish a new commission to tackle the school to prison pipeline and to shut that pathway down and to create instead a new pathway that leads from great education to a great job.” Trump described school choice as the great civil rights issue of current times and promised to champion it in all 50 US states if he is elected president on November 8.”

Isn’t this all awfully familiar, a variation on the various taxpayer-funded programs of the last, oh, 50 or 60 years? And how much good have they done, except to foster a sense of entitlement and a demand that ‘more’ must always be done?

I won’t belabor this because I think most people on the right are gritting their teeth when they hear these kinds of things,  or reassuring themselves that ”he just has to say these things, and besides we need the votes; winning is crucial…”

“It’s time for a 21st century Glass Steagall and… a priority on helping African-American businesses get the credit they need.”

Trump criticized the policies of two-term President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, the current Democratic nominee for president, as playing a major role in impoverishing the African American community. “The policies of the Clintons brought us the financial recession — through lifting Glass-Steagall, pushing subprime lending, and blocking reforms to Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac]” – the two giant federally supported mortgage-supporting corporations, he stated. Trump also said he would encourage small-business creation by allowing social welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but forgive-able micro-loans. “I will also propose tax holidays for inner city neighborhoods… [and] financial reforms to help young African Americans to get tax credits to pursue their dreams in their communities.”

This is just all too redolent of the ‘Democrats are the real racists‘ line; it seems that blacks are forever to be a catered-to and coddled segment of the population, regardless of who is in office. That’s what depresses me.

All right; I’ve gotten it off my chest for now, though I know it’s hopeless to talk about it. I hope we don’t all have ‘buyer’s remorse’ after the election, if Trump is elected. Yes, I know, the alternative is far worse, and yes, the Overton Window and all that, but still…

I wish I could be wholehearted about my vote. These kinds of things make me doubt.

Categorize this under ‘more White paternalism.’

 

Evangelicals prefer Trump

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.