“In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really ‘universal’ and ‘culture-neutral’ because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.” – Sam Francis
For some time, many of us who keep an eye on these issues thought that Northern Ireland, that is, Ulster, was spared from the mass immigration which has swamped the UK and many other Western countries. We thought wrong, as this article from the ethnonationalist blog Ulster Awake shows us. Ulster, it appears, is in the crosshairs too, and is being ‘enriched’ with diversity, mostly in the form of economic migrants.
Naturally this is hurting the native people of Ulster.
Why employ Brendan or Billy at £9 p/h when we can have Pablo or Gregori doing the same job for £6.95-£7.20 without moaning about overtime/nights or weekends as those much needed funds are needed back home, and with nine to a two up/two down terrace house their living expenses are to a bare minimum!”
It appears that some of the immigration is coming from Eastern Europe and Portugal. For those who are pan-Europeanists or WNs, the thinking is: “what’s the problem as long as they are White?”, after all Eastern Europeans and Portuguese are White (in the latter case, to varying degrees).
But would the people of Ulster agree with that viewpoint? I would say the real ethnonationalist favors his own people over others, and no ethnonationalist would agree with those who imply that all European peoples are basically interchangeable.
Given the false choice of deciding which immigrant group replaces you in your own homeland, how can it be less disastrous to be replaced by those of roughly similar complexion, as opposed to people of another race? Absurd. The real question should be not about who is the least objectionable replacement for your folk, but why that replacement and ethnic cleansing process is accepted at all?
Nor, as some say, is mass immigration acceptable as long as it’s not Moslems who are replacing the native people. It’s pretty cold comfort to be told ‘at least they aren’t Moslems‘, as you watch your neighborhood and country being transformed.
Each people is unique; cultures are not equal, because people — individual people and the various ethnic groups — are not equal.
We can only wish the Ulster folk the best; I believe and hope they have a strong enough sense of their identity and their roots to resist this forced change to their country.
There was an interesting comment (of many) on a thread at Vox Day’s blog. It addresses something I’ve thought about considerably, and the writer’s experience parallels my own, regarding ancestral lines and the ‘gaslighting’ that we are subjected to regarding American ancestry and thus American identity. I trust that the commenter, ‘Harris’ won’t object if I excerpt:
“I have been working on my genealogy lately, and I’ve discovered something about the lack of mixing with other races in my own bloodline. So far, in the 400 years since my family settled in North America from England, there are only 4 non-Anglo women that have married into the family (out of over 4500 currently in the extended family tree) and the female descendants of those 4 women have NEVER married a non-anglo male. Those 4 women were 1 Irish woman, 1 German, 1 Cherokee woman, and 1 Swiss woman.
[…]My point is that while nearly my entire family arrived in the first wave of settlers in Massachusetts & Virginia, there has been very little intermarrying with other Caucasian races, much less non-Caucasians. I’ve noticed that other races also tend to marry their own kind.
Just in my own family, you see the myth of the melting pot disproved. This indicates that the bloodline ties are more than just cosmetic. There is something subconscious about seeking your own. How has the West lost sight of this truth?
There has to have been a determined and conscious effort to undermine the cultural homogeneity of our western societies, and this can be traced back to Darwinism, the progressive movement of the late 19th century, and the emergence of a communist philosophy that sought to undermine the Christian foundations of our various Caucasian civilizations. This was purposeful, and we large did this to ourselves.”
First, just in passing, it’s of interest to me that the writer’s family tree seems to intersect with mine at some points (which is not that uncommon, with colonial-stock Americans), then the rest of his comment (which can be read here) points out what I have often said. Many people make the claim that ”we’re all mixed-up; there are no Americans who are not at least mixed ethnicity if not racially mixed.” This just isn’t necessarily true, especially as you go back through the generations. Some parts of the country, having had lots of immigration, were likely to see marriages across ethnic lines, though rarely interracially. Miscegenation was illegal most everywhere until the late 1960s, though the rules slightly differed from state to state. But many places, those with low immigration rates, rural areas especially, did not experience much marriage across ethnic lines. People too often tend to interpret things through their own personal reality and extrapolate that to the rest of America.
Some of the comments on the thread linked above scoffed, to some extent, at the value of genealogy, as being unreliable. It’s true that there is a lot of false or partially-false information on genealogy websites where people upload their own (often mistaken) data, and there is little cross-checking and validation being done. But that doesn’t mean all online data is untrustworthy. It does need scrutiny and verification. But now there is the additional resource of DNA testing — but as in our family’s case, it verified pretty much what our previous information indicated.
But the commenter’s assertion that there has been an effort to undermine the homogeneity of our people and nation is a very plausible one. I think a big part of that has been a conscious effort to foster the myth of the ‘melting pot’ (the term a creation of Israel Zangwill, by the way) and the idea that we are all hopelessly mixed. Why would those ideas be important to implant? Because it fosters resignation to the continuing effort to blend us all together — after all, we’re all ‘mongrels’ as I believe our former POTUS said. I believe this whole process probably was in the works longer than we have realized, and that the Ellis Island experiment was to accustom us to more and more disparate peoples and cultures, as just one stage of the plan to blend Americans into one amorphous “people” and culture, rootless and identity-less, except for our identity in a civic sense.
If Americans could only start to realize that we are not this non-nation “of no race and no culture” as we hear some voices insisting. There is something still to be preserved.
The following is a reworking of a post I made about 9 years ago on the old blog:
This time ever year, the ‘Come and Take It!’ festival, in Gonzales, Texas, is held. Gonzales County is where six generations of my kin have lived and died.
Gonzales, as it happens, was the site of the first shot fired in the Texas Revolution, on October 2, 1835. For this reason, Gonzales has been called the ‘Lexington of Texas,’ and ‘the Birthplace of Texas Independence.’
The ‘Come and Take It’ festivities include a battle re-enactment at Pioneer Village, races, a historical presentation, parades, food booths, and music.
“Gonzales is one of the earliest Anglo-American settlements in Texas, the first west of the Colorado River. It was established by Empresario Green DeWitt as the capital of his colony in August 1825. DeWitt named the community for Rafael Gonzáles, governor of Coahuila y Tejas.
[…]Gonzales is referred to as the “Lexington of Texas” because it was the site of the first skirmish of the Texas Revolution. In 1831, the Mexican government had granted Green DeWitt’s request for a small cannon for protection against Indian attacks. At the outbreak of disputes between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican authorities in 1835, a contingent of more than 100 Mexican soldiers was sent from San Antonio to retrieve the cannon.
When the soldiers arrived, there were only 18 men in Gonzales, but they refused to return the cannon, and soon men from the surrounding area joined them. Texians under the command of John H. Moore confronted them. Sarah DeWitt and her daughter sewed a flag bearing the likeness of the cannon and the words “Come and Take It,” which was flown when the first shots of Texan independence were fired on October 2, 1835. The Texians successfully resisted the Mexican troops in what became known as the Battle of Gonzales.”
After this opening shot in the Texas revolution was fired, a number of dramatic events led the way to the independence of Texas. Along the way were decisive events, such as the Alamo, and the terrible massacre at Goliad, and the victory at San Jacinto.
These events are part of my family history, as they are for many old-stock Texas families; they are real events to me, not just dry dates and facts in a history textbook. There are family names on those memorials, citing the names of my kin who died there. The Goliad massacre is especially heart-wrenching:
“Boys, they are going to kill us—die with your faces to them, like men!”……two other young men, flourishing their caps over their heads, shouted at the top of their voices: ‘Hurra for Texas!’
Can Texas cease to cherish the memory of those, whose dying words gave a pledge of their devotion to her cause? — Capt. Jack Shackelford, Survivor of the Massacre”
It’s surprising how few people outside Texas are aware that Texas actually won its independence from Mexico. There is a kind of tragic irony to the fact that at this time, there is talk of a merger between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I have to wonder what my Texan colonist ancestors would think had they known that only a few generations after their heroic efforts to win Texas’ independence, that Mexico would seemingly be taking Texas by stealth colonization and by demographic conquest. I can only believe my steadfast forefathers would be astounded at the actions of our present-day leaders and their kowtowing to a failed third-world country to our south, and at our submissive posture.
My ancestors, along with other DeWitt colonists, were there by invitation of the Mexican government. Those colonists were productive, industrious, can-do people; they created Texas in what was an untamed wilderness. There was no Mexican settlement there of any note; the Mexicans could not establish flourishing colonies therem because they were not able to subdue the fractious Indian tribes. So they brought in Americans to do that.
The colonists were not needy, not coming hat in hand, to ask for employment or help from Mexico. They were self-reliant, unlike the colonists who are coming north now into the United States. Despite their recently-coined reputation for ‘hard work’, today’s Mexican colonizers are in no way comparable to those Americans who came and built Texas.
Now the situation is reversed, with Mexicans colonizing Texas, largely by stealth, although most of our politicians are giving the Mexican colonists tacit approval and a covert invitation. Inviting them, it appears, to come and to take Texas, which it seems they are enthusiastically doing.
Our Texas forefathers, when they flew the ‘Come and Take It’ flag, used that phrase in defiance of the Mexican authorities, in refusing to surrender their cannon. When they used these words, they were knowingly echoing the defiant taunt ‘Molon Labe‘ – or ‘come and take them’ by Spartan King Leonidas, directed at the Persian King Xerxes at Thermopylae . Xerxes offered to spare Leonidas and his men if they gave up their weapons and surrendered. Xerxes refused, knowing they were vastly outnumbered. ‘Molon labe’ — ‘come and take them’, was the defiant answer of the Spartans, despite the fact that they numbered only three hundred. Still, they held off the much larger force of 600,000 Persians for seven days. They fought to the last man. Although they were crushed by the Persians, their brave example inspired the Greeks to resist the Persians and later defeat them at Salamis, which was a momentous and decisive victory, affecting the whole course of Western history.
Interestingly, many liken Thermopylae to the Alamo:
“There are times when a defeat can become a triumph. Just as the heroic death of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae gave courage to the rest of Greece; so the last stand of a handful of brave Texians in a fortified Mission became a rallying cry for Texas’ independence: Remember the Alamo!”
Like the roll call of the defenders of the Alamo, the name of every individual Spartan who died at Thermopylae was remembered for as long as ancient Sparta endured. They were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta that could still be read over seven centuries later. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years? Would it matter? It is what the Alamo represents that is immortal, not the tangible remains of the buildings. Heroism, once achieved and honored, is never forgotten entirely.”
In paying tribute to those massacred at Goliad, Gen. Thomas Rusk, in his poignant speech at the site, said
“FELLOW SOLDIERS: In the order of Providence we are this day called upon to pay the last sad offices of respect to the remains of the noble and heroic band, who, battling for our sacred rights, have fallen beneath the ruthless hand of a tyrant. Their chivalrous conduct entitles them to the heartfelt gratitude of the people of Texas. Without any further interest in the country than that which all noble hearts feel at the bare mention of liberty, they rallied to our standard. Relinquishing the ease, peace, and comforts of their homes, leaving behind them all they held dear, their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives, they subjected themselves to fatigue and privation, and nobly threw themselves between the people of Texas and the legions of Santa Anna.
There, unaided by re-inforcements and far from help and hope, they battled bravely with the minions of a tyrant, ten to one. Surrounded in the open prairie by this fearful odds, cut off from provisions and even water, they were induced, under the sacred promise of receiving the treatment usual to prisoners of war, to surrender. They were marched back, and for a week treated with the utmost inhumanity and barbarity. They were marched out of yonder fort under the pretense of getting provisions, and it was not until the firing of musketry did the shrieks of the dying, that they were satisfied of their approaching fate. Some endeavored to make their escape, but they were pursued by the ruthless cavalry and most of them cut down with their swords. A small number of them stand by the grave – a bare remnant of that noble band. Our tribute of respect is due to them; it is due to the mothers, sisters, and wives who weep their untimely end, that we should mingle our tears with theirs. In that mass of remains and fragments of bones, many a mother might see her son…
[…]while liberty has a habitation and a name, their chivalrous deeds will be handed down upon the bright pages of history.”
And will their chivalrous deeds be remembered, when Texas is de facto Mexican territory, a Spanish-speaking province, which will no doubt see this history very differently than we, the posterity of those massacred there? Are we honoring their memory by meekly giving back what they bought with their blood?
These are questions I ponder when I think of those fateful events in Texas. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years, the Alamo Journal writer cited earlier asks. Given current trends, will the Alamo still stand in 70 years, much less 700? Will the Lone Star flag still fly over it then, or the Stars and Stripes? Or will the Mexican flag with its bird of prey be flying there? If anyone remembers the Alamo, will they remember that small group of valiant defenders, or will they be honoring Santa Anna?
I hope the writer is right; that the heroism of those Texas patriots at the Alamo and at Goliad and all the rest, will be remembered and honored; I hope that what they fought and died for will not be overturned by our supine tolerance of the slow-motion invasion which threatens now to undo all that our forefathers shed their blood to establish.
Tiberge at Gallia Watch posted a video of one Federica Mogherini, whose title is High Representative on Foreign Affairs of the European Union, speaking on immigration. Tiberge introduces the video by saying ‘This will cheer you up.’ Now, I have been in dire need of cheering up lately; I’ve been unusually dispirited, hence the sparse posting here. But obviously the content of the video is not likely to cheer any sane person up; Tiberge was obviously being wry and ironic.
From the speech by Miss Mogherini:
I know it’s something some of you don’t want to hear but it’s a reality. There are seven billion people on the earth and more and more inequalities. If immigration is well-managed it can bring incredible opportunities for those who leave their country and for those who welcome them. Let’s be realistic. You can see the democratic tendencies in Europe.
So it is not a phenomenon that needs to be stemmed, on the contrary. We will continue to manage immigration in an efficient manner all the while respecting human rights. It must be beneficial to everyone.”
Well, obviously, Signorina Mogherini, no, we don’t want to hear this. And no, immigration is not beneficial in any way to ‘your‘ country or to any of the rightful inhabitants of Western/once-White countries.To the contrary, it is destructive, dangerous, and a blight on our countries. It benefits only those greedy business owners with an insatiable lust for more profits (via cheap labor, and selling their products or services to the ‘immigrants) or possibly to politicians who are on the take.
I never heard of this Mogherini female, though apparently her father was a movie director. No doubt she has not lived in the world inhabited by ordinary people, likely having been brought up in a very rarefied atmosphere. In any case she was involved in Communist activities from a young age (she is a Gen-Xer, by the way, for the generational warfare fans out there). She has also been very pro-Islam.
Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and-what matters most-in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.
Further, the Wikipedia entry says that
According to columnist Llaus Jurgens, Mogherini believes that “political Islam should be part of the equation in fighting terror and in particular the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” and “she did not say that political Islam should become Europe’s new masterplan”
Speaking of Europe’s ‘new masterplan,’ I blogged a while back about an alleged plan afoot in Europe which involves the Powers-that-Be basically making a covert surrender to Islam, in exchange for their retaining their privileged positions. Mogherini’s words, plus the actions of Western leaders generally, makes me more and more inclined to lend some credence to that talk of some kind of deal struck between Western ‘leaders’ and Islam.
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.
Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)
I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.
Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.
“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”
Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”
One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.
But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?‘
It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.
And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.
Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.
But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”
I’ve spent more time than usual, this past week, in searching through many blogs looking for something elusive; I suppose I am looking for other views that are somewhat on my wavelength, and seeming not to find them. I think that of the blogs I used to read, which are no longer there, I miss the Bad Eagle blog the most. Why? I didn’t always agree with all that he wrote, as I rarely agree 100 per cent with anyone. Some of the subjects on which he wrote were a little esoteric for me, but when he wrote as an ethnopatriot he wrote some very good pieces.
[Maybe it’s not ‘the thing’ to praise an American Indian, but if many on the ‘pro-White’ side can laud Thomas Sowell or certain (((other))) bloggers, then I can cite Bad Eagle.]
Those of you who remember the late Dr. David Yeagley, aka ‘Bad Eagle’, know that he was a Comanche Indian (though his father was White) and he was not in any way hostile to White Americans, not given to striking the ‘victim’ pose. He was very friendly to White ethnopatriotism/ethnonationalism. Most Americans are only familiar with the grandstanding ‘professional Indians’, the ones who denounce Columbus as a ‘genocidalist’ every October. Yeagley called these ‘campus Indians’, because in general it is only the university-educated Indians who become radicalized and militant. Yeagley was an academic by profession, yet he was that rare exception, a non-liberal academic.
I came across this article of his from 2013; in it he asks the pertinent question:
He is not asking the question in a hostile way; quite the contrary. He is exhorting Whites and trying to encourage a resolute response to what is happening to our country and to the West. I recommend reading it, and the comments — though I will warn that the first comment may not be palatable to some (because of the link it contains).
Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.
The faithful will deny it’s true but Univision is claiming that Donald Trump, in a meeting with Hispanic leaders, is offering a deal to legalize “millions of undocumented immigrants.”
If true, Trump’s plan would stand in sharp contrast to his previous statements about immigrants during the campaign. During the primaries, the New York property tycoon promised to build a wall along the border with Mexico and to deport all undocumented immigrants.
The possible reversal over immigration policy by the Republican candidate would not be without precedent after Trump has shifted his position on a variety of issues during his campaign from banning Muslims to taxes, minimum wages and and abortion.
Polls show Trump has alienated many minority voters and Republican party strategists have urged him to tone down his rhetoric about immigrants, especially Hispanics who make up a growing share of registered voters – about 10% in November.”
Republican party strategists — I see their hand in this. I have not trusted the recent additions to Trump’s staff, particularly people like Newt Gingrich, about whom nothing more need be said, and Kellyanne Conway — who previously headed Ted Cruz’ SuperPac and was a big donor to his failed campaign. She has also favored legalizing illegals.
Kellyanne Conway, who was named Trump’s campaign manager Wednesday morning, co-authored a 2014 polling memo for the pro-immigration group FWD.us touting the benefits of a sweeping overhaul bill that would have created a 13-year pathway to citizenship for roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants.
The memo, which was signed by Conway and 15 other GOP pollsters, argued that “most Americans don’t believe deportation is a viable policy” and that there is an “overwhelming consensus” for “some kind of legalization” for people in the United States illegally. The pollsters made the case that there is “broad support” for the bill that Trump now strongly opposes but Hillary Clinton supports.
“Supporting this new immigration reform proposal should be good electoral politics for Republicans,” the memo said.
Still, if Trump is sufficiently his own man he would likely not be swayed by this coterie of Wormtongues he’s acquired.
It appears I’m one of very few people who find this new report unsettling; everybody else on the Internet seems to shrug this off as, (to use Limbaugh’s word when excusing some leftward move by George W. Bush), “strategery.” Bushbots used to excuse any sellout of ‘conservative principles’ by Bush as being just ‘W’ being shrewd and ‘gaming the system.’ Strategery, and you need strategery to win. But, as I used to waste a lot of time arguing with these Bushbots and party faithful, if you ‘win’ by sacrificing any ‘conservative’ principles you may have had, or by selling out your real base of support, what has the Party won? More importantly, what will we, the People, have won? Trump may be elected but if he comes into office heavily indebted to blacks (who have ‘suffered the most’ as he said) and illegal immigrants, what will we have won?
Talk is cheap, and the minority groups who are on the receiving (and I emphasize receiving) end of the pandering know this. They will not be satisfied by sweet talk and courting; they will expect Trump to come across with the goods ultimately. And that will mean more tax dollars spent on ”outreach”, special programs, and constant attention for reassurance that they are still at the apex of the victims’ pyramid. Just as in the past, there is always the threat of rioting to keep their special status intact.
I have not yet given up on Trump; I will give him the benefit of the doubt, realizing that we, the Founders’ posterity, have nowhere else to go this election. We have no candidate that represents our interests; in fact we have no viable candidate who is not outright hostile to our interests. But let’s watch and see whether Trump himself confirms this story from Univision. I wonder if, having satisfied himself that he has people like me ‘in the bag’, and that we have nowhere to go, he will now turn to minorities and focus on them until November. As always, we are taken for granted.
‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.
The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.
The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”
The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?
What will be next to fall?
The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”
The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people. That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.
The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.
My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, “I Sang Dixie” by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.
Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.