Thursday, June 29, 2006
The strange saga of Ward Churchill, Identity Thief, is a story that is part and parcel of the 'counterculture' movement of the late 60s/early 70s, a time when Churchill, born in 1947, was coming of age. He is very much a product of his times.
I confess to being old enough to remember that era and to have been at ground zero, on college campuses, during the 70s. There were many 'little Ward Churchills' then, young men (and women too) of leftist leanings and 'native American' pretensions. It was the early days of 'identity politics' on campus, with a 'Black Students' Union' on most campuses, and usually an 'American Indian' or 'Native American' student association. On my campus(es) (I attended two colleges during the 70s) there were a number of hangers-on who desperately wanted to be 'Native American' who dressed in beads and feathers and turquoise jewelry, and who claimed some nebulous Indian ancestry. Most often their ancestry was said to be 'Cherokee' and almost 100% of the time, that Cherokee blood was from a 'full-blood Cherokee' great-grandmother. Almost 100% of the time, the claimant looked to be purely European by descent, and had no specifics on their 'Native' ancestry except for family legend. Now, being charitable, maybe a few of these people did possess genuine Indian ancestry, or at least honestly believed they did. Some, however, appeared mostly to be rather sad young people who were obsessed with the idealized 'noble savage' a la Rousseau, and who rejected their whitebread American ancestry; after all, whitey was the bad guy in the prevailing leftist worldview. Whitey was an oppressor and a ravager of Mother Earth and a bloodthirsty conqueror, while the gentle 'Native American' was a paragon of leftist virtue. What leftist would not prefer to disavow their white ancestry in favor of the idealized Indian image? Ward Churchill may have been one of those who believed in his putative Indian ancestry, or he may be a charlatan who seized on the Indian persona as a way of self-promotion. Only he really knows, at this point, and he ain't telling. He seems determined to brazen it out, and he seems incapable of honesty on the issue, in my opinion.
His belligerent statements of defiance never really refute the charges (of plagiarism, for example) which have been laid against him. Instead he seems merely to accuse his accusers, and to proclaim his own self-righteous victimhood. Right out of the leftist playbook.
Why, I wonder, do Churchill's myriad defenders on the left refuse to acknowledge that their hero is a fraud? At the very least, his claim to Indian ancestry has been called into serious doubt, and his artwork shown to have been stolen or copied. Yet his defenders stridently maintain he is an innocent victim of the 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy', persecuted for his 'progressive' politics. Never mind that most university campuses are hardly bastions of any kind of 'right-wing conspiracy'.
But his defenders, most of whom claim to be champions of downtrodden minorities, including the 'Native Americans', refuse to see the harm he has done by stealing American Indian identity, and by usurping a position in academia that should have gone to a genuine 'Native American.' Where is their sympathy for minorities now? Their allegiance is to their political comrade-in-arms above all. It's all about the politics, not about championing the oppressed minorities. And after all, Churchill is the dream spokesman for the left: his supposed 'Native' identity gives him a soapbox from which to excoriate America, and his alleged combat veteran status makes him the perfect leftist anti-war zealot. What can be better, from the leftist point-of-view, than an Indian castigating Whitey, and a Vietnam vet denouncing war and militarism? The liberals see him as a prize for their cause, and his lies pose no problem for them. After all, they embraced Clinton despite his mendacious ways, because he was one of their own, just as with Churchill.
Back in the 70s, chances are Churchill read a couple of the popular pro-Indian books of the time: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, and Custer Died For Your Sins, by Vine Deloria, Jr. [An interesing note here: author Deloria apparently called Custer 'the Eichmann of the Plains' - so apparently Churchill's line about Americans being 'little Eichmanns' was also not original with him.]
The title 'Custer Died For Your Sins' is somewhat telling: the campus liberal wannabee Indians were filled with guilt over the 'sins' of their ancestors, and to expiate their guilt, they had to sacrifice their own heroes, their own ancestors symbolically. Many of the same radical students are now university academics who promote revisionist history, vilifying the heroes of America's past, turning those heroes to villains. In doing so, they spread their own self-hatred and self-rejection to impressionable young people. It is these leftists in academia and government who promote 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity', attempting to discredit everything about American tradition. These same people are among those who want to transform America by means of open borders and Politically Correct codes and laws, thus expiating the 'sins' of their own forefathers. Deloria declared that Custer 'died for our sins', and the Ward Churchills of the world will not be satisfied until America is sacrificed to atone for those 'sins.'
Just as today's illegal Mexican immigrants steal the identities of Americans to claim the rights of Americans, they are also metaphorically stealing the identities of American Indians: many of them claim that they are the indigenous people of this continent, while European-Americans are the real illegals and interlopers. Just like these people, Churchill is appropriating the identity of American Indians to legitimize his cause.
Identity thieves all.
Apparently I am not the only one experiencing this kind of torpor. My cyber-compatriot, Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule, confesses to feeling 'sick of politics' of late, and has turned to blogging more about scientific news. She is posting some fascinating things on science, so her blog is always fascinating no matter what she chooses to comment on.
Also, Mark at Western Survival has declared a 'semi-hiatus' for his blog, since he seems to feel we are at a stagnant stage in our civilizational crisis. It certainly seems that way.
For myself, although I am definitely feeling an ennui, I will continue to soldier on with my blogging; it's as though I have no choice. I relate very much to what the apostle Paul said when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:16, ..."necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel."
I feel a burden for my country; I feel the need to keep sounding the alarm and talking about the danger we are in, and when possible, to remind myself and others of the great traditions that we stand to lose, should our energies flag, or should we simply resign ourselves, as some Americans seem to be doing. I write as much to keep myself energized for the struggle as to exhort others. This blog is something I feel impelled to do, little though it may be.
I am blessed to know who my forebears were, and to know something of their struggles through the centuries. I know that I am from a long line of strong, determined people who prevailed against difficult odds, and who were people of action, who did not give in and give up in the face of difficulties. So I will 'keep on keeping on', no matter how discouraging the world seems at this particular moment.
'Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor, and to wait.'
- 'Psalm of Life', Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Cannon won the GOP primary 56 percent to Jacob's 44 percent with 100 percent of the vote tallied.
Early returns left him combative about the perceived interference of outside immigration reform groups that backed Jacob, especially Team America, which spent more than $54,000 against him. Another group that took aim at Cannon was the Minuteman Political Action Committee, which came in with last-minute newspaper and radio ads and a phone message campaign attacking the congressman for being for amnesty and against tough borders.
"This race was about extremism," Cannon said. "Not by my opponent, but by those who supported him'
So now it seems that wanting our country's laws enforced and our borders protected is classed as 'extremism'? Funny how our country's political debate keeps slip-sliding to the left. Only a couple of decades ago, this was the common-sense, default position of most law-abiding Americans; only rabid one-world liberals would support letting illegals by the million enter our country at will and receive the reward of citizenship. Now we have 'conservatives' promulgating this nonsense, and designating old-style American views as 'extremist'. At least now we are sifting the GOP and finding the liberals and globalists.
And what was it Barry Goldwater said on the subject of extremism?
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Speaking of Goldwater, in the Arizona Republic, an article by Matthew Benson quotes John McCain as saying Don Goldwater, the nephew of Barry Goldwater and a candidate for Governor, advocates an 'inhumane' immigration policy.
The statement from McCain, himself a leading GOP voice in the illegal-immigration debate, followed an apology from a Spanish-language news service that acknowledged it mischaracterized Goldwater's stance late last week. The news service had said he supported sending undocumented immigrants to "concentration camps."
So even after the admission of dishonesty on the part of the EFE News Service, McCain is still on the attack. This seems like self-righteous posturing on the part of McCain. Goldwater is owed an apology. But these kinds of tactics, the smears and the name-calling and the attempt to marginalize anyone who favors a tough line against illegals is par for the course. It's no coincidence that many of these 'moderate' Republicans and faux conservatives take a page from the liberal playbook.
Monday, June 26, 2006
An Update from the Minuteman Fence Project Manager
First, let me say thanks to the brave ranchers who are stepping up to put their lives on the line to stop the illegal invasion. They live and work within spitting distance of the Mexican border every day. These brave men and women are working side by side with Minutemen in this war zone they call home, allowing us to secure America.
Second, let’s be clear. Not every single mile of the border or every ranch or rancher is the same. The full-on Israeli-style Security Fence is our primary design and first choice for construction. However, when circumstances dictate adjustment to a Border Fence with barbed wire and a vehicle barrier or another design to meet local requirements, we will make the necessary adaptations-and keep building.
Our plan: Do the job until our government does its duty.
* Announce the need for the Minuteman Border Fence.
* Ask again that President Bush do his duty and secure the border.
* Schedule a groundbreaking to get the Border Fence launched.
* Begin raising the $55 million needed for 70 miles of fence in AZ.
* Work with ranchers to design fence to meet specific private landsite requirements.
* Get steel and contractors to manage the sites.
* Register and vet fencing volunteers.
* Build a Minuteman Fence Security Plan to patrol fencing.
* Set up Volunteer Crews administration and crew management
* Continue to build fence as fast as resources allow.
* Start more sites in TX, CA and NM as donations and volunteer capacity permit.
* Continue Border Watch and Fence Operations until the border is secure.
A Comprehensive Design
Numerous fence design variations will be required to effectively deal with border crossings by illegal aliens, drug dealers and livestock. Derivation from the primary design is necessary to accommodate local ranchers’ specific terrain, topography, herds and other factors.
The important point to remember is that MCDC will not let Vincente Fox tell us or the US ranchers we are working with where or what we can build. No matter what the fence design, MCDC will erect a well-built fence-and fences work. We know they are effective, because we see the results; incursions reduced, and all of the opposition groups and open border supporters screaming to stop the fence.
1) Security Fence - Illegal alien crossing design: A physical barrier capable of stopping people and vehicles has been designed to fit the general terrain. It is also a daunting psychological deterrent that cuts illegal crossings by 95% or more. The security fence will not be easy to compromise by climbing over with a ladder, cannot be cut with wire cutters, breached by ramming with a vehicle, or tunneling under undetected. While no fence can be a 100% impenetrable barrier-the Minuteman Border Fence is an excellent design and will prove time-consuming enough that Border Patrol agents can be alerted and respond before the incursion can be completed.
Our fence plan will keep costs near $150 per foot.
2) Border Fence - Halting drug dealers, illegal aliens and livestock: This style of fence is necessary where full Security Fencing cannot be installed. A physical barrier with a 5 wire barbed wire fence 5' 6" high, a vehicle barrier with a horizontal steel barrier in 12’ sections welded to steel post 30” high and razor wire on the ground between the wire fence and the vehicle barrier. This barrier will stop vehicles and cattle and slow down illegal aliens.
This design similar to Border Patrol designs is intended to accomplish the following: Mexican drugs are coming across the border in vehicles and on the backs of mules. The steel barrier stops drug vehicles and is high enough to stop mules from walking over and low enough to keep them from going under. The barbed wire fence keeps Mexican livestock in Mexico. Thousands of diseased Mexican cattle are presently allowed to walk freely into the US unchecked, and MCDC is working with our ranchers to stop the spread of disease. This design is cheaper and faster to erect where urgent conditions warrant, especially in cases of diseased cattle incursions.
April 20, 2006 - Chris Simcox announces the Minuteman Border Fence is to be built if President Bush does not send armed troops to secure the US - Mexico border by Memorial Day 2006.
May 27, 2006 - Successful groundbreaking was held in Arizona on Memorial Day weekend. First 2.5 miles of 10 miles of Border Fence erected. Continue fence fundraising through direct mail, email, national radio affiliates and national speaking tours.
May 27 to June 30 - Finished the first 2.5 mile section of fence, applied for permission on next 7.5 miles, repaired vandalized fence, ordered steel, finalized fence design/civil engineering specifications, retained two local Arizona contractors who hire legally, started vetting volunteers for work crews, completed volunteer delivery of donated construction truck, continue next 7.5 miles, acquire vehicle barrier steel, install vehicle barrier, test/install fence camera technology, plan and implement 24x7 fence security.
June 27 - Second site layout to be finished.
July 6-15 - Security Fence at second location starts.
Minuteman Border Fence
MINUTEMEN CONTINUE BUILDING BORDER FENCE
A Successful Start on a Security Fence
The successful groundbreaking was held in Arizona on Memorial Day weekend, as President Bush refused to immediately deploy National Guard and reserve troops to secure America’s out-of-control southern border with Mexico.
Hundreds of volunteers-along with Minuteman Founder Chris Simcox, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Congressman Steve King, AZ gubernatorial candidate Don Goldwater, WeNeedAFence.com founder Colin Hanna and AZ Congressional candidate Randy Graf-dug holes, mixed concrete, put up fencing while opposition groups jeered and skeptics said it could not be done. Now MCDC continues with dedicated volunteers, engineers and contractors using LEGAL crews to work with local Arizona land owners in building mile after mile of border security fencing on private land along the border with Mexico. The first site is 10 miles long and the first 2.5 miles of Minuteman Border Fence already has been completed.
How can You Help?
Build the Minuteman Border Fence by sending donations and volunteering to participate in making the US border secure.
Donate to Build the Minuteman Border Fence
VOLUNTEER to Build the Minuteman Border Fence
Sign up as a volunteer and get access to the “Minutemen Border Cams” an active web based surveillance link on the fencing project. The Minuteman Border Fence is placing cameras which will be monitored via computer over the Internet by registered Minutemen across the country, so that Minuteman volunteers can observe and report illegal crossings from the computer in their living rooms 24/7.
The Border Fence is already making a difference.
Local reports indicate that drug and human trafficking has already been reduced. There are fewer vehicles in the area where the fence is under construction-proving again that having a presence and taking positive steps to do SOMETHING to secure the border reduces the flow of illegal aliens, potential terrorists, drug and human traffickers, murderers, rapists and thieves in these areas.
More than 1,500 have volunteered to build the fence.
Planning and organization continues as volunteers, materials and contractors are being coordinated in an unprecedented alliance with over 1,500 Minuteman Border Fence volunteers. In the true spirit of the Minutemen of the American Revolution these patriots have joined together to form an army of volunteers to secure our borders and protect America’s sovereignty, security and prosperity.
“The undertaking is monumental and historic” says Chris Simcox.
MCDC is beginning construction of the Israeli-style border security fence at a second ranch location in early July and later throughout the year in TX, CA and NM as more resources are marshaled. Two fencing companies that hire legally have been retained to run the jobs sites and coordinate volunteer construction crews as Minutemen volunteers are scheduled to provide labor and security. Crews of four to ten volunteers under the guidance of professional fence installers can install as much as 3 miles of fence in a week.
The nay-sayers are wrong. The reality is the Minutemen are here to stay, and this mission will be completed. In April of 2005, over 800 volunteer men and women took action to secure the border. This year there are more than 200,000 Minuteman Civil Defense Corps activists not only guarding the border but building fence, faxing our elected representatives, making phone calls, voting open border politicians out of office, starting local chapters and contributing their time, money and expertise. MCDC is an explosive grassroots effort enjoying the energetic support of political Democrats, Republicans and Independents-all American patriots who have earned the trust of the public by keeping our word to remain vigilant until our borders are secure.
The fencing will be built on private land with privately donated funds, engineering and labor. Its construction at every step will serve as an example to educate the public about the feasibility and efficacy of fencing to secure America’s borders from illegal invasion by aliens and international criminal cartels. An IRS-authorized charitable non-profit organization is facilitating, administering and reporting tax-deductible donations specifically and solely for construction of this Minuteman Border Fence project. Monetary and in-kind contributions for this effort will go directly into meeting hard costs such as building materials for this private fencing operation.
We have a monumental challenge ahead to raise $55 million. We urgently need your help for this effort to succeed. With your help MCDC can make America more secure by continuing to urge citizen volunteers to support the Minuteman Border Fence.
Be sure to send this to EVERYONE you know who wants to help STOP illegal aliens at the border! Thank you!
Donate to Build the Minuteman Border Fence
VOLUNTEER to Build the Minuteman Border Fence
Go www.minutemanborderfence.com and join with us TODAY .
Sincerely for America,
Chris Simcox, President
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Cella succeeds in making a crucial point in this piece: that there cannot be a 'conservative case for mass immigration.'
Thank you, Mr. Cella, for using the precise phrase, 'mass immigration' rather than the common phrase 'illegal immigration.' It seems that many commentators today are either careless thinkers who have not thought through the question of immigration and lazily oppose only illegal immigration. Or, possibly, they are to some degree in thrall to Political Correctness and wish to insulate themselves from charges of 'racism' or 'xenophobia by taking the seemingly safe route of opposing only illegal immigration. Yet the honest man must admit that were we to make all the illegals legal, their presence and continued influx would still pose the same threat to our Republic, to our sovereignty, and to our way of life. It cannot be said often enough: mass immigration is the problem, not simply illegal immigration, although that is the most egregious aspect of it. But the urgent issue is the potential loss of our country via demographic conquest.
'In coming months, a ''conservative'' party, controlling both Houses of our National Legislature and the National Executive, may very well enshrine in legislation a dispossession of our country. The Upper House has already set its will on this course of action, and, combining with the Executive, the media, the corporate interest, the elites both Right and Left, is exerting pressure to enervate what spirit of resistance remains in the Lower House. They will call this an immigration ''compromise,'' and in a sense compromise it will be: the compromise of our laws, our sovereignty and our liberty'
Cella reiterates that to support mass immigration is 'to show a marked preference for the unfamiliar', while the very essence of conservatism is to prefer the familiar. The proposed 'immigration reform' bill is at its core a radical plan; Cella correctly terms it 'revolutionary', and calls it a dispossession of our country, which it truly would be. To support such a plan is the very antithesis of 'conservative', and whatever its supporters may call themselves, they cannot truthfully claim the title 'conservative'.
This has been the burden of my song for some time now, but Cella makes the point so much more effectively and eloquently than I have managed to do:
There cannot really be a conservative case for something as revolutionary as what is augured by the immigration regime we currently suffer under, much less the ratification and extension of it on offer in legislation today. One could almost as easily imagine a clique of Roman aristocrats sitting around Rome or Ravenna in the fifth century conjuring a ''conservative case for barbarian invasion.''
Cella's piece contrasts sharply with much of what is being said about immigration; there is so little real thoughtful commentary on the issue; far too many, even on the so-called 'right' are reduced to repeating empty slogans and carefully parsing comments condemning 'illegal immigration', attempting to avoid the 'xenophobe' label. Very few, it seems, have allowed themselves to think this vital question through. Cella calls for a much-needed discussion and the development of a truly conservative position on immigration. And he gets to the heart of what conservatism means.
And I agree that the House should stand firm on this bill, and refuse to compromise, leaving the ball in the liberals' court; they should be the ones to assume responsibility for this travesty of a bill; no true conservative should sully his hands with it.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Andy at Yellow Swordfish writes about 'The Country Formerly Known As England.'
Judging by what we read and see in the British media, we might think that there is little English patriotism and national feeling left, but maybe there are more people than we realize who have not become PC pod people, under the spell of Political Correctness. There are no doubt some holdouts, there as well as here in the USA, who have not surrendered their natural love of country and their feeling of national pride.
So perhaps there is hope, not only for England, but for America.
Friday, June 23, 2006
With unemployment below 5 percent, it can't credibly be claimed that immigrants "took 'er jibs." And if too many Mexicans are undocumented in America and living off the grid, it's because we haven't provided them with a reasonable, legal way to be in our country.
There are definitely reforms that are needed to our immigration system, but they're along the lines of President Bush's guest-worker program, not building a wall. There's never been a crisis, save the political crisis created by Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs."
So says Ryan Sager at the Real Clear Politics blog.
Sager implies that the House Republicans' effort to hold hearings on the immigration issue rather than support the Senate scamnesty is a 'nasty little bit of racial pandering and scapegoating'.
Sager's post is a nasty little bit of race-baiting, and PC pandering.
First of all, what is this line about: 'immigrants "took 'er jibs." ' What the heck is that? Does that represent an attempt to mockingly reproduce some obscure poor-folks dialect? It comes across as condescending and insulting. Besides, in my extensive travels around this country I have never heard anyone speak like that. Ever. Anywhere. Sager comes across as a patronizing metrocon snob. But apart from that bit of insulting nonsense from Sager, this column is an example of what passes for 'conservatism' in America today, and illustrates WHY we have an immigration problem (and yes, Ryan, it IS a problem, not an 'utter non-problem' as you insouciantly claim, with no arguments to back up your statement.)
Our country is in trouble, and our borders are a joke because the very people, 'conservatives', generally thought to comprise much of the Republican Party, are supposed to be the guardians of America; the conservers of our country, its security, its traditions, and its Constitution and laws. Conservatives are supposed to conserve: what a novel concept. It seems never to have occurred to many of today's 'conservatives.'
The liberals or 'progressives', mostly represented by the Democrats, make no pretense of trying to conserve or preserve anything; their stock-in-trade is to pick apart everything America represents and stands for and to try to subvert, overturn, discredit, and destroy it, in the name of some kind of cloudcuckooland utopia they dream of. So if one party is openly trying to 'deconstruct' and dismantle the America our ancestors created and bought so dearly, while the party that is supposed to conserve is sacrificing principle and tradition in the name of radical ideas like open borders and near-unlimited immigration, our country is understandably imperiled. The conservatives have stopped 'conserving', and when that happens, what earthly good are they? (I'm reminded of the Biblical passage "... if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.")
I challenge young Master Sager to go to some border area, such as Arizona or South Texas, and tell the besieged ranchers there at Ground Zero that immigration is an 'utter non-problem'. Or to go to some hospital in a border state which is nearing bankruptcy and facing closure because of immigrants demanding free emergency room services. Or to go to a school which is overburdened with large numbers of non-English-speaking students that immigration is a 'non-problem'. Or to go to the family of someone who has been a victim of the immigrant crime wave and tell them that despite the loss of their loved one, immigration is a 'non-problem.'
Only someone who sees America as some kind of wide-open economic zone, with no fixed culture, language, and traditions, a country with a faceless group of ever-changing inhabitants, a country of not people but economic units, can say that mass immigration is 'a non-problem'. No true conservative could or would take such a position. It would have been unthinkable to all past generations of Americans; only this present soulless, hollow era could produce such 'ideas'.
I suspect that Sager would, if pressed, identify himself as a 'libertarian' rather than a conservative, or that he would claim to be conservative only in a fiscal sense. Yet I doubt that even someone who claimed only fiscal conservatism could embrace open borders and a 'let-'em-all-in' attitude. Surely economic considerations alone should be enough to provoke a call for closing our borders. Only the radical mammon-worshippers at the WSJ (who still somehow pretend to conservatism) are such open-borders fanatics, as a rule.
There is another faction among the Republicans who also promote mass immigration, and that is the liberal, PC. bleeding-heart faction among the GOP. One wonders if they are truly motivated by compassion and a rather ostentatious 'Christian charity' or if they are merely putting a pious veneer on their craving for cheap labor and new markets for their businesses.
This unholy alliance within the GOP has enabled the flood of immigrants, as these people are essentially making common cause with the loony left in their zeal to remake America. The Democrats and assorted other ragtag leftists, including the ethnic lobbyists like MALDEF, LULAC, and the other alphabet-soup race-cardsharps, could not prevail on this issue without the aid of the Republican/Libertarian immigration cheerleaders.
I reserve most of my ire for those who purport to be 'conservative' while they are vocal supporters of radical ideas like mass immigration and display a very UN-American disregard for the will of the American majority. They are enemies of traditional America and the Constitution and are hence wolves in 'conservative' sheepskins.
Yet many genuinely conservative Americans continue to support the sellout Republicans who are pushing for amnesty and 'immigration reform', falsely so-called. Why is this? The only answer which occurs to me is that for many 'conservatives' the main motivation is anti-Democrat animus; they will rally behind 'RINOs' (Republicans-in-name-only) because they are the lesser of the evils. They are so incensed and fed up with the lunacy of the left that they will tolerate any so-called 'conservative' who talks a good anti-leftist game. It's all about defeating the Dems, more than about advancing a conservative agenda, or even preserving the America we inherited. They have lost sight of the bigger picture.
Contrary to the smug race-baiting of the Ryan Sagers, America is under siege. Tens of millions of Mexicans and other Third-Worlders will drastically and irrevocably change the America we know. Perhaps this is not a concern to the assorted metrocons and libertarians and post-Americanists who dominate much of the 'right', but it is and should be a concern to patriots and average Americans, the Sagers of the world notwithstanding.
Steamy telenovelas such as "La Fea mas Bella" and the live three-hour variety show "Escandalo TV" are rife with silicone-enhanced bimbos and the kind of misogynistic imagery that would make a proper American feminist set fire to her undergarments.
Moreover, on Spanish-language entertainment serials, there's an unmistakable Eurocentric racial pecking order that favors white skin and blond hair. "The only characters who look like typical Mexican-Americans, who are part white and part Indian, are the comic relief characters," observes movie critic and blogger Steve Sailer,
Galupo asks how this kind of 'insensitivity' can be squared with the PC 'sensitivity' laws. He wonders whether this poses a dilemma.
The answer is: of course not. Just as the PC pharisees have no problem turning a blind eye to Mohammedan misogyny, 'homophobia', violence, and religious intolerance, they will do the same for the Mexican culture. You see, it seems that first of all, only those of us from the 'dominant' American culture are obliged to obey the stringent dictates of Political Correctness. Only we are capable of 'racism', for example, so if the Mexican culture laughs at characters in 'Buckwheat' wigs and blackface, it is not to be criticized. No such leniency is applied to mainstream American culture, where a 'zero tolerance' policy is in effect. Any hint of 'insensitivity' from a white, Anglo Christian American will cause him to be pilloried and hounded out of his job and probably hustled off to a re-education camp (I mean sensitivity training, of course, silly me). But you see, the Mexicans and Mohammedans and other oppressed victim groups are exempt from such censure; after all, it's their culture, you see, and all cultures are equal, 'minority' cultures being more equal than others. And who are we to judge?
It would be a good thing if the stifling PC codes were relaxed for all of us, but I don't foresee this happening. We mainstream Americans will be held to the same confining standards of speech and behavior while our favored 'victim' groups are given a pass on everything.
This kind of unequal treatment will build on existing resentments. At some point, a backlash is bound to occur. Or one can only hope so. Political Correctness is only as strong as we allow it to be. It would have no power over us without our acquiescence.
I am obsessed with immigration. My study is littered with clippings on the issue, my files bulging with articles grown outdated. Since this consuming preoccupation has been running for decades, I have had plenty of opportunity to contemplate its origins. 1) As an American who has resided in the UK for nearly 20 years, I am an immigrant myself. 2) I know with perfect certainty that if I were born into the slums of Mexico or Central America, I would make a beeline for the US, and no overstretched border patrol or goody-goody fastidiousness about breaking another country's laws would stop me. Ditto, were I stuck in Morocco or Yemen, I'd head for Europe in a heartbeat. On the other hand? 3) Having followed the rules on immigration - and complicated rules they are - I resent folks who cheat and get away with it. 4) The entire world seems to believe they have a right to live in my country, but it doesn't work the other way around; other countries are as defensive of their borders as they are oblivious of mine, and I bristle at the double standard.
Although I take issue with several of her statements, notably the part about how she would certainly be an illegal immigrant herself if she had been born into a third-world country (everybody says that; I don't agree. We are not all comfortable with breaking and entering and stealing) but in general she is on target with her comments. I agree that our country is the victim of some of our self-created myths, such as that worn-out 'nation of immigrants' trope:
Admittedly, this is a double standard in which American mythology has been complicit. Forever talking up the "melting pot" and our proud tradition as a "nation of immigrants", US politicians can't sabre-rattle over stricter immigration policies without sounding like hypocrites. The rest of the world doesn't believe the US has the right to police its own borders; raised on all that "huddled masses yearning to be free" folderol...
Too many people take this 'nation of immigrants' bit as dogma, and consider it part of our founding philosophy, which is far from the truth. But to the liberal sentimentalists of both the Democrat and the Republican party, truth is irrelevant. And to the $$-obsessed cheap labor pimps, it's all just rationalization for their greed. For whatever reason, the 'nation of immigrants' and 'huddled masses' propaganda has taken on a life of its own. Now we have the spectacle of smug Brits and others lecturing us from on high about our duties as a 'nation of immigrants', reminding us that our ancestors 'stole' this land from the 'Native Americans' and that the Pilgrims were 'illegal immigrants' also. Leftist stupidity and lies are now global. The talking points are transatlantic. Read the comments by the Guardian's 'readers' below Shriver's rant, if you want to be disgusted: ignorance on parade.
I give the doctrinaire lefties at the Guardian points for even publishing this piece; they occasionally allow a token dissenting opinion to be heard, but their readers obviously will brook no deviation from the party line, judging by the comments posted.
How does one break through all this nonsense rhetoric about America? These myths and half-truths and flat-out lies have become so entrenched, and are so often repeated by people who are ostensibly on our side, that it seems hopeless. This, I suppose, is an inevitable development in a country which no longer knows its own true history for the most part. Most people do not know what is in our founding documents, and are not conversant with the writings of our Founding Fathers, and know little beyond the cliches and propaganda disseminated by our leftist media and school systems. Many of us have lost track of who we are, of what this country represents; we have lost touch with our heritage and our traditions, our very identity, in fact. If we are ever to reclaim our country, we have to begin by reclaiming our history and our sense of ourselves, so that we can stand strong against those who would destroy or remake our country, against our enemies both internal and external.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
The town is rich in history and visually it has kept its character over the decades.
Gonzales is sometimes called the 'birthplace of Texas' as the location of the first Anglo-American settlement west of the Colorado River, and 'the Lexington of Texas', as the place where the first shot of the Texas revolution was fired back in 1835. The famous 'Come and Take It' flag, symbolic of the standoff between the Mexican authorities and the colonists, was created there as a symbol of resistance and defiance. Gonzales celebrates the 'Come and Take It' Celebration every October in commemoration of that event.
I could wish that Gonzales would stay as it is; that time would not change the town or the good people who live there. And while it's true that time changes everything, and that nothing stays the same; change is an inevitable fact of life, it's also true that much of the change that is coming to Texas is engineered change. Those 'on high' have decided that the Old Texas, represented by the 'Come-and-Take-It' pioneer spirit, the old-stock white, Christian Texas, must go, and must make way for a 'brave, new' Texas, a multicultural, 'diverse' Texas. To this end, the gates have been flung open; the demographics of Texas are being altered, forever, it seems. Already, 'minorities' are the majority in Texas, as in California. So all is proceeding according to plan.
To the powers that be, those who are engineering the vast changes in our country to their own ends, this is all an abstraction. To such people, who seem to be a deracinated class of people bereft of familial and sentimental ties to the land and to their kin and to their history and traditions, it's all immaterial who inhabits a place; people are interchangeable, so they think.
How, I wonder, did our elites come to such an alien viewpoint, so disengaged from the real flesh-and-blood world? These bloodless, detached people seem to lack the normal and healthy allegiances that animate the rest of us.
The people make a place. The Texas I know and love, the Texas that was created by generations of hardy, tough, mostly northern European settlers, may truly vanish away if and when Texas becomes a full-fledged outpost of Mexico, with a mostly Mexican/Central American population. The people make or break a place. Mexico is what it is because of the people(s) who created it and inhabit it. As they become the dominant population of Texas, then Texas will resemble Mexico more and more, with all that that implies.
In another generation, will there still be a 'Come and Take It' Celebration? Or will there be a celebration by the forces of Aztlan, commemorating their 'coming and taking' Texas? Will it be returned to Mexico and re-joined with the Mexican state of Coahuila? Will the Alamo be remembered as a gallant stand by a small group of heroic 'Anglos', or will it be remembered by the triumphant 'Aztlan' as a big victory for their hero Santa Anna?
I can only think how heartbreaking it would be for those gallant men of Gonzales who died at the Alamo, and those who were massacred at Goliad, if they could foresee that their descendants would be invaded and dominated by Mexico several generations later. Would they have fought as bravely as they did, could they have known? Somehow I think they would have; it was not in their nature, I think, to passively acquiesce to the tyranny of Mexico; they were true Americans and true Texans.
Despite the gloomy prospects of much of 'vanishing America' I am a stubborn optimist; I refuse to accept that there is no hope of turning things around. Our ancestors, both here and in their homelands in Europe, were adventurous, independent-spirited, determined men and women; if they had not been, the America we know and love could never have been brought into being. To the extent that their blood still flows in our veins, we can still prevail against the odds as they did, if we can recapture some of that 'Come and Take It' defiant spirit. I refuse to believe that it's too late.
[Note: the image above is from a mural at the Gonzales Memorial Museum, photo credited to J. Williams.]
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The powers arrayed against the last stand of the Great American Experiment are vast. But the voice of the American people is even vaster. The voice of the silenced majority. The voice of Joe Six-pack -- the voice of country music -- the voice of hard-working, patriotic Americans who still love their country and remember what it stands for. America is the last bulwark of Western Civilization. It stands athwart history and protects what remains of Western Civilization and Western values. It is under assault from all directions. If America falls, then the winds of Marxism and Islamofascism will blow through the world, leveling human freedom and dignity and national borders with them. It's now or never. We fight, or we die along with our culture and our grand experiment in human freedom and dignity.
Amen! Spoken like a true patriot.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
As I return from my travels, there is this little beam of hope in my inbox: the latest release from FAIR, (the Federation for American Immigration Reform):
Forget the World Cup: Score a Major Victory for the American People!
House Leadership Announces Plan to Hold Field Hearings on Border Security and Immigration Instead of Convening a Conference Committee
The U.S. House Leadership announced today the plan to hold several field hearings throughout the country to seek the opinions of the American people on border security and immigration. “We want to make sure, before we send out chairmen into [conference], that they have heard from the American people,” stated Speaker Hastert. These hearings will take place in Washington, D.C. and in districts around the country.
FAIR sent out an alert Friday, June 16, 2006, asking you to call House Leadership and Chairmen Sensenbrenner and King. We wanted to make sure the ''people's chamber'' was on notice as to what the people wanted and to ignore the media's attempt to popularize certain push polls. Thanks to you, House Leadership is reaching out to the American public for their input on the Senate and House bills and to gauge the will of the American people.
Congratulations to our members! This announcement today proves that your calls and visits have had a huge impact. Now our members of Congress know that the American people are watching and want to engage you on this historic debate before going forward. There is no time to sit down and relax! Please plan on attending any of the field hearings you can and keep pressure on Congress over the summer. FAIR will keep you posted on the dates and times of these events as soon as they become available.
Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
''The bottom line is first things first,'' said Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), securing the borders is an ''absolute prerequisite'' to further immigration policy changes.
Maybe I am grasping at straws but I see this action by the House as a positive sign; maybe they will display the needed backbone. Just maybe there is some hope for the will of the people to prevail.
Keep the pressure on!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
This AP story, about the controversy over a historical mural in Waterbury, Connecticut, displays the PC minions up to their usual hypocrisy and preachifying.
The mural depicts Israel Putnam, a revolutionary patriot, tied to a tree, and about to be burned alive by Indians.
One of the PC warriors-against-violence complains that depicting 'Native Americans' (that's American Indians, for those who don't habla PC-ese) with tomahawks is not 'appropriate'.
But the one thing that seems farthest from the minds of the PC posse is that the scene depicted in the mural actually happened. It is fact. It is history. If we expunge everything that might be insensitive to some protected group, or which 'scares' young children, or which shows any unpleasant reality, then there would be no history left. Now maybe that is the idea; these people want to erase history and re-write it with a PC-approved, sanitized 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood' morality play. Now in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood of Make-Believe, there were no bad guys, no villains. Once in a while, one of the 'neighbors' made mischief, usually out of hurt feelings, whereupon the misunderstanding was cleared up and all was well. Now Mr. Rogers, God bless him, was a good-hearted soul who tried to teach good values to toddlers, and this prettied-up neighborhood was fitting for his audience of tiny tots. But as we mature and grow up in this world, one of the lessons we learn is that the world is a dangerous place, and that not everyone has good intentions. There are bad people who are avidly seeking to harm us, to harm innocent people, for no good reason. Now that stinks, but it is nonetheless fact. Yet the 'kumbaya' crowd refuses to acknowledge that; they live, truly, in a fantasy world in which Osama bin Laden is rather like rascally Lady Elaine, making mischief because of hurt feelings. And the remedy is to 'reach out' and understand, then we can all hold hands and be friends. And in this Neighborhood of Liberal Make-Believe, we can just wish violence away; just say, 'violence, be gone!' and it will vanish.
Ban guns, and there will never be another shooting; the criminals will just hand over their guns, and mutter 'curses! Foiled again,' and slink away, and we will all live happily ever after.
And in this make-believe land, we can expunge all the scary pictures, even though they show us things that actually happened, and replace them with pictures of rainbows, unicorns, and maypoles.
Magical thinking: characteristic of primitives (oh, what a politically incorrect word!) and children.
Such is the make-believe realm of liberals.
It may be that they have good intentions but they are misguided nonetheless. They seem to believe that we should shield kids from anything 'disturbing' or scary, but to expunge all such things from history is not only an affront to truth, but it presents our schoolchildren with a sanitized, Disneyfied world of PC pieties and bland, weak, niceness. This does not equip our children for the real world which they must someday encounter. By no means should we wallow in ugliness and gratuitous violence, but neither should we teach children that the Mister Rogers version of the world is all there is.
These holier-than-thou liberals should contemplate the fact that 'violence' gave them the country whose freedoms they take advantage of. In the words of George Orwell,
We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Those early patriots were such 'rough men'; they were civilized men but they recognized that force is necessary sometimes to win and to preserve freedom and peace. Our present-day 'weak-as-water' leftists are a dishonor to our country.
A disclosure here: by coincidence, the good General Israel Putnam is a distant cousin of mine, who was one of the generals who led the patriots to victory at Bunker Hill. I think the pious goody-two-shoes censors here have a vendetta against American history, against those who were considered heroic in the old America, the vanishing America. We can't have our children admiring these violent militaristic men, now can we? And we can't celebrate the brave deeds of the Revolutionary patriots, but we can make a hero of the likes of Che Guevara, the leftist revolutionary.
One interesting result which he cites is that of the various ethnic groups polled, the ethnic consciousness ratings were:
- Blacks 43.5%
- Mexicans 21.9%
- Jews 15.8%
- Italians 12.0%
- American Indians 7.8%
- Irish 5.1%
- Scots 4.8%
- English/Welsh 2.5%
- Germans .9%
Other findings showed a higher rate of cocaine use, of truancy and of carrying a weapon among Mexican teens as compared to whites and blacks.
Other similarly politically-incorrect results were shown on issues like support for free speech, support for big government, and so on. Very interesting reading, but not surprising for anyone who has enough real-life experience and a willingness to look at reality to question the party line being put out to support the illegal invasion of America.
So how did the current popular glowing stereotypes about Mexicans come to be? I have often wondered this in recent years. I know that there are good and bad people in every group, but I also know that there are differences between various ethnic groups. That used to be just common sense, and a given, but in our PC atmosphere, it's become rank heresy to even hint at any differences. The popular myths of the day have it that people are 'all the same' except for skin color or other minor physical differences. If that's so, then what's all the brouhaha about 'diversity'? If we're all the same, then let's forget about diversity and quotas and multiculturalism. But of course, as usual, the PC dogma is full of inconsistencies: we are supposedly all the same, and interchangeable, but yet the Mexican invaders are somehow superior in some ways: to wit, they are paragons of hard work and industriousness, compared to the lazy, shiftless gringos. And they epitomize 'family values' and are praised as 'good Christians', yet American-born Christians are slandered as hypocrites, prudes, and theocrats who want to force their religion on everyone. (How does this contradiction go unnoticed? If the Mexican immigrants were such pious Christians, why aren't the liberals crying 'theocracy'? Or is it only American Christians who pose a threat?)
It may be that some of the liberals in the GOP believe all their pollyanna PR about the Mexicans, or it may be that it was just cynical manipulation, like selling a product with hype and slick slogans. Either way, the pro-Mexican talking points do not have the ring of truth to them. They are not backed up by facts.Yes, there are individuals in every race who are 'hard-working' and those who are mediocre workers and those who are shiftless and lacking any work ethic. But we are told that Mexicans are some kind of paragons of diligence and industriousness, quite a claim for them to live up to.
The proof of the truth or falseness of the reputation should be found in their homeland; in the case of Mexico, the general poverty and squalor might support the idea of fecklessness; generally 'hard-working' people do not create a squalid dysfunctional environment. And it's hardly a conservative view to blame their failed country on the economic system or on a 'corrupt government'. Also, the fact that Mexico's government is notoriously corrupt does not bespeak a people with 'conservative family values.' Ditto, the prevalence of anti-social behaviors, such as drug use and drunk driving (the latter is endemic among Mexicans) and criminal convictions. So, am I to believe the pro-Latino apologists or my lying eyes, and the 'lying' stats?
And no, I am not trying to 'demonize' (what a loathsome liberal word!) anyone; I am trying to counter the PC hype and rose-tinted prettifying stereotypes with simple realities. No people are all bad and neither is any group all good and all sweetness-and-light, except in the delusional liberal's world, with its Manichaean view of victims and oppressors.
I suppose I should give the open-borders crowd and the do-gooders the credit for trying to show their 'clients' in the best light, but facts are facts; living in a wishful-thinking world will lead to serious missteps; we have to deal with realities, not PC myths and flattery.
Honest facts about our prospective new neighbors should and could be discussed in an honest and sane society, but of course they won't be, until and unless Political Correctness loses its paralyzing power over our society. If something is unflattering or in any way critical of a designated minority group, it will be denounced, censored, shouted down, and covered up with more lies; protected groups are not to be ill-spoken of, even if everything said is factual. Facts don't matter to the ideologues, whether the ideologues be Republican open-borders/cheap labor shills or whether they be leftist multicultists or religious universalist pharisees.
We can hope that eventually the majority of Americans will see through the PC tissue of lies, and realize that the emperor is buck-naked. It would seem that fact should be obvious to anyone with eyes now, but the human capacity for denial seems almost endless.
The fact is, we should be able to decide whether or not any prospective immigrant to our country will be a positive addition, a contributing citizen, who will adapt to our culture and respect our laws. The fact that Mexicans hold values and habits which do not mesh well with ours, and even more so, the fact that we are establishing a bad precedent in allowing them to flout our laws, does not bode well for their future as our neighbors. Do we want to replicate Latin America with all its violence, chaos, and corruption? Then we should just continue to let masses of Latinos enter our country at will, and we will soon have Latin America here, north of the Rio Grande.
Samuel Huntington in his book 'Who are we?' is quoted as saying that
people want ''societal security'' almost as much as they want ''national security.'' In other words, they want a society ''to persist in its essential character'' and to sustain ''within acceptable conditions for evolution, of traditional patterns of language, culture, association, and religious and national identity and custom.'' If these are all removed or destroyed, then anomie, despair, and disintegration tend to
be among the consequences. Why should Americans not be protected against them? [Emphasis mine]
Huntington is saying something that was just common sense a generation or two ago; it is not a radical new idea that people want to preserve their society and way of life, and the very fact that this is considered a controversial idea now shows how far we have strayed. It shows the precariousness of our way of life, that to want to defend and protect it are considered 'extreme' or hateful. We have the right to survive as a culture and as a nation, if we can find the courage to throw off the PC shackles and the liberal blinders. Loving our country and our culture is not bigoted and we need
not ask anyone's permission or approval, neither should we apologize.
Monday, June 05, 2006
From Spanish-speaking illegal workers, to angry tenured professors and arrogant politicians, we are hearing more and more tenets and demands from a movement called Reconquista. The movement, once dismissed as extreme racist rhetoric, has rapidly gained traction and momentum among millions of ill-educated illegal aliens and well-established Mexicans alike. Reconquista gives voice to the angry demands of present-day Mexicans who mistakenly think they have indigenous rights to the land of the Southwestern United States - which they claim was "stolen" by an imperialist American government. The centerpiece of their agenda is the mythical Aztlan.
In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.
"From whence came our forefathers...?" Nothing could be further from the truth - not that the facts matter much in their efforts to further "La Raza" - or The Race. Using racially-charged arguments to batter at the traditional guilt mentality of Americans, proponents of Aztlan aim to "reconquer" the Southwestern United States as their due. Apparently, they fail to understand that the tribes of present-day Mexico never inhabited the Southwest U.S., nor for the most part did Mexicans themselves - it was mostly open land [frontier] except for northern Native Americans (as you will see below).
A manifest destiny has been embraced by many within mainstreamed advocacy groups in America such as La Raza, LULAC, and most commonly MECHa, the radical student organization which has specifically embraced the tenets of Atzlan. "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada," is translated as "For the Race, everything, for those outside of the Race, nothing." Though that singular statement seems to sum up the demands of today's angry illegal Mexican aliens, there is much more to their Plan to restore Aztlan:
Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent
Love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture ... Economic control of our lives and our communities can only come about by driving the exploiter out of our communities, our pueblos, and our lands and by controlling and developing our own talents, sweat, and resources.
Education must be relative to our people, i.e., history, culture, bilingual education, contributions, etc.
Self-defense of the community must rely on the combined strength of the people ... For the very young there will no longer be acts of juvenile delinquency, but revolutionary acts.
A nation autonomous and free - culturally, socially, economically, and politically- will make its own decisions on the usage of our lands, the taxation of our goods, the utilization of our bodies for war, the determination of justice (reward and punishment), and the profit of our sweat.
So there is a Plan for Reconquista. But do these emotional and racial claims have any historical basis?
Clearing Up A Misconception About Reconquista
by Loma Alta
Spain conquered what was to become modern Mexico and part of the southwestern United States in 1521. Spanish rule lasted 300 years until 1821 when Mexico gained independence. Mexico ruled what is now part of the southwestern United States for a very, very short time. Mexico ruled Texas from 1821 until 1836, some 16 years. Mexico ruled California from 1821 until 1846, 26 years. Mexico ruled most of New Mexico from 1821 until 1848, 28 years, and the southern most portions of Arizona and New Mexico until purchased by the United States in 1853, 33 years. The United States began ownership of these territories in 1845 (Texas), 1846 (California), and 1848-1853 (New Mexico and Arizona). Thus the United States has owned this land since 1845-1853, 153-162 years.
The ownership has thus been: Spanish 1521-1821 or 300 years; Mexican 1821-36 to 1853 or 16 to 33 years; and American 1845-1853 or 154 to 162 years. Almost all development and modernization came under United States ownership. Please see Spain, Mexico, Texas, California, and New Mexico-Arizona for more details.
Comparison of Ownership Time and Development.
Spain owned the area for 300 years and operated it as a colony. The central area, and most developed part was around Mexico City with much of the current southwestern United States being the frontier, relatively undeveloped, and subject to Indian raids and predations. The situation was much the same in the very, very short period, 16-33 years, of Mexican ownership. With the United States ownership, 154 to 162 years, beginning as territories, exploration and development proceeded rapidly and modern civilization came with, or shortly after, statehood.
The Absurdity of Reconquista.
Whether by time of ownership or degree of development and civilization, Mexico had virtually no temporal or civil weight of authority in the southwestern United States. Mexico never really established military or civil control over the area and it was never really a normal part of Mexico, but was always the frontier with vast expanses of nearly unexplored and lightly inhabited regions far from Mexican rule and authority. So tenuous, unpopular, and corrupt was Mexico’s presence and claim to the areas, and the Mexican government so hated by American and Mexican pioneers alike, that they only lasted from 16 to 33 years.
Thus, Reconquista is another myth, promulgated for racist reasons (it is the spawn of Mexican supremacist groups such as La Raza - literally ''the Race'') much as the Germans’ ''Lebensraum'', or living space, was for the master race. And, Reconquista is equally racist and equally the deranged product of irrational hate groups.
Therefore, we can dismiss the concept of “Reconquista” as a racist, hate group concept that has no place in America, or in any other just and tolerant society or country. There is no need to give any credence whatsoever to the false and meritless claims of any moral attachment to territory by radical, racist groups. They are as phony as last year's bird's nest.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
We've all noted the extreme rancor which has come to characterize much of the public political dialogue in this country in recent years. And it's not just the public sphere, which includes the Internet and the news media which are plagued with rudeness and animus, but the private sphere also. How many of us have had heated arguments or rifts with relatives and long-time friends over political matters?
While it's true that political matters have always been controversial and likely to cause anger -- hence our avoidance of 'politics and religion' in polite company -- lately things have worsened. The bitterness and irrationality have far exceeded what was acceptable in the past.
One recent example would be the remarks made by New York State Comptroller Hevesi in reference to Senator Schumer and President Bush.
Now at this point, some know-it-all often interjects that political discourse has always been acrimonious, and such a person will cite some long-past political campaign, say in the 19th century, wherein some politicians insulted or even assaulted one another, or in which duels were fought, and shots fired. This kind of rationalizing does not disprove that things have noticeably worsened in recent years; most of us have no memory of a time in which fisticuffs or gunplay were common in politics. But the verbal war has intensified lately.
Of course with the advent of the angry left in the late 60s, during the Vietnam war era, things began to heat up considerably, with the left instigating much of the bitterness. Then, with increasing racial division and recrimination throughout the 70s and 80s, the country became more divided.
The 90s brought the Clinton era, and that seemed to be a turning point: as accusations of misconduct were made against Clinton, his defenders, rather than wanting to get to the truth as honest people would do, resorted to attacking the accusers, impugning their character and motives, and attempting to dig up dirt to use against them.
It seemed that no holds were barred. From that point on, there has been little honest dialogue between the parties, merely accusations, name-calling, smears, and innuendo.
The left has had considerable success with this strategy; the 'right' has been reduced to merely trying to fend off the attacks of the left. And worse, the GOP party faithful too often respond by blind loyalty, and a 'my party, right or wrong', circle-the-wagons mentality. Little does the left seem to realize that their attacks are merely causing retrenchment and stubbornness among the GOP; many in the Republican party are not so much conservatives as simply anti-leftist. They don't stand so much on principles as on the appeal to anti-Democrat animus. 'Elect us because we're not the Democrats.' Many Republicans say they would vote even for the notably un-conservative John McCain rather than for a Democrat, especially if that Democrat were named Hillary. Thus principles fall by the wayside too often; those conservatives who actually want to advance and preserve conservative principles are attacked as 'purists' and 'unappeasables', and told that winning is the only thing; we have to 'compromise' to win. And so it becomes all about utterly defeating the other party, at any cost, even if that means becoming like the despised enemy.
I'm not implying moral equivalency here; that's a favorite tactic of the left. And to be fair, the leftists are most often the aggressors and the instigators in this verbal civil war. But the GOP has allowed itself to be too drawn into the liberals' trap, too caught up in responding to their hatred.
Why, in a society which seems to deify 'tolerance' and sensitivity, is there such venom between Democrat and Republican, or to a lesser degree, between Northern and Southern Americans? Anti-Southern bigotry is more Politically Correct than ever, even among some 'conservatives'.
Where is the 'tolerance' which we hear so much about?
In relation to minority groups, we are constantly watching our speech, treading oh-so-carefully lest a careless or improper word condemn us. If we slip up, (remember the brouhaha over the innocuous word 'niggardly'?) we will be branded with the 'R' for racist. And there are the newer terms of abuse: Islamophobe, homophobe, xenophobe, and on it goes.Thus we have become excruciatingly "nice" and polite and careful in respect to various minority groups, who are not similarly constrained to be polite to us, and towards foreigners in general (unless they are French, in which case they are fair game, seemingly). We are free, however, to show intense nastiness toward fellow Americans. We can insult fellow Americans with impunity but must flatter others, and assume a smarmy deference to out-groups. There is a massive suppression of our negative feelings which have to be diverted somewhere.
I wonder has this upside-down state of affairs ever existed in another society? There is something profoundly unnatural about it, and Political Correctness, despite its apparent invincibility at the moment, can't fight nature forever and prevail. One hopes not, at least.
In psychological terms what is going on in our society, and in Western society in general, is called 'displacement'. It's a defense mechanism in which fear or anger are directed towards a 'safer' target. We know we can treat our fellow citizens rudely and angrily whereas we cannot direct our anger towards 'protected' groups. I think this tendency is especially pronounced among the liberal types who fawn over everybody except their fellow Americans; these are the people who are gung-ho for 'diversity' and multiculturalism and 'one-world' utopias.
I have met many fellow Americans recently, liberals included, who are angry about the transformation of our country; many even recognize that our country is being irrevocably changed, and they very reasonably want to preserve the America they know and love. But they won't express anger about it; these kinds of people may be displacing all their anger towards 'safe targets' their political opponents.
In a strange way, political allegiances have come to take the place of national/ethnic allegiances for many Americans. We are willing to go to the barricades over party allegiances, but American nationalism is just off limits for many; even many Republicans who are outwardly patriotic will work up much more animus towards their Democrat opponents than toward the invaders of our country or the Moslem terrorists. Their fiercest words are reserved for American foes.
Americanism has been made out to be something regressive and narrow, something that we must outgrow, and we are a 'nation of immigrants' so we are told; we are supposed to be loyal only to a 'proposition', an abstraction, such as 'freedom' or 'democracy' And anyone, from anywhere, who lands in America by any means, is entitled to claim Americannness by repeating those shibboleths.
Little wonder that our sense of national identity and allegiances are so attenuated in many cases. That is the idea: to dissolve all our old allegiances and make us good 'global citizens'. In the brave new world of the globalists we will be beyond all those petty allegiances and just be one big amorphous mass of humanity, but in the meantime, our human need for belonging and group loyalty is being diverted into partisan politics. Thus we squabble among ourselves while our country is being divvied up among the 'emerging majorities'.
If only we could once again restore some kind of unity in America; the sense that we are all one people, with a common heritage which is under attack and under siege, and deal with those very real threats first; if we could channel all our indignation towards defending our nation and our way of life, we could surely prevail. Ronald Reagan said, back in 1987
In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond.
While Reagan seemed to imply some kind of universalism here , the fact is we as Americans have an outside threat -- or two -- which should give us some sense of solidarity in our wish to survive, but so far it has not done so. We continue to behave like the Kilkenny Cats of the old nursery rhyme, and their story didn't end happily.
Tolerance should begin at home, and charity definitely must; we are not by nature inclined to love all humanity in the abstract. Nature leads us to love those nearest to us first, and the circle moves outward. We Americans need to have each others' backs, and not be at one another's throats.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
one detects an air of uncertainty in Europe this summer, perhaps similar to that of 1914 or the late 1930s.
The unease is apparent in newspapers and conversations on the streets that echo the view that voters and politicians want nothing to do with the European Union constitution. Perhaps the general European discomfort could be summed up best as the following: Why hasn't the good life turned out the way we wanted it to?
Hanson attributes the ominous trends in Europe as being the result of socialism, or the welfare state, along with a selfish materialism. He also cites the backlash against nationalism and militarism which is the result of the excesses of the Nazi era. The Europeans, in the wake of the devastation of World War II and the downfall of the Nazis, overcorrected, and went to an opposite extreme, seeing all nationalism as bad, and warfare as the ultimate evil. Hence, we have a Europe that is not only disarmed in a military sense but also in the sense of having forsworn ethnic/national assertiveness. It is this situation which has enabled the invasion of Europe by millions of third-world immigrants, who have proven resistant to assimilation and who are an ever-more hostile presence in Europe as evidenced by the French 'youth' riots, and the 7/7 terror attacks in London.
I commend Hanson for not displaying the usual crass schadenfreude which is so trendy among the 'metrocon' Republicans; it's almost de rigueur to gloat over the prospect of 'Eurabia' and to cheer the idea that those cowardly 'Euroweenies' are getting their comeuppance. What a change, really, from past generations of Americans, like the men who fought to liberate Europe in World War II. Those I have known, including family members who fought in the European theater, had no resentment towards the European people, particularly the French who are the targets of so much contempt today. (Granted, the French did not join us in the Iraqi war, but neither did Mexico support us, and our President to this day calls Mexico 'our friend'.) The sad fact is that we are in the same boat as our cousins in Europe. And yes, I know it is politically incorrect to speak of 'our cousins' in Europe, because it 'excludes' those Americans of non-European ancestry. But in the America of saner times, every American, even those not of European heritage, understood the cultural and historical bond that unites America and Europe. Culturally, we are all children of a European mother. I know that the PC crowd cherishes the idea that we are all physically descendants of the 'African Eve' of anthropological lore, but in a much more important sense, we come from a European matrix. To deny this is to deny our identity. Of course, in the liberal worldview, the idea is to do just that.
But what is happening to Europe is also happening to us; their invaders and would-be conquerors happen to be Mohammedans and Africans, whereas ours are mostly Latinos. But we are under siege just as the Europeans are, and our future looks as cloudy as theirs, although Hanson does not say this.
Hanson has issued some sound warnings on the threat of the Mexicanization of America, but one gets the impression that his feelings are ambiguous, since he has strong pro-Mexican sympathies. He concludes with a dark prediction of some European reincarnation of Hitler to appear on the scene to capitalize on the coming crisis:
what European populist will soon appear on the streets in Rome, Berlin or Madrid to again deceive the public that someone else caused these disappointments?
So Hanson seems to think the real threat is from a resurgent European nationalism or 'populism' which he seems to view pejoratively. But does nationalism or 'populism' equate to Nazism or fascism? This is a popular distortion among liberals; how quickly nationalism has been elevated to a bogeyman.
It amazes me that many liberal-minded people, both Republican and Democrat, fear European populism more than they fear militant Mohammedanism, more than they fear an all-subsuming demographic conquest of Europe by third-worlders.These same people fear a resurgent American national feeling more than the 'Reconquista' which looms as a real possibility in America.
As long as this attitude prevails, we, like our European counterparts, are doomed to helpless passivity as our country and our heritage disappear.
At some point, there has to be a turning of the tide: it has to be made respectable once again to believe in ourselves, our ancestors, our traditions, and our nation. In fact, if 'conservatism' is to mean anything at all, there will have to be a rededication to conserving our country and our way of life. Otherwise conservatism will not be worthy of its name; and who else will step into the breach, if not conservatives? Conservatism has to reclaim its purpose and its principles.
What will it take to turn the tide?
Friday, June 02, 2006
..the bottom line: It is against the law to enter this country without our permission; it is against the law to work in this country without our permission; and it is against the law to stay in this country without our permission.
The people who break any or all of those laws are criminals.
They could be the best cotton pickers in the Bible Belt; but they still are criminals if they break any or all of those laws.
They could be the best orange harvesters in all of Florida; but they still are criminals if they break any or all of those laws.
They could be the best maids, shoe shiners, managers, window cleaners, cherry-picker operators, teachers, waitresses,laundresses, landscapers,fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, sons or daughters or inventory takers on the planet; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.
Now this tough talk may sound good to those of us (and we are many) who are exasperated, disgusted, and fed up with all the rhetoric and the obfuscation and doubletalk, laced with PC platitudes, that passes for debate on this issue. Our politicians are, for the most part, liars and quislings, and our mainstream media are even worse. But the fact is, sadly, Simmons is just shilling for Mike Pence's 'guestworker plan'. But not to worry -- Pence insists that it is no amnesty --honest it isn't; and that it would guarantee that there would be an orderly process for admitting these 'guestworkers'. Of course Simmons does not provide any details on his plan in her article, she merely assures us that it is the best we can hope to do, given that there is no perfect solution. Well, Deborah, excuse me if that does not exactly inspire me to get on board with Pence's plan.
Pence's plan is different in that it privatizes the guestworker process, and this will no doubt appeal to some Republicans. But his claim that his proposed placement agencies would process applicants, do background checks, and provide visas in "a week or less" seems a little unrealistic. No doubt private agencies would be more efficient than our inept government bureaucracies, but a week or less? Surely there might be a temptation to do hasty background checks or none at all; the private sector is not exempt from ineptitude or dishonesty either. And how, given that the illegals may have no documentation or lots of forged documents, can we obtain accurate information on them in such a short time?
I will remain a skeptic on Pence's plan or any other 'guestworker' ('not amnesty') plan. Whether or not Pence calls it an amnesty, the fact remains that illegals could leave the country and come back in, and be rewarded with a visa. Anything which wipes the slate clean of their illegal acts IS an amnesty, call it what you will. Or does it depend on what the meaning of 'is' is?
The best course for the House to take on this amnesty bill is to refuse to go into conference. Any compromise will be a win for the open-borders zealots. They purposely gave us, I think, an abomination of a bill, knowing that it would cause such alarm and outrage that anything less would seem infinitely preferable to the original bill -- and the amnesty-pushers would still get what they want, while appearing to 'compromise'. Any compromise is a loss for America.
If we really do hope to 'keep America American', even the status quo, bad as it is, is better than any amnesty/'guestworker' plan.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Steele's recent piece in the WSJ Opinion Journal elicited a lot of fawning praise from conservative quarters, notably from Rush Limbaugh, as well as from many in the blogosphere. Will 's comments are also adulatory.
Will seems to welcome Steele's negative assessment of whites as merely an indictment of white liberals.
White guilt, Steele says, is a form of self-congratulation, whereby whites devise "compassionate" policies, the real purpose of which is to show that whites are kind and innocent of racism. The "spiritually withering interventions of needy, morally selfish white people" comfortable with ''the cliche of black inferiority'' have a price. It is paid by blacks, who are "Sambo-ized."
'Conservatives' like Will, and like Rush Limbaugh, who also fawned endlessly over Steele's recent WSJ piece on 'white guilt' see this as just a 'gotcha' moment, a chance to gloat that they have been vindicated. They hear Steele's biting criticisms of whites as being about liberals only, and respond with approval, Will in a more restrained way, and Limbaugh in a gushing way.
But is Steele merely castigating white liberals? His words could equally apply to 'neocons', metrocons, whatever name you call them: the 'conservatives-lite' who are mostly conservative in their support for lower taxes and a stronger military; in all other respects, especially on social/cultural issues, they are liberals.
Steele alludes here to 'compassionate' policies; (it isn't clear whether this is Will's verbiage, or whether he is quoting Steele). But where have we heard the term 'compassionate conservatism' before? As in programs like 'No Child Left Behind'? . I don't read Steele's words as being directed only against Democrats or other leftists but also against the guilty, PC-ridden liberal Republicans as well.
But notice the harsh quality of Steele's criticism: it was evident in his earlier WSJ piece as well. He seems to have a very bitter, antagonistic view of whites, ascribing manipulative, self-serving motives to what might even be altruism, and a good-faith effort to make past wrongs (real or actual) right. But no; he uses harsh words like 'needy, morally selfish white people'.
Steele's message is a strange and ambiguous one: on the one hand, he seems to be decrying the effects of 'white guilt' yet he bitterly denounces the blameworthy actions of past generations of whites, and even of the actions of present-day whites who are trying to placate blacks. He seems to indicate that 'white guilt' is unnecessarily crippling to those who suffer from it, and then he implies that the guilt is more than justified. He says that the guilt is bad, but yet that it is needed proof that white people are morally redeeming themselves by being properly remorseful.
His views on affirmative action:
. . .'So now when we [whites] come to the top where the real power is decided, we can't play the affirmative action game any more. We need people who can do the job now! And you, you got here on affirmative action!'. . .Well, blacks are very reasonable when they say, 'What's the difference between that and racism?'
". . .[Affirmative action] is cheap. It's inexpensive. Just play with the numbers a little bit. [But] to make good school systems in the inner city costs money! . . .So we have a system perfectly designed to keep the people who were always oppressed still oppressed, still backwards. After 25 years of affirmative action, black Americans have declined on almost every socioeconomic measure. What we need is development! But no, you wait until we're 18 years old, badly educated, and then throw preference at us so we can go to college for about six months before we drop out. . .and think you've. . .done something. Where were you in kindergarten? In pre-school? Affirmative action is a fraud."
So Steele, who has somehow acquired the 'conservative' label, objects to affirmative action not on principle, as a true conservative would, but because he thinks it 'oppresses' blacks and is a fraud. His view that the government is responsible to 'fix' things and create some kind of equality of outcome is 100% liberal, (although it is espoused by many Republicans, a sign that liberalism crosses party lines).
Steele and any others, regardless of whether they are called 'conservatives' are not on our side if they are still in the business of castigating and apportioning blame on racial lines. Steele is apparently caught up in identity politics and his books might be seen as just another way to exploit 'white guilt', while seeming to decry it.
And yet Will, Limbaugh, and others revere this man? It seems to me that they are illustrating his thesis about guilt; they and so many others seem to need the absolution of Steele or someone else 'of color'; this calls to mind the black conservative commentator Ken Hamblin, who used to send certificates of absolution to white people, to make it official that they were relieved of blame for their supposed wrongs. It seems that a lot of Americans are seeking something like this: they want some 'representative' of 'people of color' to absolve them, and to tell them that they are OK. But sad to say, Steele is not the guy to do this; Steele still seems to have a lot of resentment and anger at white people, which is curious since he is of white ancestry as well as black.
The subject of race is the true third-rail in our national dialogue. Only one side is allowed to be heard, and one side is adjudged to be 100% guilty, with the guilt passed down like original sin from generation to generation. There is recurrent talk of reparations being paid by white Americans for slavery; never mind that no American today is or has ever been a slaveowner or a slave. It does not matter; we are all supposedly guilty from birth for what was done generations several generations ago. And now, with the illegal invasion, another victim group numbering in the tens of millions has entered the picture and is making vociferous demands: our ancestors 'stole' America from their supposed ancestors (never mind that none of this is provable or factual) and now this group is attempting extortion based on the presumed guilt of our ancestors. We Americans are carrying a backbreaking load of guilt already; piling more on us will either succeed in breaking our spirit entirely, or it will awaken us and force us to face the situation.
It is this racial dimension of the immigration debate which is paralyzing us; if our invaders were Englishmen or Swedes or Austrians we could eject them without a murmur from anyone, there's no PC proscription against getting good and mad at Frenchmen or Canadians, for example, but because of the exploitability of 'white guilt', the invaders are successfully making demands on us, and guilt-tripping and race-baiting us.
If America is undone as a nation, and we become the Untied States of Norteamerica, we can lay the blame on 'white guilt' and the PC paralysis that accompanies it.
This subject of troubled race relations, and the inability to discuss it honestly and freely, hearing both sides, is an absolutely crucial one in what is happening to America at this moment. We desperately need to have a real examination of this question if we are to have any hope of preserving our republic. Are we to move forward and leave the past in the past, or are we to spend the future in recriminations and guilt and manipulation? Sadly, in our present society, the chances of stopping this endless cycle and coming to some kind of truce are slim to none. How can anything change when our discussion is so inhibited? It is remotely possible that Steele's thoughts on 'white guilt' might open up some badly needed discussion but so far it is only reinforcing the old PC cliches and paradigms, which have kept us spinning our wheels for decades.