Monday, April 30, 2007

The End of the American Dream?

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Note: an additional Fjordman post on this topic can be found here.



In March 2005, US President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the establishment of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” This was meant to implement a common border-facilitation strategy to improve the “flow of people and cargo at our shared borders.”

As next steps were mentioned: “We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will identify concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments. (…) Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant.”

I had just read about the workings of the European Union, and was struck by some similarities with this North American “partnership.” It involves a sustained, ongoing process of ever-closer cooperation, back-room deals by ministers where important decisions are taken outside of the public view and hidden behind a cloud of bureaucratic wording. I was accused of paranoia by some Americans when I pointed this out, but as I later discovered, Mexican President Vicente Fox in 2002 in a speech in Madrid made his goals with and his inspirations for this North American cooperation quite clear:

“Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons. (…) The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union (…) We have to confront … what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”

In a panel discussion at the University of Texas at San Antonio, Enrique Berruga, Mexico’s ambassador to the UN said a North American Union is needed, and provided a deadline. Republican Senator Tom Tancredo, too, believes a North American Union is a real issue that is supported by President Bush: “The president of the United States is an internationalist. He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that - it’s an idea. It’s not an actual place defined by borders.”

In a speech in the year 2000, Mr. Bush stated that the future of the United States cannot be separated from the future of Latin America, the ultimate goal of which should be “free trade from northernmost Canada to the tip of Cape Horn,” and that he desired a “special relationship” with Mexico: “Should I become president, I will look South, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency.” He kept that promise.

The immigrant trainThe Bush administration has moved ahead, despite congressional opposition, with the creation of a massive superhighway running from Canada to Mexican ports, with Mexican trucks driving across the US in vast numbers and a Mexican customs office in Kansas City. There has been relatively sparse coverage of this in US media. As Dymphna of the Gates of Vienna blog says: “We’re headed there the same way Europe went — by stealth, by bureaucratic fiat, and by citizen inattention. They didn’t know what the elites had in mind for them, but with their current plight, we do have the horrible adumbration of what is to come.”

There are indeed some parallels between the USA and Europe. Mass immigration to the US is aided by an unholy alliance of corrupt political elites, Big Business supporters and anti-Western Leftists. There is little doubt in my mind that some members of the political elites in North America are envious of how their counterparts in Europe through administrative decisions have managed to fool their electorates and quietly bypassed the democratic process, gradually abandoning border controls in favor of a regional block.

Left-wingers support this for the same reasons as left-wingers in Europe: They desire Third World immigrants because they tend to vote for left-wing parties and support expanded welfare states. Some left-wingers also see it as a goal to erase the Western cultural heritage and the white majority, again, just like in Europe. Some Big Business supporters tend to see immigrants as cheap labor and a new servant class. Of course, unlike some other countries, they get citizenship in the US, which means that the “servants” will eventually end up owning the country.

Lastly, there is a desire by the political elites to get more “reliable” political clients by importing political corruption from Mexico and sideline the democratic process with behind-the-scenes decisions and bureaucratic feudalism, similar to EU. This serves to bypass the restraints so unfairly imposed on them by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and the other US Founding Fathers.

Fredo Arias KingAccording to Fredo Arias King, who has worked with US-Mexico relations, “A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.” It is conceivable that these higher levels of political corruption will be imported to the US through Latin American immigration. And maybe some members of the political elites desire this?
- - - - - - - - - -
Americans have the largest military arsenal in human history, yet are seemingly unable to protect their borders from millions of illegal immigrants. Why? Because their authorities don’t want to enforce their border. There really is no other way to explain this. The corrupt Mexican elites use the USA as a safety valve to divert attention from their own failures. The only reason this works is because American elites don’t care about the US as a country and because Americans in general are suckers from Political Correctness. While the United States is planning to colonize the Moon, Mexico is colonizing the United States.

I almost start to question the entire democratic system when I look at this. Our democracies are based on nation states. But what happens if our elites no longer care about upholding and defending these nation states? On both sides of the Atlantic, Western nations seem to have trouble upholding their borders, and I suspect this is partly because most of the political, cultural and financial elites don’t want to uphold them. Maybe in the old days, the interests of the elites largely coincided with those of their nation states, which were used as a vehicle for gaining as much power and influence as possible. Now, increasing segments of these elites no longer feel any emotional attachment to their nations, and desire larger entities to enhance their personal power and prestige. This is why they are building regional economic blocks in both Europe and North America.

This process has gone further in the smaller nation states in Europe, where post-national elites have even usurped legislative powers which override national constitutions and parliaments, but still, the developments are related. There never was a debate in the United States on whether to merge the country demographically and economically with Mexico, the elites just quietly implemented it. Likewise, there has never been any debate in Europe about merging the continent with the Arab world. Since the people probably wouldn’t have agreed to this, they simply weren’t asked.

The problem is, it is actually possible to do this in the 21st century, because wealthy nations will face constant pressures from migration that are unrivaled in human history. Powerful elite groups can thus permanently change the demographic make-up of their countries by simply abstaining from upholding their territorial integrity.

Lee Kwan YewAccording to Singapore’s long-time leader Lee Kuan Yew, it is demography, not democracy, that will be the critical factor in shaping the 21st century. I don’t know whether that’s true, but it’s true that countries that cannot control their demographic future will not be able to control their democratic future, either. Maybe our democratic system will break down because our elites no longer are interested in supporting the nation states it is based upon. Not a nice thought, but it needs to be asked.

The US is engaged in “a silent war” conducted by illegal immigrants, according to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project for border controls. “Since 9/11 alone, about 45,000 U.S. residents have been killed in action via homicide or manslaughter at the hands of illegal aliens, and about another quarter of a million to 300,000 have been wounded.”

In 2005, more people left California for other states than arrived. This situation is unprecedented during the past 150 years. “Illegals push you off the sidewalks, ram your cars, and speed through red lights and stop signs while honking their horns like they did in Mexico, and refuse to even entertain the notion of ever learning English. Welcome to Los Angeles,” read one Californian’s online posting. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is concerned that an increasing number of Latino gangs are targeting African Americans in campaigns to drive blacks from some neighborhoods. A Californian friend sent me a link which showed that some of the large film studios have considered leaving Hollywood because Los Angeles is becoming a Third World city, with little glamour left. If it remains true that trends start in California and spread to the rest of the country, the USA is in trouble.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove, the influential political adviser to President Bush, explained the rationale behind the president’s amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” Parts of California, which since the 19th century has been an economic engine of the United States, are collapsing. Meanwhile, the president’s administration worries about American tomatoes.

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity was revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down. (…) The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.” Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history.” The more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions.”

Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his findings until he could develop suggested solutions to compensate for diversity, saying it would have been irresponsible to publish before this. “In my lifetime, Americans have deconstructed religion as a basis for making decisions. Why can’t we do the same thing with other types of diversity?” He added that “We should construct a new us.”

This means that Multiculturalism is a form of cultural and genetic Communism, where the goal is to create a new people by erasing all kinds of historic differences. It is somewhat ironic that a generation after the United States helped bringing down the Soviet Union, ideas that are in some ways related to those of the latter are spreading in the US. Americans should be careful with this. Culture matters. Will the United States remain recognizable if it is no longer defined by the Anglo-Protestant culture that it was founded upon?

AztlanMexicans do not share these illusions. They see themselves as Mexicans and Hispanics, and desire more power for their tribe, not for the US nation as a whole. Sooner or later, the white majority will start seeing themselves as just another tribe and act accordingly- what happens then? What happens if there is a serious economic recession in the US caused by booming debts and Asian competition? Americans seem to have this near-religious belief that once you set foot on US soil, all the religious, cultural racial and ethnic tensions found in the rest of the world will disappear.

Since the slogan in the United States is “strength through diversity,” does that mean that the world’s last remaining superpower consists of increasingly diverse ethnic groups with no common culture, only tied together by an ideological lie? The last superpower that was in this situation disintegrated. The Soviet Union failed because its economic model was flawed. US capitalism is much more robust, although still vulnerable to large budget deficits. But the Soviet Union also failed because it envisioned itself as a universal nation that had left cultural differences behind. Could the USA be about to make the same mistake?

The writer John Derbyshire fears so: “There are too many fault lines, and the cracks are widening. We are separating out, drifting apart from each other, withdrawing into gated communities, both literal and metaphorical. Much of the damage, however, has been willfully self-inflicted. We did not have to swallow the multiculturalist suicide pill; we did not have to open our borders to the Third World flood; we did not have to delegitimize patriotism and abandon the assimilationist model of immigration. (…) Why did we do those foolish things? From overconfidence, I think. It has been said that a nation can survive anything but success. Success is the one true lethal disaster.”

Many observers are forecasting a new superpower race between China an the USA in the 21st century. It is true that China has problems of its own. Its huge population base is both a blessing and a curse, and the country suffers from environmental problems and an ageing population. I am a firm believer in the idea that freedom of speech has long-term economic consequences. China certainly has the potential to lead the world, but I’m not convinced she will until she undergoes significant political reforms.

However, China has one huge advantage over the US: It is much more culturally and ethnically homogeneous. I’m not sure China will dominate the world at the end of this century, but I’m pretty sure it will still exist. I cannot say the same thing with confidence about the Unites States. Current American policies are based on the assumption that the USA will basically remain the same when European Americans constitute a minority as when they constituted 90 percent of the population. That’s a leap of faith.

Maybe I’m biased sine I’m European myself, but accepting immigrants from a limited pool of nations on the same continent with similar cultural background isn’t the same thing as accepting immigrants from every single cultural racial and religious group from 200-odd nations across the planet. Just because you can pull off number one does not necessarily mean that you can pull off number two. It’s a classic case of ideological overstretch.

In my view, the roots of the current Islamic Jihad against the West can be traced back at least to the 1970s. It started perhaps with European appeasement of Palestinian Jihad terrorism a la Arafat and the establishment of the Eurabian networks to appease Arab OPEC countries following the 1973 oil crisis.

Then we had the Iranian revolution in 1979, when many Western leaders, both Europeans and US President Jimmy Carter, contributed to the success of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic takeover. We should also mention the appeasement a decade later when the same regime declared its death sentence over author Salman Rushdie. Even British conservative PM Margaret Thatcher was rather weak in her response to Islamic aggression at home and abroad at that time.

Finally, we had the disastrous 1990s, with the Oslo Process in the Middle East and the NATO backing of Muslims in the Balkans. Both contributed greatly to Muslims viewing the West as weak and indecisive, and both were passionately backed by President Bill Clinton. US General Wesley Clark, who led NATO’s bombing of the Serbs on behalf of Muslims in Kosovo, stated flatly: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”

So basically, the US-led war was for establishing Multiculturalism as the unchallenged doctrine in the West? President Clinton said during the campaign in 1999 that “if your children are wearing the uniform of our armed services, I don’t want them to have to fight a war because we didn’t nip in the bud a cancer that can never sweep across Europe again.”

But a cancer is sweeping across Europe right now, a cancer of Islamic Jihad, and Mr. Clinton helped giving it optimal growth conditions. Muslims, backed by Saudi oil money, have been building up the Balkans as a launching pad for Jihad against the West. Instead of a Westernization of the Balkans, we risk getting a Balkanization of the West.

In April 2007, Congressman Tom Lantos of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair said about Kosovo: “This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States’ principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.”

Damaged church in PodujevoThe Serbs consider Kosovo their Jerusalem, the cradle of their nation, littered with churches and monasteries that are now being desecrated by Albanian Muslims. Do the Americans believe Muslims will be less eager to gain control over the Jerusalem of the Middle East if the Americans hand over the Jerusalem of Europe on a silver platter? And do they think sacrificing other non-Muslims to ethnic cleansing will make them respected by Muslims?

During the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the United States did great service to humanity by helping to bring down the Soviet Union.. Even Reagan wasn’t perfect, especially in dealing with Muslims, but for the most part I have no problem with saying that the USA then acted as a champion of human liberty. Under Clinton in the 1990s, however, they acted as the global enforcers of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. And therein lies the rub: They contain within them the seeds for both.

Americans are currently under the spell of a massively dysfunctional ideology. If the United States remains wedded to Multiculturalism, it will eventually implode as a superpower, perhaps physically fall apart in a Second American Civil War. In the meantime, precisely because they are so economically powerful and culturally influential, they will export a dysfunctional ideology to other nations. It’s a bit like having a schizophrenic patient armed with a bazooka, hurting real people while hunting for imaginary trolls.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States has become a “universal nation,” which is a nice way of saying a country of nothingness. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the superpower that was declared the winner of the Cold War collapsed only decades after the superpower that lost the Cold War, and for some of the same reasons? I’m not saying that this is inevitable. It’s not, not yet, but it’s a possibility that increases in likelihood day by day. What happens if not just the minorities, but the white majority, too, start seeing themselves as a tribal group? Multiculturalism could cause the downfall of the United States and the end of the American dream. That would be sad, for it was a good dream, but maybe it was a dream after all.

Will the USA in the coming years act as the champion of liberty or of Multiculturalism? Much depends upon the answer.

27 comments:

kepiblanc said...

Excellent installment - as always. But the Mexicans (can I say that ?) are Catholics, not Muslims. Isn't that significant ?

Spinoneone said...

Kepiblanc - Yes, the majority of Mexicans are nominal Catholics. However, most young and middle age men do not participate. These are the same guys who join drug and street gangs, are part of Subcomandante Marco's army, and believe it Atzatlan. These are the scorpions in the deck. Spinoneone

Archonix said...

In a previous post, Dymphna mentioned the idea of the american union and was brought to task by a commenter who reckoned it was paranoid nothings. In some ways it's easy to agree with that, because there's very littloe obvious reason to think otherwise.

But, then, would anyone looking at the Coal and Steel union between Germany and France have been able to predict its eventual metamorphosis in to the EU? And yet, the articles of that first treaty made the ultimate intention of its architects quite plain. They simply did it in a way that bores most people to tears.

Therefore, before anyone dismisses the idea of the american union as another paranoid conspiracy theory, remember how the EU started, and pay attention to the treaties being signed by the US. The biggest threat to freedom is not a visible external threat, but apathy at the antics of remote politicians who appear ot have no bearing on day-to-day life.

mistkerl said...

Hey, I was that commenter archonix, :)

I have a few follow up questions, specifically for the European commenters. I know that overall, the EU is despised. But, as an outsider, I see two things:

1. The combined EU economies are substantially better now than when I lived here in the pre-EU early 90s. This is clearly a result of their Euro currency. My US dollar isn't worth crapola anymore in Europe!

2. Even though countries are in the EU, they all retain their individuality. There is no question when you are in Germany, everything is still very German. The same for France, etc...

So, given those 2 observations, is the EU really as oppressive and terrible as we generally perceive? What am I missing? Arguably, I'm such a cynic that I don't think non-elites really have any influence on politics anyways so maybe thats why I am not seeing it.

----------

I kind of relate it to what it must have been like way back in the day. Take Germany for example, which was (I think) something like 300 separate mini-states before being brought together.

Each of those states had self identities and all had the same fears of homogenizing, but I think history shows that a combined Germany is far stronger, and the individual customs of each mini state are still alive and well.

So, in my mind, even if there was some vast conspiracy to combine Canada, USA, and Mexico into one larger group, I still don't see the danger in it. People are still vastly loyal to their individual states (ahem! Texans) even when those states are part of a greater whole.

I mean, its not like the US isn't already over-run by immigrants from both countries. How could it get any worse?

I just see it as the next iteration and larger group. The eventual far future goal is one united world right? Then we can go conquer other planets and start the segregation process all over, :) (Sorry, this is my homage to the NWO conspiracy where this AMERO conspiracy originally developed, altho ironically it appealed to the other side of the political sphere then!)

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Counter-Jihadist said...

Thank you, Fjordman. Another first-rate contribution. I have not before viewed Multiculturalism as 'cultural Communism', but the comparison is an apt one.

kepiblanc said...

Mistkerl, where do you get the idea that the EU is in an economically good shape ? - France, Italy and Germany are suffering from massive unimployment and slowly dragging Britain down with them. And the best economy within the EU - by far - is the Danish one. And Denmark is outside the € - zone.

Archonix said...

Right, this is my second attempt at this. The first disappeared in a crash.

I blame the lizard people. ;)

Ok misterker;

First, the EU economie are not substantially better than they were in the 90s. Many are at the same leve, others are worse. Ask any italian what he thinks of the economy at the moment and if you're lucky he'll just shout at you for a few hours. The only reasonyour dollars don't seem to go far any more is becaus the dollar has fallen significantly, not because the euro has risen. The Euros is placing a massive inflationary burden on the EU economies, which no longer have the mechanism of altering interest rates in order t control inflation. Further, there is no mechanism for national debt transfer, as exists in the USD, which places further inflationary pressure on individual member states. This pressure is compouned by inflation in members states that are net recipients of EU funding (SPain and Ireland as examples) who are able to cut taxes to miniscule amounts because they're getting funded by the other EU member states. All of this is combining to produce an inflationary economy with no control mechanism. Unempoyment has risen constantly within the eurozone since the euro was introduced, and productivity has fallen just as constantly. National debts are going up, taxes are rising, GDP is falling.

Second, it is interesting tha tyou mention Bismark's german unification, as it has bearings which I will get to in a moment. First, let me say that much of what you perceived is, again, an illusion. Individual nations are slowly losing their national customs as laws and regulations are 'unified' across the continent. National institutions might appear unchanged, which might then present an image that the nations in question are unchanged, but this is simply a signature of how the EU functions. Those national institutions have been holowed out form the inside and replaced with EU functionaries and apparatchiks. The EU bypasses national legislatures and oepratues through the implementation of an ever more powerful unelected bureaucracy of civil servants and managers. Thus normality appears top retain. HOwever, in my country, the traditional and ancient freedoms of common law are being slowly abrogated by the implementation of bureaucratic systems. Habeas corpus is being erased, the right to travel within the borders of this country are being erased, the freedom of the individual is being erased. In fact, this country no longer officiall exists. Look at any EU-approved map and you'll notice that, while the UK is marked clearly, its constituent parts are not England, Ireland Scotland and Wales, but Scotland, Wales, northern ireland, The North West, The North East, The Midlands, the south east, the south west and greater london. My country is gone.

Your revolutionary war was started with the cry of no taxation without representation. Well I am definitely no longer represented in the government that runs my country. In all but a few areas, the laws that are implemented through parliament are defined by the EU. The elected government of this country now only has the freedom to legislate in a few areas; foreign policy, health and education being the main. Agriculture and environmental policy, transport, internal affairs of various sorts, prisons policy, immgiration, these are all legislated by the EU, with barely a nod to the national legislature. MPs will get perhaps 12 hours to examine a draft law in these areas before putting it to vote - which will generally be ignored anyway - and these drafts will often run to 30 pages. An MP will get several of these drafts every single day, dozens in a week. ANd this is just the legislation that is passed thorugh parliament. THe EU can simply define legislation as an administrative or technical regulation and bypass the elected legislature entirely.

All of this from an organisation that was sold to us on a lie. The EEC was put across as a free trade zone. I never voted for the creation of a supranational, unaccountable government that does not submit to the will of the people via an election. IN fact I did not vote at all. I have never had a say on whether I want my country - which no longer exists - to be a part of this. The EU has no mandate and never has.

Now, Germany is a more apt comparison than you might realise. Bismark concieved the unification of germany as a means to prevent the german kingdoms from fighting each other. He began to implement it when those same kingdoms were on the verge of signing an unprecedented peace treaty; his manipulations caused a war that gave him the pretext to simply conquer those other kingdoms, or trick them in to treaties that irrevocably tied them to his Imperial germany.

He began with a customs union.

The EU has not resoted to wars to implent itself, but it began in the same way, and with the same aims. The EU was conceived as a means to prevent another war like the Great War, but it was interrupted by the second world war. By the close of that war the political landscape had so changed that the concept of the EU was obsolete before the first treaties were even signed. It is consequently an institution looking for a role, and it has since found that role by re-positioning itself as a counter to American 'hegemony', a second pole against the US's presence in the world as a super-power. This is in itself a foolish proposition; historically it is more foolish still, because history demonstrates that it will cause more trouble than its worth.

Bismark's united germany did become peaceful for a while, but that peace didn't last long. The internal fractures of the new Imperial germany soon started to cause strife and resentment amongst the people of that country. A solution was found in the redirection of the national angst toward external enemies. The eventual result was the great war. The result of that was world war 2.

The 'unification' of the nations of europe is the same thing on a much larger scale. It is perhaps no coincidence that incidents of anti-americanism have risen sharply since the signing of maastricht.

The EU has placed itself in opposition to the united states. It has inveigled itself so deeply in to the lives of its 'citizens', so deeply embedded itself in to every aspect of life, that everything a person does is regulated in some way by the EU. As examples; In order to install an electrical socket in my kitchen I must comply with at least eleven separate regulations. Some are sensible, governing the type of wire to use and the general direction that wire should go in. Others are nonsense; in order to comply I have to place my sockets a certain distance from the floor no matter what their purpose. EU regulations now mandate by law the kind of taps I'm allowed to use in my bathroom. They mandate the height of my door, the height of the gap between the door and the ceiling and the angle of my stairs, to milimetre precisions.

Every day I break about 30 laws whilst engaged in what were previously lawful activities. Most of these laws are EU-inspired regulations proscribinbg the details of how activities are to be carried out. My computer does not comply with regulations on lead content, electrical output or anything else, despite being perfectly safe. The lights in my house will soon be made illegal.

None of this was done with the consent of parliament. None was done with the consent of the people of this nation. These are just little things, little examples of how the EU inteferes in every-day life. They are a tiny fraction of the laws and regulations that are implemented by the EU; thousands each year, each one limiting the freedom of people just that little bit more. SOoner or later the sheer volume of regulations will start to affect people culturally. Our culture is slowly being eroded and destroyed by this vile institution, our national identities removed, our freedoms erased, and the end result? Inevitably, it will be war, but before that will be a morass of dull, lifeless existence for millions of people shorn of everything that once made their nations great.

What price the ability to spend the same coin in 20 countries?

Archonix said...

PS, forgive the typos, I'm at the end of my work day so I don't have time to check.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Anyone that isn't afraid of where the EU is intending to go needs to recall only one thing: After France turned down their Constitution, thus damaging the whole idea of a Union, the President there stated that they would just put it up for a vote again and again until the people voted the *right* way.

I do fear what the US is heading towards- there are numerous cases of Mexicans in military uniforms opening fire on Border Patrol agents, well within the US borders. The response from the Feds? It was an accident, or the attackers weren't really the Mexican Army, the borders are unclear, or they're investigating it, or they sent a note to the Mexican government, or whatever. If people in the uniform of another country cross your borders and shoot at your people, that would seem to be an "invasion". But the US government does nothing. That scares me.

And it's pretty clear that the Mexican government is supporting the illegal immigrants, and is thrilled with the whole concept. They get all the benefits, the Gringos get all the costs. Perfect.

The fact that Bush seems to support all this, or at least doesn't oppose it, is one of the biggest reasons why I object to anyone calling me a "republican".

Matt said...

I gave James Higham, from Nourishing Obscurity, a few links on the NAU a while back. I also found this link via Vanishing American: http://www.wehategringos.com/

Gringo_Malo said...

Frankly, I'm amazed that the Soviet Union collapsed before the United States. The Soviet welfare system didn't pay people not to work. The Soviet government allowed neither unlimited imports of goods, nor unlimited exports of its manufacturing capacity, nor unlimited immigration from the third world. The Soviet Union, at its core, was ethnically homogenous. America is the exact opposite in all respects. We Americans who live in the Southwest, the future Aztlan, can only hope that our federal government withers away before it manages to surrender us and our lands to Mexico.

Phanarath said...

Gringo_Malo

Going to work, and working are two different things.

I was in eastern Europe before the iron curtain fell, and it was a very common sight to see groups of up to 8 men in blue overalls just standing around talking, while traveling by train I would see these groups all the time, never doing anything but standing around. I was in a traffic accident in east Berlin, and about 40 cops showed up, where maybe 2 to 4 was needed, they just stood there, some where coming their hair, others in conversations. 2 western cops would have solved the situation in 20 min max. We waited for more then 2 hours, with 40 cops plus paramedics and other officials.

Just to plant a small flower in the city, there would be again those teams of 6 to 8 men, with one doing the planting and the others just standing there.

Gringo_Malo said...

Phanarath

I have no doubt that there were many people employed in make-work jobs in Communist countries, just as many Americans were employed in make-work jobs during the Communist administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My point was that, in America, the government pays a violent, mostly non-white underclass to lie around, smoke crack cocaine, and breed. Did the Soviets ever do anything that stupid?

Phanarath said...

I don't know about crac heh, but they had huge problems with alcohol and still do. And they did last for some generations before they collapsed.

I think the main reason the US lasted while USSR went down, was the fact that the US motivates people to go the extra mile. USSR only motivated people to laziness and corruption.

But the western world is going the wrong way now, the combination between wellfarestate and political correctness makes a dangerous poison, one that takes a few generations to work.

Most of Europe not as political correct as the US, on the other hand the US dosnt have the wellfare state most of Europe does. Sveden & england has both in huge amount, and its a sad sight.

I read some article by a US democrat who was very impressed with the welfare system in Denmark, and wanted to copy it for the US. I am pretty sure you will be toast if you do. Same as we will be toast if we copy your political correctness, like sweden already have.

Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes and not simply exchange poison.

And of course I agree with your sentiment 100 %, and also that when many different ethnic/cultural/religius groups is combined with those 2 poisons, then it really becomes a fast way to hell.

Mr. Spog said...

"Maybe our democratic system will break down because our elites no longer are interested in supporting the nation states it is based upon" (Fjordman). Could it also be that our elites, bureaucratic or plutocratic, are interested in breaking down nation states as a means of making democracy impossible? (The only way you can rule a multinational empire is with an imperial elite.)

Profitsbeard said...

If you do not teach the root meaning of your nation (Bill of Rights, respect for the law, historical triumphs), the succeeding generations dissolve into chaos.

The borders are like the skin.

If you let anything in, you die of uncontrolled infections.

Digestion (assimilation) is an orderly process that used to be mimicked by regulated immigration.

At present, it is more like multiple injections of experimental agents -with the country as a giant guinea pig for social theoreticians.

Elitists who can retreat to their gated communites or sanctuary universities, for now, and enjoy the "educational" spectacle of the disintegrastion and Balkanization of the United States.

Those who do not honor the best of the American experiment, and do not teach its greatnesses, slowly and seditiously undo it.

The political and business classes seem oblivious to the future they are cynically sowing with this encouraged lawlessness.

A nation that does not maintain its integrity invites oblivion.

KG said...

Frightening. And probably unstoppable.
I posted an excerpt on my blog with some (very gloomy) observations about the way we're headed.

Phanarath said...

Gringo_Malo

Hehe, I just saw a perfect example of the combined work of the poisens:

Polygamous husbands settling in Britain with multiple wives can claim extra benefits for their “harems” even though bigamy is a crime in the UK, it has emerged.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Does anyone think a shared European military force would a good idea, assuming that we wouldn't have the European Union? If not, why not? Would there be any benefit in having a common army?

I suppose we'll eventually have one, if the EU doesn't collapse before that happens. We already have Battle Groups, though as far as I know their only purpose is to just sit there and look good, instead of doing something important or dangerous.

Ypp said...

a topic for discussion:
I know that when Turks tried to conquer Europe and were at the gates of Vienna, many Hungarian protestants fought for Turks because they considered Austria to bi a bigger enemy than Turks. The question is: Isn't there something in Protestants that make them hate historical Europe?

Ypp said...

I wouldn't exclude as one of the reasons also that our supremacist elites have a sincere sympathy forjzymlya supremacist muslims

Gerry said...

I think you're all overreacting. I'm a non-white, naturalized US citizen myself and I'm Americanized through and through. American culture is a siren song and hard to resist. I'm already seeing the same assimilation that happened to me affecting the kids of newly arrived hispanics. I know it seems that the sky is falling most of the time, but this is still a strong country and we're a strong people. We'll assimilate the hispanics just the same as we've assimilated all the other groups that have come before. On the plus side, the local Mexican food has gotten a lot better in the last few years.

Paul said...

Gerry: I'm with you on the improvement in quality and availability of 'Latin American' food, not just Mexican. Tex-Mex has been a staple around here for a long time.

Over the last few years, as massive numbers of illegal hispanics have flooded into our Gulf Coast area from below the border, the supply of spanish speaking gardners has skyrocketed. Along with the gardeners the number of 'roach coaches' has also greatly increased. 'Roach Coaches' are small trucks turned into small kitchens that serve Mexican food to order. On my way to work a Shell gas station has a crew of hispanic girls preparing 'breakfast tacos' wrapped in foil at 6:00 AM every morning. $1.25 a piece. I buy two in the morning when I stop. The place is always jammed with Mexican gardners with their extended cab pickup trucks and trailers full of yard maintenance equipment. And there's usually a whole line of Mexicans in there buying those breakfast tacos when I stop.

Another observation: the work ethic of these illegal Mexican and Latin American immigrants puts a lot of us white boys to shame. I'd rather have Mexican/Latinos working in my yard, or building my fences than my fellow Americans.... They generally do a better job and they don't whine and gripe.

USpace said...

We should use this to force Mexico to reform so not as many Mexicans will want to come to the USA...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
there are no borders

there are no outsiders
your land is their land


absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
corruption should rule

terrorists and drug smugglers
must be able to get through
.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

gerry:
We'll assimilate the hispanics just the same as we've assimilated all the other groups that have come before.

But have you ever received so many immigrants? Your problems with illegal immigration are probably only going to get worse as times goes on. Not even the US has an infinite capacity to absorb people.

Nessus said...

The so-called great work ethic of the illegal Mexican is often because they come from poor environment and also, they work illegally, getting paid "under the table" (not having income tax withheld from the paycheck, social security pension, etc.) It's a financial scam, nothing more.

The Republicans want the cheap labor and the Democrats want to secure the illegals into good Democrat voters.

No, the US has never absorbed such high levels of immigration in it's history, especially not most of it illegal and most of it coming from one "feeder" nation - Mexico.

So called "Hispanic immigrants" are by and large illegal aliens - cheaters, liars and stealers in the sense that most are cheating, lying and stealing on the illegal work (identity theft/fraud, social security fraud, income tax evasion, lack of driver's license, etc.)

No American is against reasonable numbers of legal immigration but what's going on is mass population transference. A chronically corrupt, drug-peddling government of Mexico can not get it's house in order and relies on sending it's peasants to the US in order to work illegally and send money back to Mexico.