Monday, May 30, 2011

Migration, Invasion, or Settlement?

In recent years, European advocates for mass immigration have taken up the euphemism “migration” to describe the process they champion. The abbreviated version of the word is less freighted with negative connotations, and serves to anesthetize the general public by evoking images of people who move from place to place occasionally — maybe seasonal farm workers or pastoral nomads — but certainly not a massive influx of hostile aliens.

In other words, nothing like the reality of 21st-century Europe.

Frequent arguments may be heard within Counterjihad circles about what term best describes what is going on now in Europe, since “immigration” hardly covers it. Other suggestions include “invasion” and “colonization”, and I would add “settlement” to the list. But none of these quite captures the essence of what is happening.

Invasion implies an armed incursion, and at least a token resistance by the population that is being invaded. None of that is in evidence in Europe — the target population is largely passive, thanks to generous amounts of soma provided by the welfare state, and the invaders have actually been invited in by the political leaders of the invaded countries.

Colonization also implies a coordinated effort by a militarily superior armed power to overcome the target population. Colonizing a foreign country is similar to invading it, except that any resistance offered by the colony is asymmetric and ineffective. Colonists are not invited in and welcomed by the leaders of the colonized country, unless the latter have already lost the battle and are accepting a fait accompli.

Settlement comes slightly closer, because it implies migration to a land that is open for occupation and exploitation. Yet such a land should be sparsely-populated or uninhabited. Iceland was settled. North America was settled. Europe is not being settled; it is being willingly ceded to an alien population.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

For a change of pace, we’ll take a breather from the Jihad and look at what’s happening today in the United States.

Islamization is the larger threat in the long term, but the immediate danger here in the U.S.A. is Mexicanization. Last night I happened to stumble across the following map, which I adapted from an article published by the Migration Policy Institute:

Map: Mexican immigration in the USA

As we all know, California and Texas are the most Mexicanized states. But Illinois? What brings all those Mexicans to Chicago…?

The data used for this map and the rest of the article are from 2006. We’ll assume that the number of Mexican-born residents of the United States has only increased in the meantime, even if the current depression has induced some of the illegals to return home. The 2006 figures should suffice for the sake of analysis.

I made the following graphs from the tabular data in the accompanying article. The first is a chart showing the increase since 1960 in foreign-born residents of the U.S.A., Mexican and otherwise. As you can see, the overall increase in immigration is accelerating, and the number of Mexicans is increasing more rapidly than all the other nationalities:

Mexican immigration: chart #1

The second graph shows the overall trend more clearly, charting the number of Mexican-born residents as a percentage of all the foreign-born:

Mexican immigration: chart #2

When I was a kid — at the leftmost position on these graphs — Mexicans were an anomaly in America, unless you happened to live in Texas or California. Even there they were generally migrant laborers, the “exploited” workers whose rights were championed by Cesar Chavez just a few years later.

All that has changed in the last forty years. Southern California and parts of Texas have become virtual extensions of Mexico, and the “migrants” have become permanent fixtures in most major cities and many rural areas. We have our fair share of them here in Central Virginia, working on the tobacco farms, in construction, doing highway maintenance, operating equipment, and laboring in various other low-to-medium-skill occupations, including the stereotypical lawn-care services. All grocery stores now have large “Hispanic foods” sections.

So the Mexicanization of America is a very real and ongoing process.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In Anestos Canelides’ post last night, a commenter objected to the description of ethnicities in the San Fernando Valley as “white and Hispanic”, saying that the phrase should be “Anglo and Hispanic”.

He has a point. However, both distinctions are inaccurate, because the vast majority of Mexicans in the current wave of settlers are not white. Yes, they are “Hispanic” in the sense that they speak a dialect of Castilian Spanish, and share at least some genetic material with the Iberians who colonized Mexico.

But they are not like Asturians or Catalonians. They are mestizos, or persons of mixed Iberian and American Indian descent. Many of them have more Indian blood than Spanish — some of those I see in our area look like pure-blooded Aztecs or Mayans, with faces straight out of the 16th-century codices illustrating temple rituals or human sacrifice in Tenochtitlan.

Large areas of our country are rapidly being converted to de facto mestizo territory. Like most Americans, this is not something I want to see. I like Mexicans just fine — but in Mexico. If I want to, I can book a flight to Acapulco or Mexico City, enjoy the local culture, and then return home to live amongst Americans. What’s wrong with that?

There was a time not so long ago when such sentiments were considered normal. Less than two generations back, mass illegal immigration from south of the border would have provoked outrage and condemnation, but today anyone who objects to it is considered “racist” and “bigoted”. We are enjoined to accept bilingual schools and government institutions, with the various dysfunctional behaviors that accompany the Mexican underclass as a byproduct. All this is billed as an enrichment of our culture.

Yet, funnily enough, the Mexicanization of America is deeply unpopular, and is opposed by a large majority of Americans who were here before the current surge of mestizos began arriving. We don’t want it, but very few national politicians of either party who oppose it ever make it to the ballot where we could vote for them — our only choices are to vote for “amnesty” or “more amnesty”.

To make matters worse, the federal government is working hard to ensure that the states cannot make or enforce laws that are simply locally-enacted versions of federal immigration laws.

We must have the Mexicans whether we want them or not.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

When you examine matters closely, it appears that the importation of Mexicans into the United States is occurring for the same reasons that Muslims are being settled in Europe.

The original motive seems to have been the need for cheap labor to make profits for large corporations and fill out the workforce of an aging population. But over the past forty years that intention morphed into something entirely different, as the socialist parties (in our case, the Democrats) realized that bringing in ignorant and unskilled masses of welfare-dependent immigrants could create a permanent electoral majority for socialism as soon as sufficient numbers of the new arrivals became eligible to vote. The widespread ideology of Multiculturalism simply provided moral justification for a cynical political calculus.

Recent revelations in the UK about the Labour Party’s machinations have confirmed this process in British politics, and it’s easy to see the same imperative at work elsewhere in the West. Socialists need illiterate foreigners to cement their hold on power. They also need to erode national feeling among the natives to help destroy any lingering urge to resist.

Muslims fill the bill by colonizing Europe. Mexicans do the same by invading the U.S.A.

Muslim settlers are the more efficient destroyers of Western Civilization, but the end result is the same.


Anonymous said...

Baron, this is exactly right, but incomplete. In the SF Bay Area at least, the Chinese are rapidly gaining political power, and there sure are a lot of them, and every other Asian ethnicity.

It's impossible to understand what's really going on without discussing how the Chinese are being groomed to rule over us. A good model for our future can be seen in Los Angeles Koreatown. That section of LA is heavily mestizo, but also heavily Asian. The Asians are in charge of the local economy, and the mestizos do the physical labor.

I think this model will apply to Northern California as well, in the near future. The mayors of both SF and Oakland are Chinese. I hope people here will pay close attention to this trend.

pashley said...

Anyone else remember how futuristic "Blade Runner" was in 1982. Now it looks like every city in the world.

Blogger said...

Are these Mexicans and Chinese muslims? NO! I don't see what the problem is. I live in Perth and we have an enormous population of Asians here. Absolutely no problems at all. I think we need to get back to the real problem; Islam - The Ideology. We need as many asians and mexicans on our side as possible. We are all together fighting for human rights against an ideology opposed to human rights.

Anonymous said...

Blogger, a race-blind approach to politics is disadvantageous for white people, simply because white people are such a small percentage of the world population. Once there are no borders, it's only a matter of time before there are no white people.

For many people, ethnocentrism is a strong aesthetic preference, and there is nothing wrong with it. People have the right to freedom of association and racial preservation. So, even though all non-Muslims should make common cause against Muslims, this doesn't mean that the various factions should abandon their own ethnic preferences. If everyone in the world were sort of brown, I wouldn't have anyone to look at.

philip.zhao said...

The difference between Muslim-filled communities and the Chinese-concentrated localities is that the Muslims destroy its economy while the Chinese contribute to the development of the local economy.

philip.zhao said...

By the way, have Chinsese ever forced anyone to use chopsticks ?

Anonymous said...

Philip, it's true that many Chinese immigrants are decent, hardworking people who contribute a lot, but at current levels of immigration, the indigenous people are getting crowded out.

Thought experiment: Japan invites Europeans to settle in Japan. The Europeans are smart and nice, wherever they settle, there is more prosperity and a variety of European cuisines.

Shouldn't the Japanese worry about this, if Japan becomes less Japanese? Well, that's exactly what's happening with Chinese and other Asian immigration. The individual Asians are fine people, except for the organised hoodlums among them, and Asian hoodlums are not rare, in fact I helped my local police department bust some Chinese drug dealers who were infesting downtown, and since I'm not naive, I did so anonymously.

Be that as it may, we are all going to have to discuss this issue. Asians can be cool people, but they do have their own countries, and they have no right to take over ours.

philip.zhao said...

Our founding father, Dr. Sun Yet-sun, advocated for "Shi-Jie-Da-Tong" ( The World is One ). In fact, we are heading the way. For one thing, we all wear jeans. But I am afraid that the day will come when women all wear burkas and men wear beards. Oneness or sameness may not always be a good thing after all. Latte Island, you made a very good point there, and thank you! Hope to read more in your blog.

Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blogger said...

>only a matter of time before there >are no white people

Good. I think mixed races are by far the best. Cross polination produces better breeds of everything.

Anonymous said...

Asian grocers say Hola in Mission

"When I opened my first supermarket in 1986, there were only a few other Chinese stores. There were mostly Latino ones," the 50-year-old said. "But in the last 10 years, Asian businesses have been blooming."

Lawrence said...

Blogger said..."We need as many asians and mexicans on our side as possible."

Good point. However, here in our South Western states the Mexicans are not necessarily on our side. Some of them are, many of them are not.

If Islamists joined their efforts to reacquire our South Western states, they would be more than happy for the assistance.

Mexicans aren't afraid of Islamists. When the Islamists are no longer useful allies, they'll be run out of the barrios like any other race they do any other race they don't want.

So what is the problem? For majority of U.S. citizens we're fighting a two front war. Mexican assimilation from within and Islamist assimilation from without.

Anonymous said...

"Frequent arguments may be heard within Counterjihad circles about what term best describes what is going on now in Europe, since “immigration” hardly covers it. Other suggestions include “invasion” and “colonization”, and I would add “settlement” to the list. But none of these quite captures the essence of what is happening."

I like the phrase "genocide by substitution".

Sagunto said...

MASS-immigration = Muslim Assisted Slow Suicide.


Hesperado said...

I tend to agree with Blogger, with some fine-tuning. Non-whites are not all a monolithic block, but reflect varying degrees of pathology.

The worst by far are Muslims.

Second worst are blacks (however, this is misleading if it implies that Muslims are only a step worse, and blacks only a step better; rather, we are talking about an astronomic leap into worseness with regard to Muslims).

Third worst are Hispanics.

Fourth worst are certain SE Asians (e.g., Vietnamese, Hmong), but tending not to include Filipinos, Japanese, and Chinese.

With regard to Hispanic pathology, we are indeed talking about a Minority of Extremists -- if not "tiny" necessarily, at least small.

With blacks, that minority of sociopaths is larger and more spread out, but still a minority.

Muslims, however, with regard to the pathologies they cultivate, the global breadth and depth of those pathologies throughout their societies on all levels, and the dangers they pose to us, are simply off the scale. There is no inclusive comparison with other non-white minorities.

This is not to say that some non-white minorities are not social problems that need to be addressed; it is simply to say that the Muslim problem should not be lumped in with those other problems.

Indeed, it is precisely the fact that PC MC has lumped them together -- by considering "Muslim" an ethnic minority (which it then elevates to supreme privilege, only because Muslims are the deadliest, threaten the most violence and make good on that violence in terms of devastation and global reach more than any other ethnic minority) which has prevented the West, in its PC MC concerns, from considering the problem of Islam rationally.

Escoffier said...

I'd just like to note that this...

"Good. I think mixed races are by far the best. Cross polination produces better breeds of everything."

Is properly called genocide. I am not a bigot for wanting my people to survive and I am sick to death of wild eyed lunatics like this individual acting as if genocide were healthy and normal, a moderate position even!

Anonymous said...

You should definitely concentrate more on the Amerindian colonization of Southern USA. European-Americans are going to be minority in their own country soon if drastic measures are not taken you will balkanize yourself. Stop all Non European immigration to European countries. Including Argentine and the USA. Why should the people who created the USA become a minority in their own country? Have you ever heard about a people in the history of mankind who willingly wanted to become a minority in their land without fighting back? The smoke from the Frankfurt school have blinded all of Western Civilization.

I recommend every to read Guillaume Faye: Why We Fight: Manifesto for the European Resistance.

Dymphna said...

@ Lavard --

Our ship is a lazy crew, though in that characteristic it differs not at all re this characteristic.

Thus, if you have something to recommend, in this case, Guillame Faye's book(s), please, please leave a LIVE link so we can easily see what you're recommending.

Otherwise, people reading your comment will think. "yeah, sounds good. I'll look into that..."

Unfortunately, what they're most likely to do instead is move on to the next thing they'd already lined up to read. Thus another good source of information is sucked down into the Bermuda Triangle of lost resolutions...

Here's a link to his book. Notice that I used the HTML format you can find immediately above your blank comment box:

Why We Fight

Amazon's 'editorial' begins:

Identitarians and others making up the European resistance lack a doctrine that truly serves as a political and ideological synthesis of who they are - a doctrine that speaks above parties and sects, above rival sensibilities and wounded feelings, that brings the resistance together around clear ideas and objectives, uniting them in opposition to the Europeans' dramatic decline. Our people today face the gravest peril in their entire history: demographic collapse, submission to an alien colonisation and to Islam, the bastardisation of the European Union, prostration before American hegemony, the forgetting of our cultural roots, and so on.

In the form of an introductory text and a dictionary of 177 key words, Guillaume Faye, one of the most creative writers of the European 'Right', makes a diagnosis of the present situation and proposes a program of resistance, reconquest, and regeneration...

If you scroll down the page (note the lack of reviews), you can find recommendations based on what other readers have also perused, including another Faye book:

Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age

This one has five reader reviews, of which one says:

Written for Europeans by someone who looks to Moscow for the future creation of what he calls "Eurosiberia," Faye paves the way for the liquidation of the nation state, and the emergence of a new European empire capable of repulsing the "Afro-Asian Muslim invasion."

None of the reviews are from "certified buyers" - i.e., they didn't purchase the book at Amazon so there's no way of telling if these folks are merely anti-Faye who never actually bought the book to read what he says...these folks are famous for "salting" the reader comments on Amazon.


I learned two new words in this exercise: idenitarians and Euroserbia.

philip.zhao said...

"The Melting Pot" - this vivid metaphor was first presented by a Jewish playwright/novelist,Israel Zangwill (1864-1926) in his 1908 play about immigrant life in America- "America The Melting Pot ",depicting the mixture of diverse people joining in the common purpose in the land of opportunity.

Now it has become a struggle of who's melting whom and the choice of the burning firewood underneath the pot !

philip.zhao said...

If you study Amerian history and dig into its nooks and crannies, you'll shockingly find that American history since the days of revolution has had a strong Jewish connection from which Americans can hardly disconnect!