 |
|
|
There was a column in a major daily newspaper recently in which the columnist tried to make the case that the American ideal is doomed if we kick out non-citizens. To support this silly argument, the columnist then gave readers the usual hoary and slack jawed cliché that America is a "nation of immigrants." I swear I'm going to puke if I read that stupid and trite saying one more time! Friends, EVERY nation is a nation of immigrants. Humans have wandered over the face of the Earth since there were humans. The question that should be asked, is when, exactly, should a nation stop being a nation of immigrants? Isn't it reasonable for people who have settled on a piece of dirt and built a nation in their image, and according to their lights, to simply say: "No more"? Can't these people say they like what they have built
and that they want to keep their nation a desirable place,
as they define "desirable place"? Can't these people say that
their land has a large enough population to grow from internal births?
Can't these people say that they don't want other people to come to
their land land and screw it up? Isn't that the right of Americans,
and of every other people on the planet if they
so decide? Don't we all have a natural right to self-determination and
self-definition both as individuals and as a group of like individuals?
And, don't we have the right and the duty to take action for the common
good of our own citizens by, among other things, stopping immigration
and sending non-citizens back to their own nations? Or, must we simply
allow ourselves to be overrun because we have internalized some stupid
clichés? |
|
|
Ahh,
but the cliché chorus says, " That's un-American. What about
the Statute of Liberty," and the lines "Give me your tired,
your poor and your hungry," from Emma Lazarus' poem 'The New Colossus'"?
Friends, lest we forget, the Statute of Liberty was a gift from France
to the U.S. It symbolized "liberty" and the open door that
a then underpopulated America -- the new Europe -- had for Europeans,
who were fleeing various repressive regimes in Europe during past centuries.
Lady Liberty does not face Africa. She does not face Asia. She does
not face Latin America. She faces France where she was conceived and
built; and the rest of Europe. And, there aren't many French or other
Europeans clamoring to come here these days. Why? Perhaps part of the
answer is that they've seen the non-white on white crime statistics
and they realize that whites in post-American Ameica have been neutered
and made psychologically and legally defenseless against non-white criminals,
except when the non-white criminal acts in such an overt and |
But, what about Emma Lazarus and her poem? Ms. Lazarus
was an early Zionist, and apparently adhered to its principles and philosophy.
Zionism was a term coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1893. Mr. Birnbaum,
at that time, was busy writing pamphlets railing against the assimilation
of Jews into other populations. In other words, he was promoting a philosophy
to keep Jews from disappearing from the face of the Earth through blending
in with other peoples. Such Zionist writings are, of course, the historic
basis for the United Nations recently wanting to condemn Zionism as
"racism." The usual cliché used to fight the charge
that Zionism is "racism" is the argument that Jews belong
to a particular religion, Judaism, not a race. However, those who want
Zionism to be condemned as racism say this is a weak argument, at least
in part, because many Jews throughout history, including Israel Zangwill,
who we will visit in a moment, have rejected the religious aspects of
their Jewishness while being proud of their Jewish identity. In this
sense, Jewish identity is the functional equivalent of race to non-Jews.
Indeed, if a non-Jewish European-American wrote against the assimilation
of non-Jewish European peoples into other peoples,
the UN motion on racism, would, no doubt, have not been objected to
by Israel nor the U.S. and the European-American would have been condemned
as a racist. |
|
And what about the other current cliché, "diversity
is our strength"? Why is diversity our strength? It isn't. Diversity
is often our weakness. Doubt it? Consider, not as proof positive, but
as a clue, the current quagmire aborning in Afghanistan, and look at
those in the U.S. who are protesting against what
the U.S. is doing. These protesters in the U.S. are the "diversity"
and they are the weakness. Specifically, in Los Angeles recently we
saw a so-called peace demonstration, against President Bush's war on
terrorism. Most of the people demonstrating against the U.S. weren't
European-Americans. It was almost exclusively a non-white crowd. The
demonstrators were treated to an Aztec dance. We have seen similar Aztec
dances at protests in Los Angeles in support of the invasion of the
U.S. by those who claim that California and parts of other western states
really belong to Mexico. This diversity is our strength? Baloney. |
So,
what we have is a poem written by a Zionist who believed, in simplest
terms, that Jews should remain out of the melting pot. Ahhh. Another
cliché rears its ugly head, friends. What of this term, "melting
pot" as it relates to the U.S.? It was popularized as a concept
and has haunted us ever since another Zionist,
Israel Zangwill, who was mentioned above, used it as the title of a
1908 play, that had a run in New York. In fact, the Melting Pot was
simply a way of saying that various European nationalities--not races--lost
their particular national identities and became plain wrap Europeans
on the American shore. Even Zangwill, who did at times push a mild form
of ethnic blending, did not contemplate the type of genocidal genetic
melting or assimilation (which I have called "blending") that
is now being pushed on distinct peoples. And, one imagines that Mr.
Zangwill would be surprised at the thought that his melting pot has
now been interpreted to mean that all humans, including Jews, should
intermarry to the point where their basic genetic natures (or, identities)
are assimilated to extinction.|
No matter how often revisionists try to change history, the fact remains that the United States of America was born as a new Europe. "American" was once a synonym for Europeans on the American shore--or, dare I say it? white people. America was made great because of the human ingredients the way a certain recipe is good because of its ingredients. Today, the recipe is being changed, and that's why we
are now in post-American America. |
Perhaps,
however, the Aztec dance was a fitting metaphor for post-American America.
It was the Aztecs who made human sacrifices by cutting out the victims'
hearts. Today, the heart of America is being torn out of this nation
as European-Americans are sacrificed each and every day at the hands
of non-European American criminals and street terrorists.|
America is being turned into a Third World nation right before our eyes as Europeans now no longer want to come here, perhaps partly because the doors have been thrown wide open for non-Europeans. The culture, the mores and the people who made this nation great still exist, but in many places there are too few Europeans left to have their genetically determined natures maintain the "American way of life" (which is really the European-American way of life), against growing populations of people unlike them. In these places, the European ways are being outweighed by non-European ways. In other words, the critical mass of Europeans needed to maintain traditional American values in many areas of this nation is now missing, as European-Americans flee from high crime non-Europeans moving to their areas. In those areas of the U.S. where European-Americans
are still in the overwhelming majority, pre-post-American America still
exists. If you want to know how most of America was just 50 or so years
ago, look at places such as New Hampshire, and compare the statistics
from that state with a post-American America city such as Washington,
D.C. The reason that this is a good comparison is because both areas
have about a million people living within their borders (actually, New
Hampshire has slightly more than a million residents, and D.C. has slightly
less than a million). |
|
The fact is, that without non-white crime in the United States, this entire nation would be as crime free as, say, New Hampshire or Sweden. Furthermore, can anyone honestly doubt that if we took all the non-whites from Washington, D.C. and put them in New Hampshire, and if we took all the whites from New Hampshire and put them in Washington, D.C. that New Hampshire would soon have hundreds of murders and Washington, D.C. would soon have few? |
There
are differences between the two populations, however. New Hampshire
is roughly 98% white, while Washington, D.C. is roughly 98% non-white.
With roughly the same number of people in each place, you'd expect crime
statistics to be about the same if the cliché "people are
all the same under the skin" were true. You'd be very wrong, though.
In 1995, only 18 people were murdered in New Hampshire, while in Washington,
D.C. there were more than 700 murders. And, if we want to add in another
cliché, we can say that "we all bleed red blood." Of
course, there's a lot more bleeding of that red blood in D.C. than in
New Hampshire.
Perhaps
we need to break this hold that clichés have on us by using the
cliché of comparing apples and apples to see what we find. Compare,
say, white New Hampshire, not with non-white Washington, D.C., but with
Sweden or Switzerland and then compare non-white D.C., not with white
New Hampshire, but with non-white Haiti or other black nations.|
# # # |
|
|
|