Posted on 04/25/2010 12:48:37 PM PDT by dmitrybystrolyotov
In two articles, the New York Times offers us essentially the same theme and point of view, first from a black columnist, Charles Blow, and then from a white one, Frank Rich. You could render the theme as: White people are dwindling away and there's nothing you can do about it, Ha, Ha! Each writer seems to impart satisfaction over the fact that, at long last, whites will have a minimum influence in the nation founded by their ancestors. The theme is in keeping with former President Bill Clinton's discourse when he exulted, back in the 1990s, over the fact that whites would soon be in the minority in this country. Like Rich, he, too, seemed quite pleased about the prospect for the demise of his own race.
(Excerpt) Read more at issuesviews.blogspot.com ...
This is one reason why the paleos (paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians) are not possible to align with, however many valid points they may make about the commie "Civil Rights" movement, the commie New Deal, the unnecessary Civil War, the ultimatum to the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, the cults of "diversity", "multiculturalism", homosexuality, and feminism, and other sacred cows.
Another major reason I find them to be useless is their support for Vladimir Putin, whom they seem to prefer to Sarah Palin. I may detest Sarah Palin for her pro-amnesty position, but I would never equate her with Putin. This way of doing business went completely over the top when Chronicles Magazine, a Buchananite bastion, published an article by Sergey Lavrov, Putin's Foreign Minister, that had supposedly just been rejected by the globalist Russia-lovers at Foreign Affairs. That just shows how committed these idiots are to their own demise. As long as they are nuked by Russian whites instead of being taxed and raped by Mexican mestizos and Indians, these bigoted idiots will die happy.
Yet another reason to hate paleos, obvious in this article, is their obsessive support for the Palestinian cause, which is just another front of the global jihad. These numbskulls are too sympathetic to what they perceive as the traditionalism of Islamic law to realize that Islam has no respect for their Christianity or for their non-Arab, non-Persian ethnicity.
Welcome to FR.
You signed up last week to bash “paleos”?
What’s your Kos screen name?
Fess up.
Don't bet the farm on it.
It appears they are saying that we are circling the drain and there is nothing we can do about it. Just as soon as we devolve into a Zimbabwe they will have reached the pinnacle of their agenda. When America becomes one huge ghetto....
IBTZ
Wonder if those two will say that after the NEXT civil war?
Welcome to FR.
There are some serious problems all the way around, here.
To start with, this smacks of racism. America is not an irredeemably “white” nation. Nor is there any particular advantage to “whitehood” that conveys any great value. Look at the large number of whites who are close to worthless, shiftless, ignorant, anti-American and Democrat.
At the same time, even though the vast majority of black Americans vote for Democrats, this just implies that a greater percentage of them are worthless, shiftless, and ignorant than whites. But in no way does this imply that they are incapable of being intelligent, hard working, successful and Republican, with a good grasp of American values.
And instead of using the idiotic term “Hispanics”, since the great majority living in the US are Mexican-Americans and Mexicans, I can point out that they are the furthest thing from politically monolithic. And paradoxically, while there was traditionally not typically a great status to be achieved by attending college, there still is considerable respect for educated scholars, “men of letters” in that community.
If there is anything truly separating the US from Mexico, it is that Mexico is still haunted by the ghost of “Old Europe”, which has inflicted a culture on it of a Code Napoleon legal system, and tremendous economic disparity. Literally a dozen families own most everything worth owning in the country, and do not like to share the wealth. They even relish the abject poverty of their fellow citizens.
But Mexicans who come to America, and Mexican-American citizens, quickly learn how superior the common law and an “everyone is middle class” attitude are in the United States. What matters most is where they settle. If they are around other Mexicans, it is harder to adapt and integrate, than if they are surrounded by Americans.
So the contest is not one of race, but who can politically attract their hearts and minds to a philosophy that gives them the benefits of their new nation.
And if they choose that philosophy of hard work, education, and conservatism, they will be just the kind of Americans we need in the furtherance of the American tradition. But, those that are tempted to embrace the philosophy of the Democrats, to become worthless, shiftless and ignorant, will be just as onerous to our nation as are the whites and blacks of that ilk that current infest our people.
“You signed up last week to bash ‘paleos’?
What’s your Kos screen name?
Fess up”
That’s funny. I have screen names at some Far Right sites, but no Kos screen name. I suppose I could troll there, but my neo-Confederate sympathies wouldn’t get me far, now would they?!
Although I think paleos are out of touch with reality and potentially treasonous, I agree with them on many issues. I was friendly with a paleoconservative, but he stopped talking to me because he thinks I am too Russophobic and pro-Israeli.
I tried to post articles by Srdja Trifkovic (”Prison of Nations”) and Paul Gottfried (”The Myth of ‘Judeo-Christian Values’”) with which I found much to agree, but Free Republic doesn’t allow articles from Alternative Right. As for the paleo movement itself — I think it has fatal defects, including the misconceived notion that the fascism was not hostile to capitalism or, as with Charles Coughlin, that such hostility was acceptable (natural, since disproportionate numbers paleos are traditional Catholics who believe capitalism needs to be replaced with distributism), but I share many paleo positions (as I stated clearly above), especially regarding Civil Rights, the New Deal, the Civil War, feminism, homosexuality, and multiculturalism/diversity.
“If whites voted republican by a 80% margin in 2085, they would essentially control the government to the same degree they do today. Ditto for Jew’s, Asians and middle class Hispanics. Heck, maybe in the next 75 years middle class black will get tired of being taxed to death and return to the party of Lincoln.”
I hope you are right. I think it was the President of Singapore who said that in multiracial countries people vote according to their respective ethnicities, but in homogeneous countries it is possible to have more choice.
However (I am a college student), all the young people I meet seem brainwashed. The few who are not become my friends. Data shows that most young people supported Obama unreservedly, and many became interested in politics for the first time when his candidacy became announced. I don’t have much respect for whites who identify with their rapists.
Interesting. That “treason” meme has become popular among the left recently too.
So how about you give FReepers your thoughts on the phrase:
“Dissent is patriotic”.
Thanks in advance.
Clinton could exult over this because he fully expects that a majority non-white America would still be run by an elite clique of white liberals like himself.
“There are some serious problems all the way around, here.
To start with, this smacks of racism. America is not an irredeemably “white” nation. Nor is there any particular advantage to “whitehood” that conveys any great value. Look at the large number of whites who are close to worthless, shiftless, ignorant, anti-American and Democrat.
At the same time, even though the vast majority of black Americans vote for Democrats, this just implies that a greater percentage of them are worthless, shiftless, and ignorant than whites. But in no way does this imply that they are incapable of being intelligent, hard working, successful and Republican, with a good grasp of American values.
And instead of using the idiotic term “Hispanics”, since the great majority living in the US are Mexican-Americans and Mexicans, I can point out that they are the furthest thing from politically monolithic. And paradoxically, while there was traditionally not typically a great status to be achieved by attending college, there still is considerable respect for educated scholars, “men of letters” in that community.
If there is anything truly separating the US from Mexico, it is that Mexico is still haunted by the ghost of “Old Europe”, which has inflicted a culture on it of a Code Napoleon legal system, and tremendous economic disparity. Literally a dozen families own most everything worth owning in the country, and do not like to share the wealth. They even relish the abject poverty of their fellow citizens.
But Mexicans who come to America, and Mexican-American citizens, quickly learn how superior the common law and an “everyone is middle class” attitude are in the United States. What matters most is where they settle. If they are around other Mexicans, it is harder to adapt and integrate, than if they are surrounded by Americans.
So the contest is not one of race, but who can politically attract their hearts and minds to a philosophy that gives them the benefits of their new nation.
And if they choose that philosophy of hard work, education, and conservatism, they will be just the kind of Americans we need in the furtherance of the American tradition. But, those that are tempted to embrace the philosophy of the Democrats, to become worthless, shiftless and ignorant, will be just as onerous to our nation as are the whites and blacks of that ilk that current infest our people.”
“Hispanic” is a valid term. (A Peruvian friend uses it.) Revanchist Chicano organizations like La Raza (”The Race”, not “The People”) accept Hispanics of non-Mexican origin. Sonia Sotomayor is a Mexican nationalist and a Razista, but she is Puerto Rican. Similarly, the founders of La Raza Unida (”The Unified Race”) were followers of the Castro brothers, who are not only Marxist-Leninist terrorists and mass murderers (Fidel himself is reportedly a Maoist), but white Cubans from a prominent family. There is much greater intra-Hispanic solidarity than you suggest.
As for the notion of America as a white nation: Until the Hart-Celler Act, that is exactly what it was, except for about 10% blacks. To say otherwise is to deny history. To applaud the change is to side with Ted Kennedy, who was the floor manager for the Hart-Celler Act, which not only set high quotas for Third World immigration but, additionally, virtually closed off traditional European immigration. (Not that I advocate bringing in large numbers of self-hating, dissolute Eurotrash socialists.)
This was blatant diversity-mongering, and it has dispossessed America’s traditional majority — North European whites — in the name of diversity. (I am of Eastern European origin, and I thank God every day America does not have an Eastern European majority.)
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest this has been done in the interest of furthering the Democrats’ grip on the government, as John Derbyshire showed in “Electing a New People” at National Review Online. In fact, as Derbyshire showed, such immigration has been used by New Labour in Britain, where immigrants are given priority in medical care over WWII heroes and other indigenous Britons, who are left to supporting BNP fascists and praying that the Pakis don’t impose sharia on their grandchildren.
I hope your optimism is justified, but I am very skeptical.
Also, please don’t use the “r” word on a conservative site. We don’t need to get nasty, do we?
There is some truth and insight in what you’re saying.
But what’s with the strong rebuttal of “paleos”?
From the understanding of this poster, it is paleos you seem to most agree with.
Do you say “paleos” when I would say “globalists”?
Demographically speaking, the handwriting for whitey is on the wall but so it is for the entire world. What direction has world migration been in the past 100 years and why?
Pretty soon there will be no need for migration because one place will be as bad as the next. Those immigrants who try to make this country a reflection of the place they left behind are unwittingly screwing themselves and the future of their children.
What good is it to leave a dump behind with the intention to create another?
It will be much sooner than that, just over 30 years (2042) according to the most recent government projections. Minority births are on track to outpace white births this year.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403441,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/10/minority-births-track-outnumber-white-births/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.