Posted on 05/04/2008 1:30:25 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Thanks for your response! I hope you’ve enjoyed our little discussion!
The “American” in that cartoon looks distinctly like Jeff Dunham’s Walter.
I am an immigration activist. I feel strongly that our current legal immigration policies will destroy this country. I agree with Huntington that it is a matter of culture and language that will Balkanize and take down this country using our own democratic institutions. We are losing our sense of national identity and shared sense of endeavor because of our inability to absorb and assimilate the huge number of immigrants flooding into this country. It is about culture.
From 2000 to 2007, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. By 2050, it will be one in 5 and in ten years it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. What is happening is unprecedented.
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent. The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children. 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
I think you're well-meaning, but like many conservatives are terrified of being called a "racist".
I have participated in many anti-illegal immigration demonstrations. I have been called names much worse than "racist." I am on the frontlines in this struggle. How you can characterize me as "terrified" without knowing anything about me is just another example of name-calling by those who disagree with someone. I can tell you as someone who attends CPAC, conservatives are not terrified of being called racists or nativists or xenophobes or bigots. Such terms are used by Rove, McCain, Graham, and Bush against us. I will not be voting for McCain or any Dem under any circumstances.
I've sat through diversity training with people who got up and repeated every piece of nonsense about "white privilege" and so forth, under the cold, Orwellian stare of the facilitator, and were literally in tears afterward.
I have sat thru similar USG mandated courses. I did not sit passively by and let the assertions by the instructors go unchallenged. I hope you had the courage to do the same.
The argument that race doesn't matter, only culture, is a mostly non-existent distinction, but it's a way people who are frightened avoid the feared "racist" label.
There you go again making up another phony strawman. Race matters if it is connected to distinct cultural differences. Culture is much more important in terms of assimilation. And your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you fears being called a racist is just more meaningless name calling lacking any substance.
A racist once was someone who had animosity to people of another race and wished them harm. Today the meaning has evolved into something very different. For whites, it now means resistance to racial hostility from others or merely desiring to exist.
Words have meanings. You can't make up your own definitions. Racism: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. By that definition, do you consider yourself to be a racist?
That says it all right there. Fifty years ago black leaders wanted equal opportunity and an end to segregation. Today they want quotas and insist that blacks-only dorms, neighborhoods, etc. are okay but whites-only facilities aren't. Fifty years ago blacks preached about judging others by the content of their character, today many routinely attack "honkies" and accuse us of inventing AIDS. Fifty years ago blacks wanted to move beyond slavery, not dwell on it and get reparations for it. The fact that you see these changes as "progress" shows how totally whipped you are on this issue.
You are using the views of black, racist extremists to generalize how the 38 million blacks in this country believe about thise issues. I don't see this country in racial turmoil as it was in the 1960s. There is no de jure discrimination except against non-Hispanic whites and asians, i.e., affirmative action. To deny that progress has been made in this country on racial issues mimics the assertions of the black extremists and race pimps.
The current black experience is shaped by people like you who make that claim. The Obamas never experienced any of that stuff. In fact, both have experienced preference because they are black.
Whether you believe it or not, there is a separate black culture in this country. And as a group, blacks have the highest rate of out of wedlock births, the highest unemployment rates, etc. This separate culture has hurt their advancement. Immigrant blacks do better than native born blacks. The Obamas are the exception not the rule. In fact, they are the exception regardless of race. They are in the top 1 percent economically and are highly educated at the best schools in America. They would say that they achieved this because of merit not racial preferences. Do you believe all successful black people in America from Oprah to surgeons to astronauts to generals owe their success to black preferences?
And the result is racism (the real kind, not the artificial kind you're trying to frame on me) and Pastor Wright.
Interesting that you identify with Pastor Wright. I presume you agree with his views on race and politics and foreign policy. You seem just as obsessed by race as he is.
Europe is further down the road to destruction than we are. We still have a degree of free speech here thanks to the First Amendment but in both Europe and Canada it's becoming a thing of the past. I could give you some interesting links, if you wish.
We will agree to disagree. I base my views based on my personal experience including being married to a European. We are in far worse shape than Europe when it comes to having our country destroyed by an ongoing invasion that sees every year 1.2 million legal immigrants and another 500,000 to 1 million illegals entering this country. And another 1 million are apprehended between border control points and sent back. Demographically, this country is experiencing one of the greatest mass migrations in world history. In 1965, Hispanics comprised 1% of the population. They are now approaching 16% and will be 29% by 2050. Mainly due to immigtration, legal and illegal, we have added 100 million people since 1970 and will add another 167 million by 2060, 105 million coming from immigration. We will be a nation of 500 million. You can trace every major challenge facing this country to our immigration policies whether it is energy, education, entitlements, transportation, the environment, etc.
The decline and destruction of this country not only is a repudiation of the efforts of our founding fathers and the sacrifices of the many generations who helped make this country the most powerful, generous country on earth, it is a blow to the future of mankind. Whoever emerges to replace us will not share our ideals and values. Welcome to a Brave New World.
Well, you can have the last word if you wish. But you never did answer my inquiry about Asian cinema. Are you a fan? :-)
Not really. I will use your recommendations to explore the world of asian cinema. Cheers.
I know I said you could have the last word, but I think you probably misread this:
And the result is racism (the real kind, not the artificial kind you're trying to frame on me) and Pastor Wright.
Note the location of the parentheses closure. I wasn't identifying with Wright, I was including him as one of the symptoms of a nation where blacks are encouraged to constantly dwell on slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
Waiting breathlessly for a politician to suggest that these people ought to be allowed to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
And just like a dying patient must deal with various emotional stages until passively accepting his fate, so too should conservatives be assessing the reality of the situation. Getting past denial & anger, like scheming relatives plotting over the victim's estate, the issue boils down to: how do intelligent investors profit from the inevitable?
History is not static - it's an ongoing, dynamic process driven by competition for scarce resources measured in territory, political power and economic (ie sexual) power. The US had a good run for certain classes of people, but it's coming to an end.
The real play is to trust one's intelligence - to read, analyze & understand the projections. We know what is going to happen to SS, Medicare, etc. We know the rule of law will break down and corruption will become a necessity to protect one's assets. We know crime will continue to increase in certain regions and that test scores will decline. We know that the coming socialistic majority will increase taxes & dramatically grow gov't in order to "combat" these social ills.
We know that either due to genetics or culture, lower IQs will produce less wealth per capita. We know that lower per capita GDP will have to be offset by greater volumes (ie population growth) in order to (in the short-term) maintain certain standards of living. We know the country will become way more crowded (anyone visit any of the Nat'l/State parks recently?)
We know all of these things. Those that prepare accordingly will be fine - there are millions of wealthy S.Americans who lead very nice lives. The danger is ignoring reality, to try and fight change, and in the process, exhaust oneself. At that point, you put not only yourself in danger, but your family as well. Eventually, your line will die out by proving itself incapable of adapting to the new environment.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Interesting response!
Have you ever visited Lawrence Auster’s website? You might find him and his frequent contributors interesting:
Why isn't there any admiration/respect paid to the victors? The US was never defeated on its own soil vs the Brits, French, Indians, Germans, Japanese & Mexicans (the first time around), yet now we find ourselves falling to a limited force. How did they do it? What strategies where deployed to divide & conquer, by appealing to politicians and commercial interests? How did they use our own laws against us?
I believe by analyzing these facts and properly projecting the results, an astute investor can craft an investment strategy that will pay handsomely. With economic means, one can still enjoy certain advantages that accrue to citizenship, while at the same time preparing for a safe exit strategy.
Political Correctness has psychologically castrated us. This is true not just in America, but in almost all Western nations. People think that to even wish to continue in existence as a people is an act of racism and wickedness. Not everyone thinks that way, obviously, but enough do to mentally cripple us. And most conservatives don't understand what we're dealing with. They see the apparent liberal double standards and think that by pointing them out we can stop what's happening. But they don't understand that these double standards aren't really double standards, but a single standard aimed at the heart of our civilization.
You'll often hear conservatives note that it's a double standard to treat La Raza respectfully (McCain plans to speak at their convention), when a comparable white organization called "The Race" would be unthinkable as a respected group. Hillary Clinton can go to Wellesley and boast about how wonderful it is to have a college of, by, and for women, when men's college are now almost extinct, and any man who graduated from one and bragged that it was great to have a place that excluded the gals would be begging forgiveness within hours. When Don Imus got in trouble for his stupid off-the-cuff remark, he went on Al Sharpton's radio show to apologize (!). And, as I noted, this isn't just an American phenomenon. Belgium banned a protest march against the Islamization of Europe, but permits any and all verbal attacks on Christianity. You can scream from loudspeakers in France or England or Sweden that non-Muslims are infidels who deserve to be driven from the face of the earth, but you can get fined and forced to appear before a race hate tribunal if you even so much as suggest that Islam is pushy (ask Brigitte Bardot, who just paid a nearly $25,000 fine for saying that).
Conservatives often point out all these things and think that by noting the double standard, liberals will be shamed somehow into changing their ways. What they don't get is that to liberals those are not double standards. Liberals have a single standard, which is the destruction of our civilization. So it really isn't an inconsistency at all to permit attacks on Christianity but not on Islam, or to permit non-white interest groups but not white interest groups, or the permit female-only institutions but not male-only institutions (since men are the primary physical defenders of a civilization they need to be feminized, and exceptions are permitted, of course, for Muslims or for racial minorities as needed).
So liberals cannot be shamed into seeing that these things are double standards. We aren't completely gone yet, of course. Obama got into some trouble for having a race-hating minister. But nowhere near the trouble a white candidate would have gotten into if he went to a comparable white racist church for twenty years, gave that minister thousands of dollars, and called him his mentor. A white who did that would not only have been driven from the presidential race, but would have been forced to resign from the Senate in disgrace.
If I were to appear on a televised forum, and were asked my opinion regarding the likelihood that America will cease to have a white majority circa 2050, what could I say? If I said race doesn't matter and it's fine with me if we're a minority, I'd be praised at work the next day. If I were to say that it's a wonderful thing, and assert that whites are evil and deserve to lose their majority to more enlightened minorities, I'd be praised beyond measure the next day. People would be falling all over themselves to associate with me. But if I said, "You know, America is a part of Western civilization. It's good for any country to have some minorities because they bring some new ideas to the table. But everyone deserves their space, and I don't really think we could lose our white majority without it altering America into something different, as always happens in any nation when its majority is racially transformed."....well, if I said that all hell would break lose and I'd be hauled before a tribunal, ordered to recant and apologize, and then fired. I could say that China should remain Chinese or that South Africa should take care to always retain its black majority, but I'd be an outcast if I suggested whites should retain control of even a single neighborhood in a far corner of Iceland.
You asked how all this happened. Well, it would take volumes to explain it fully, but here's one brief notation. The emphasis the West (particularly the north European nations, including our founding British people) has placed on individual rights is used against us, and when combined with Political Correctness, it becomes devastating. Let's say, for example, that there's an institution that doesn't admit women. Liberals will argue that it's "discriminatory" and that any qualified person should be admitted regardless of gender. So we consent to that, and a few qualified women make it in. But it still remains overwhelmingly male, for the simple reason that men are better on average than women at the task at hand. We're then told that while individuals may vary in ability, it's unspeakable...even unthinkable...to suggest that groups vary at all. So if women are half the population, but only 8% of the people who qualify to get into the police academy, then the admission criteria for the academy must be discriminatory. We then have to lower the standards, implement quotas, and permit female-only (but not male-only) police organizations, etc.
This is the inevitable result of being unable to openly recognize that some groups simply are different than other groups. It doesn't mean that one group is inferior, just different, and those differences have real world effects. Japan absolutely, positively could not remain Japan as we have historically known it if someone other than the historic Japanese people dominated that country. It doesn't mean that Turks are "inferior" to the Japanese to say that, just that the Turks are a different people.
And if our Western nations end up with non-Western majorities, we will cease to be Western nations. I'm not a Gore Vidal fan (obviously!) but he was the type of scatter-shot person who occasionally said something profound. He noted that Norway had enough empty space to admit millions of people from overpopulated, starving nations (I think he mentioned Bangladesh at the time) but that if they did that they'd commit suicide, because those millions would vote to take the country away from the native Norwegians. Now, some people might say Norway could do this if they did it slowly and assimilated the immigrants to Norwegian ways. That Bengals could come in slowly, and by the time they were the majority they'd be devoted Norwegians ready to run Norway exactly as it would have been run if the demography hadn't changed at all. But that really doesn't work in the real world.
There are numerous reasons for that. First of all, we know from real world experience that some groups outperform others at certain things. If Bengals didn't pass the entrance exam for med school in proportion to their population numbers, or ended up being arrested in numbers greater than their overall numbers would indicate, they'd form a racial block to demand quotas and an end to racial profiling. So from the outset, they'd be an adversary presence in the country, at odds with the very culture itself. Not all of them, but as their numbers grew they'd force changes in what Norway as a nation means. That's just one example.
But beyond that, think of it this way. As much as I love Japan, I can't take pride in that country the way I can take pride in America. That's because my ancestors had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of Japan or the formation of the Japanese culture. America was still a growing land by near the end of the Ellis Island era. Immigrants who came here from Europe, even from non-British lands after the founding, took part in the nation's expansion to the Pacific and the populating of its open spaces. But we're now an established nation. We act astonished that some of the people coming here now from Nicaragua (or wherever) don't seem to care about the national heritage. Conservatives feel that if we just got rid of multi-culturalism everything would be fine, but you can't get rid of it when you have significant diversity. It's like those libertarians I once debated who said it would be okay to have open borders if we didn't have a welfare state. The problem is, even if we got rid of welfare state tomorrow, once we opened the borders the country would fill up with people who would vote it back in. If we got rid of multi-culturalism tomorrow, once the minority population got big enough they'd vote it back in.
We need to get over this idea that simply preserving one's heritage and borders is "racist". It isn't.
I apologize for being long-winded but I'm notorious for long posts!
You should respond that it is not likely and cite Bureau of the Census projections that the white population of the US will be 72.1% in 2050.
puroresu: As I mentioned before, history isn't static. When we look at a time period, say 1945-1965, we're simply looking at a very narrow snapshot of a very long arc. Societies & cultures are no different from the individuals they imbody: you're born, you live, you die. If you are not growing, then you are dying. Western civ thrived while it was ascendent. Once it reached stasis, it began to retreat. PC is merely a propaganda weapon used against us - I applaud and admire those you use it effectively in their war against us. We should always respect our enemies.
That being said, note that diversity always leads to segregation. What does this suggest? Well, the lads fighting in Iraq traditional come from fairly well defined social/ethnic groups known for, let us say, disputes. As these clans are compressed into smaller geographic regions (hint: the South), a consensus/commonality of thought will emerge, which will result in the entire cycle being repeated. It may 100 years, it may be 500 years, but Manifest Destiny will once again be the order of the day.
I guess that you can tell that I am quite sanguine about this entire process. My interest is identifying were we are on the curve and invest accordingly. Kabar thinks the US is a unique, once in history, event that is worth fighting to preserve. I admire his tenacity, but know it's a losing cause.
You missed the point. It is not about race, but ethinicty and culture. By 2050 non-Hispanic whites will be 50% or less of the population [A Pew report estimates they will be 47% of the population] and Hispanics of all races will be 25% to 29% depending on what source you use.
Thirdly, it's a waste of time combating immigration; the anchor baby seeds have already germinated. The numbers coming via family chain migration will vastly exceed individual immigrants sneaking over the border.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There are approximately 1.2 million legal immigrants who enter this country annually. The can sponsor others legally thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification. "Anchor babies" can't sponsor anyone until they are 21.
There is no doubt that the Hispanic birthrate [double the general population's] even without immigration have and will affect the demographics of this country dramatically. Here is a good article describing the details of that growth.
If an amnesty is granted, i.e, legalizing the status of the 12 to 20 million illegals already here, they can in turn [acording to estimates of Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation] be able to sponsor another 66 million to 100 million LEGAL immigrants thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification over a 20 year period on top of the current 1.2 million who enter legally every year. This will hasten the process and essentially destroy this country within two decades. With a stroke of a pen, this country will be finished. McCain, Obama, and Hillary all favor an amnesty. The battle will move to Congress and more than likely, it will be the House that remains the last battleground. The Senate will pass amnesty like it did in 2006 [S. 2611].
Kabar thinks the US is a unique, once in history, event that is worth fighting to preserve. I admire his tenacity, but know it's a losing cause.
It is certainly a lost cause if you adopt your mentality. We all owe it to those who came before us and those that follow, including our children, to fight the good fight and not cede anything. It is not over until it is over.
Kabar, this conversation reminds me of the differences between my dad, the intelligence engineer (you probably used some of the systems he worked on), and his brother, the career AF officer. I admire your determination & tenacity, but your cause is lost.
As an adieu, how many people know that Harold fought and defeated an invading army from Norway in Yorkshire 3 days before he had to march 250 miles back to Hastings just to lose to William? He exhausted his forces only to lose to the greater threat.
You talk about future generations - I think it's our responsibility as parents to realistically prepare our children for their respective futures. We're quibbling over details, but the end result isn't in doubt.
And what is your cause? My cause is the preservation of the United States of America and the Constitution. You sound like a disinterested bystander with no dog in this fight. Lost or not, I will fight this fight until my dying day. It reminds me of something Patton once said,
"There's one great thing you men can say when it's all over and you're home once more. You can thank God that twenty years from now, when you're sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the war, you won't have to shift him to the other knee, cough, and say, "I shovelled shit in Louisiana."
You talk about future generations - I think it's our responsibility as parents to realistically prepare our children for their respective futures. We're quibbling over details, but the end result isn't in doubt.
I have no idea what you mean by "realistically prepare our children for their respective futures" means? Enlighten me.
My responsibility is to make sure my family has the economic means to continue enjoying the 'good life'. We are soon entering the era where gov't services are collapsing. That means in addition to the existing tax burden, we will be paying for privatized schooling, security, roads, etc.
Face the facts: if you move the population of Mexico to the US, it will become like Mexico. Like all central/south American countries, we will be a nation divided by class, where the state will be bankrupt & corruption runs rampant. I plan maximizing the economic returns from these events to continue enjoying my secure life at the beach.
Using your definition, a substantial majority of the kids in the Los Angeles public schools would be classed as white. But that's surely not the case. Most would seem to be Mestizos.
We've allowed an idea to develop in this country (and in nearly all white nations) that it's evil and hateful to preserve our civilization. That we must either be willing to transfer our society to people who had nothing whatsoever to do with our founding, or we're “racists” and thus evil and monstrous.
Every territory which whites took over during the ages of exploration and colonization were transformed into something other than what their native inhabitants intended. If you point this out to people, they evade this obvious fact in one of two ways. Liberals will argue that whites are uniquely evil, a truly malevolent force on the world stage, so, yes, whites may have transformed the New World or Southern Africa or Australia, but other races are sweet and gentle and kind, and they won't do that when they take command here. Mainstream conservatives will say, yes, whites replaced Native American culture with their own, but that was okay because our culture is better than those African, Indian, or Aboriginal cultures. It's so good, in fact, that we can invite a zillion people from the third world into our lands and it'll be so obvious that our culture is better that within no time they'll be acting just like Englishmen, Germans, Swedes, or (fill in the blank).
But, of course, both liberal and conservative open borders advocates are wrong. Whites are not uniquely wicked. Anytime a land falls into the hands of different race, it gets transformed into something the previous tenants didn't intend. And while I may prefer Western culture to others, there's no reason why I would expect every human being on the planet to do so. Nothing in our basic human experience would indicate that our system of government and culture is one-size-fits-all, and that everyone will fall all over themselves to preserve it.
Change the racial majority in a nation, you change that nation. There's not even anything wrong with that. It's simply normal behavior. Wanting to preserve one's own racial majority isn't evil, it's just natural. Why would the Korean people not care if their nation gets taken over by non-Koreans? Would anyone seriously argue that it would be a sign of societal health if the people of Seoul shrugged and said it wouldn't matter if their city and nation had a different racial majority than the existing one?
I've posted this before, but a few months ago someone at the Gates of Vienna website noted that the idea that the racial make-up of a nation doesn't matter is such a new concept that there isn't a term to describe it in either the realms of sociology or anthropology. It's an idea that, as far as anyone can tell, exists only in the white nations of the West, and even then only since the 1960s. There's no indication that it ever existed before. And I would submit that if you look at what's happening to these nations, you can hardly maintain that it's anything other than auto-genocide, a desire of a people to simply cease to exist as anything tangible.
I am not at all sure that I understand what you mean. Are you talking about race or culture. Whites are not in danger of becoming a racial minority. We are in danger of losing our culture because we are not demanding English be declared the national language and as a requirement for citizenship. That’s it. No more mixed salad culture. Revive the melting pot.
Multi-culturalism is the slippery slope to the downfall of our country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world1
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9uOoP7gdbzjvieNt9ZTbgTS4m-g
http://www.indiaenews.com/america/20080212/97236.htm
You are correct that multi-culturalism is killing us, but that's inevitable when you have nation that is very diverse. The assertion that the U.S. has traditionally been a melting pot has some merit, but it fails to note that almost all of those people who “melted” into our society came from Europe. Groups that didn't come from Europe were either small in numbers to the point that they lacked political clout (Asians), or were put on reservations (Native Americans), or were enslaved or segregated and disenfranchised (blacks).
Well, blacks are no longer disenfranchised, the Asian population is growing, and we now have millions and millions of non-white Latinos. We even have a growing Muslim population. Those groups will not casually “melt” into the general population the way, for example, Norwegians or Poles did. Once there are enough of them and they have the vote, they will demand cultural concessions by the general population. It's human nature that they do this. I can't really even blame them for doing it. Our white ancestors didn't "melt" into indigenous populations of the New World, did they?
Now, there's no question that the Democrats and liberals make it worse, but you can't expect a society without pandering politicians, either. If you have a racially diverse society, you'll have lots of liberals and those liberals will pander to the racial factions. It's what they do. Heck, even the Republicans do it (Bush, McCain....).
This is why the “it isn't race, it's culture” mantra is so maddeningly silly. If you have racial diversity, you'll have cultural diversity. It's like fielding an army that is 50% female, and then explaining the resulting problems by saying, “It isn't gender, it's the fact that they get pregnant and have less upper body strength.”
Well, yeah. Women can get pregnant and they have less upper body strength on average. And a racially diverse society will break up into cultural factions once the various racial groups become big enough to have political clout.
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.