Friday, April 02, 2010

You can't have your country back

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.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care, Rich writes about "an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America." In Whose Country Is It?, Blow snickers over the Tea Party movement, calling it "anachronistic to the direction of the country's demographics."

Rich claims that the "tsunami of anger" now being expressed by many whites is "illogical." But is it? Other than the current breed of Western whites, when has a group of people so willingly acquiesced in their own extinction, or submitted to the re-population of their space and territory without a bitter fight? Although we see the stirrings of consciousness among some whites, who have begun to understand what is taking place, most of them are still snoozing, enjoying the almost daily introduction of some new tech toy, while sending their sons off to Third World countries, apparently to fight for the "freedom" to continue enjoying the pleasures of said toys.

Blow is right to point out that the Tea Party "is not the future." If it were to have had any impact on the future, its members should have organized at least 20 years ago. Even then, the prospect of reversing immigration legislation or stemming the tide of social programs and biased laws created especially for certain "protected" groups would have been an upward struggle, given the nature of the Republican party, to which over 70% of Tea Party members belong. Yet it is feasible that the GOP might have been turned around a couple of decades ago had it been confronted with the kind of passion now on display.

In the face of a Hispanic population that is expected to triple over the next generation, that "inexorable and immutable change" is almost here. This will soon be a Latin American nation, with heavy doses of Asians and Africans, who will have options to write a new Constitution more befitting to the inclinations of its new owners. Kai Wright, in The Nation magazine, informs us that "Young, colored folks will drive the economy, the culture, the politics." Why shouldn't the formerly dominant white population resist its own displacement?

Blow cynically describes the new America as the "Remix," a land that is driven by "the relentless, irrepressible march of change." This demographic change, however, was not at all inevitable, but one engineered by those who opened the country's borders in the mid-60s to masses of foreigners, now correctly referred to as the "replacement population."

White Americans' counterparts in Europe also have opened their borders to masses of Third World immigrants. In one country after another, we see these outsiders rushing in to run for political office, in order to possess power and influence over the native European residents. Population replacement is swiftly underway, to the point where black Africans are strutting around calling themselves "Swedish," rendering the term meaningless. This is, indeed, "progress" for the African, as he flees his disordered lands and insists that he is capable of running the white man's countries, but, apparently, not his own.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is calling for outright miscegenation between white Europeans and the immigrant invaders. Here's a white man who can't wait to let nature take its course, but would speed up the assimilation process, so that the world might finally be rid of white skin, blue eyes and straight, light hair. Perhaps Europeans like Sarkozy can engineer a short cut to this enchanting future, by sponsoring government laws that would make marriages within the same race illegal. If forced miscegenation became the law of the land, impatient whites would not have to wait too long to see Europe transformed into a Haiti or Detroit.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, obtuse whites continue to encourage their sons to go off to die in worthless military conflicts, or end up as vegetables, as IEDs scramble their brains or relieve them of their limbs and eyesight. And those Tea Party folk, as dumb as rocks when it comes to what is really at stake, throw parties for a warmonger and immigration enthusiast like John McCain. It is understandable that Charles Blow mocks these misguided souls and their desperate dreams of taking their country back. "You may want your country back," he cajoles, "but you can't have it."

Actually, they don't deserve it. How else can you feel about a people who cheered on the destruction of their once unique republic, as it morphed from the Founders' intentions into an insidious empire? How else can you feel about a people who acceded to their country's manipulation by foreign lobbyists determined to keep it in permanent war mode, thus bankrupting its coffers?

How else to feel about a people who insist that loyalty to a foreign power is an imperative litmus test, in order to prove loyalty to the land of Jefferson, Madison and Jay? And how else can one feel about a people whose warped religious obsessions compel them to buy the poisonous doctrine of America's responsibility to "liberate the world" from wicked, godless tyrants, no matter the financial or moral costs to its citizens? Do such people deserve to take this country back?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those, like Frank Rich, are only half-correct.....not completely wrong.

They love to proclaim that whites will soon be drown in a rising ocean of blacks and browns, but they leave out an important part of the message, which is only implied:

IF WE DO NOTHING

And that is the part that makes their prediction correct. If we do nothing, we will be replaced by another people and culture. Just as other people and cultures have been displaced in their own country by an invader.

Yes, this country is being invaded and those who assist the invader are traitors and will be more despised than the invader himself.

I do not doubt the ability or the will of Americans to defend their soil and restore this once-great nation, yard by bloody yard.

Don Reynolds
Austin, Texas

Constructive Feedback said...

When did "take it back" become a reference to White supremacy?

It surely was not seen that way when Carville and Begalla wrote their book a few years ago.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mNAOq8ApgBA/SpGqC-t4hNI/AAAAAAAAA54/hNzF1UDIfYg/s320/takebackornation3.bmp

Elizabeth Wright said...

Since when does "supremacy" automatically get added to "white?" The fact that there are whites who do not want to see the end of their Anglo-Euro culture does not mean that they view themselves as superior to others. It means that, like many non-whites, they appreciate the advantages and benefits enjoyed over these centuries, and have no desire to watch this country's social, economic and technological deterioration.

Who, other than today's brainwashed whites, who got entrapped in that "civil rights" trickery, would open their society to millions of people who come to plant their own alien civilizations? People have every right to remain in their own territories, while fixing the messes that prevail among themselves. There's nothing sacred about opening one's borders to foreigners who choose not to develop their own countries, but want the Western white man's ready-made goodies, and are eager to transform the milieus of the countries they enter. Not everyone wants their societies transformed.

As far as Carville and Begala are concerned, the notion of "taking the country back" has become a cliche, and can mean whatever you want it to mean. To a freewheeling liberal it means something other than it does to a traditionalist conservative.

Eileen said...

"...and then from a white one, Frank Rich."

Ah, but he's not white in the sense of European. He's Ashkenazi Jewish, which is a different group altogether, genetically speaking, from Europeans. And genetic-relatedness is all that counts in this world. (Biology 101.)

Elizabeth Wright said...

Eileen wrote:
Ah, but he's not white in the sense of European.

Yes, yes, I get the point about gentile vs. Jew, and I'm in full agreement as to genetic and cultural realities, when it comes to differences among whites. But the last time I looked, Jews could be identified as "white" people, right along with all other whites. But let's not get dragged into this old saw.

Let's, instead, talk about the genetic backgrounds of those ditzy Tea Party folk. There was no squawking from these good gentiles when their sainted George W. Bush spent the government's money (the Tea Partiers' taxes!) like a lunatic, or when he gave his blessings to the unconstitutional Patriot Act (oh, how the Tea Partiers claim to love the Constitution).

Although there was some token dissent, these Tea Party types did not mind too much when their Beloved President spat on federal laws time after time, with his support of amnesty for illegal immigrants and a multitude of other supports that he advocated for this class.

Nor was there any squawking from these gentiles when their righteous President sent thousands of their gentile sons off to die or be maimed for absolutely no other reason than the protection of a foreign country -- the very country that Frank Rich loves so much. It turns out that the Tea Partiers love that country even more! (Does that make them Ashkenazic, too?)

And we didn't hear a peep from these so-called patriots when the Good Leader bailed out those greedy Wall Street bankers, who still can't quit their outrageous thievery. They're already figuring out ways to circle around any new laws that might be put into place, while the dear Tea Partiers rail against any form of regulation. The good financial Wall Street wizards must not be restrained in any way, since we must not undermine the "free market."

Although their virtuous President began the impetus movement, we hear only about the sins of his successor who has continued it. Tea Party types are nothing but tools, just as most white gentiles are these days. The typical Tea Partier doesn't have an original bone in his body or thought in his head. He is a copy cat and, worst of all, he is a Republican lackey, as we shall see when voting time comes around again.

You say, "genetic-relatedness is all that counts in this world." I agree with that, too. But such "relatedness" doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference when it comes to being the suckers of other genetic groups, as are the gentile Tea Partiers.

Chris said...

Eileen you have identified the real culprit. The hidden hand that is brainwashing the masses.