[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: White Nationalists and Practicality: If Any “White nationalists” as they call themselves would like to US to be close to one hundred percent white. So would I. So would many tens of millions of Americans who do not call themselves white nationalists, but are. Diversity causes nothing but trouble, and is doing so now. However, America can’t be completely white, or even close. The time for that idea is long past. The practical question becomes: What now? White nationalists, often inaccurately called “white supremacists,” want to close the border. So do I. They want to make Obama stop importing every sort of third-worlder he has heard of. So do I. They want to deport illegal aliens. With exceptions, so do I. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that all of this has been done. At this point the white nationalists (hereinafter just “nationalists”) run out of gas, having so far as I am aware no further plan or aim beyond a loathing for anything not white and European. The utility of this is not clear. The disappearance of the illegals would leave some 45 million legal Latinos: birthright citizens, naturalized citizens, legal residents and, increasingly, completely American citizens of Latino descent. (The numbers are shaky, but “whole really big bunch” would be accurate.) My question to white nationalists: What do you recommend doing with, about, for, or to the tens of millions of legal Latinos? What specifically, and how do you propose doing it? Many of the arguments made by the nationalists are rational—we don’t need the population, American businessmen unemploy Americans by giving jobs to illegals, the costs of assimilating them are high, and so on. Well and good, but mostly a bit late. Meanwhile the nationalists transparently seethe with hatred of Latinos. How this will prove of service to the United States eludes me. This antagonism leads them to distort and even lie. Their opponents do likewise. Most of the public I suspect, having no independent source of information, has to guess between. So, what do nationalists propose? I do this not as a challenge but in search of understanding, a reasonable question in search of a reasonable answer. The question is one of the most important that can be asked. The country deserves a concrete answer. The politically correct classes say things like, “We need comprehensive immigration reform.” That can mean anything, and therefore means nothing. My answer would be: Try to make legal Latinos into productive citizens, which should not be terribly hard. Leaving them alone, and not allowing governments to turn them into a welfare class, would probably do the trick. If nationalists have a better idea, or another idea, I would be happy to consider it. Since tens of millions of Latinos are in the country, and are going to stay, it might be wise to seek at least a modus vivendi and an amicable relationship, and better, assimilation, rather than needlessly encourage hostile relations. A difficulty here is that below the reasoned arguments of the nationalists there lies a horror of intermarriage. Correct me if I am wrong. To many, successful assimilation would be worse than keeping Latinos somehow cordoned off. The problem, of course–“of course,” anyway, to people who have lived in the developing world–is that so many of the immigrants are not of the middle class. Once people have a decent job, spouse, mortgage, car, refrigerator, two kids and a dog, they become placid, maybe a little boring, and spend their time taking the kids to soccer practice. (How many of the people shooting each other in Chicago fail to fit this description? How many middle-class blacks shoot each other? Exactly) Thus it might be wise to encourage the entry of Latinos into the middle class. Unless the desire is to keep them out of the middle class. Is it? I have framed the question on the assumption that the border has been closed, which it hasn’t, and won’t be for most of a decade if Hillary comes in. Do white nationalists propose to encourage assimilation? How? Discourage it? How? Let nature take its course? If the choice is to discourage assimilation, the practicality would seem doubtful, since in many places in the US the races mix amicably, and many Americans in Mexico who have Mexican wives speak highly of the idea. Do white nationalists favor teaching Latino kids English in the schools, or not doing so? Should white children be allowed, or required, to learn to speak Spanish? The idea seems to set off spasms of revulsion in some nationalists, though if you told a German that his kids should not learn English or French, or both, he would look at you strangely. Discouraging monolingualism would make for assimilation, if that should be desired. Is assimilation possible? I think so, eventually anyway, but we shall see. I do know that if (a) Latinos, already probably twenty per cent of the population, become ghettoized, isolated, hostile and dysfunctional, the United States is over, fini, done, and (b) constant attacks on them as Latinos tend to lead to this end. It Is one thing to deport illegals, verify citizenship for employment, and punish criminals. It is another endlessly to characterize Latinos as criminal, stupid, and foul. Which is what white nationalists relentlessly do. The curious thing is that nationalists seem to want Latinos to be as undesirable as possible. If I write that in Mexico the schools are not chaotic and kids learn to read, that Mexicans do not breed like flies, (fertility rate,CIA FactBook: 1960: 6.78; 2015: 2.26), that the country runs the standard technological infrastructure of airlines, telecommunications and hospitals, on and on, the response never varies: Fred is lying, everything good is done by the white part of the Mexican population, and these defects are genetic and pleasantly irremediable. One would think that the nationalists, having millions of Latinos in their country, would welcome evidence that the newcomers were not as terrible as thought–hoped, I could almost say. No. To hell with the country, but do not threaten my internal furies. We have an interesting approach to national suicide. On one hand, favoring unlimited immigration, we have the Googooing Good, the big money men, Hillary, and Obama, which will make matters worse. On the other hand, white nationalists who apparently want a bar fight. What could be smarter? (Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
Cherokee had an alphabet. Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice. Among every people, those farther from the equator are better.
The Cherokees were originally from Central America. They broke off from the Mayans because the latter practiced human sacrifice as did the Aztecs. They migrated to North Carolina. They liked the hunting in the hills.
#9. To: Horse (#8)
I was hunting a patch of woods out here several years back. One guy was at one end of the woods and two of us walked thru the woods making as much noise as we could without screaming. We flushed two deer out the other side. The guy that was waiting there said he couldn't get the deer in the scope because it was bounding thru the woods. So he just shot and the deer slid dead at his feet. Now that was close. ;)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||