Well, I am extremely pessimistic about Mexican-American relations, not because the U.S. had done anything specifically wrong to our southern neighbor but because a (now not quite so) wealthy country has as its abutter a Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, near-tropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict. Then, there is the Mexican diaspora in America, hard-working and patriotic but mired in its untold numbers of illegals, about whom no one can talk with candor.

Sailer also links commentary by Your Lying Eyes, who in Are You a Crazy-Ass Racist? writes:

They don’t advance agendas – agendas advance them. And so the accuracy of Peretz’s comments is completely irrelevant – like craters on the moon, his musings suggest a flaw in the presumed perfection of the heavens – that there should be any doubts regarding the unalloyed equality of humanity; thus anyone raising these flaws must be dispatched to the rack lest such reckless talk be thought acceptable. The theology must be defended against all doubters!

Indeed.

John Derbyshire noted:

Whether Mexicans have “tropical work habits” (like Singapore?) or not, I couldn’t say, but they sure don’t seem to be welcome on JournoList.

I left a comment at YLE, unsubtly alluding to the true core of the philo-semitic anti-White “anti-racist” theology:

Those insufferable Catholic dogmatists, with their usual unacknowledged compromises, don’t seem welcome either. But there is another religious/ethnic group that’s tremendously overrepresented. If there’s one thing that vexes anti-White anti-racists even more than “racism”, it’s anyone uncouth enough to notice the disproportion of ethnocentric “racists” amongst them.

It may or may not stand. Consider this “reckless talk” a probe to determine whether identifying the core of “anti-racist” theology is thought acceptable in the YLE corner of the “race-realist” camp.

Only 2.5% of the population? Ha, ha, ha. And a ho, ho, ho.

ZOG propaganda, boyo. They’re at least 8-10% in America.

It matters because liberal media pundits, like the members of JList, continue to call attention to and express disapproval of “white” disproportions. For example, Media Matters – Gender and Ethnic Diversity in Prime-Time Cable News:

to document the degree to which different programs and networks were presenting to their viewers a picture that resembled the American public. The results of the study, titled Locked Out: the Lack of Gender and Ethnic Diversity on Cable News, were not encouraging: The guests on all three networks’ programs were overwhelmingly white and male.

In total, 67 percent of the guests on these cable programs were men, while 84 percent were white.

What percentage of these “whites” are jewish? If the true goal is to get media to “present to their viewers a picture that resembles the American public”, then to do so they must drastically reduce the jewish participation, because it obviously far exceeds their proportion of the American public. MM does not provide a full list of names, but of the 12 shows mentioned 4 have jewish hosts – Larry King, Alan Colmes, David Gregory, and Dan Abrams. That’s 33% for an ethnicity that comprises under 3% of the American public. Because MM does not distinguish jews or point out their overrepresentation MM is in effect bashing non-jewish Whites who are underrepresented relative to jews, and once this fact is accounted for might even be underrepresented compared to other ethnicities as well.

It’s the usual PC kabuki, with both the card playing and the card defending based on the same “jews are sacrosanct” premise, except for the one guy who triggered the whole thing by refusing to accept this premise and making pretty much the same point I did. Except he comes at it from a strictly literal anti-racist angle:

jdeeripper said…

hdhouse said…but hey, as the least among your ilk “jdeeriper” noted above, they have liberal Jews among them so it must be ….

It’s a racist, Judeocentric, sexist/male chauvinist group of narcissistic liberal policy nerds.

This is immediately answered like so:

Seven Machos said…

Focus, dude. Both raging and subtle anti-Semitism will get you nowhere.

Why does it matter? Why did it matter to the jews who criticized the WASP-dominated institutions throughout the 20th century? In that case at least the WASPs were more closely representative of the population (both racially and ideologically) and were not operating covertly. WASPs being “really powerful” was considered a negative, and it was used as an excuse to lambast them mercilessly. It still is. In contrast the jewish elite who has largely displaced the WASP elite are considered sacrosanct. You can say they’re “really powerful” as long as you genuflect, offering them thanks and praise. Saying it isn’t a good thing is considered “anti-semitism” – a form of “hate” that is considered so wrong it can be illegal, depending upon where and how you say it.

Too bad WASPs didn’t invent “anti-WASPism”. If only they’d developed such a magic defense that turns every criticism against the critic they might still be running the West.

jdeeripper said…

Seven Machos said…Why does it matter that any of these people are Jewish?

Of course I expect the typical evasiveness and defensiveness that always happen when anyone dares to notice these things.

Jdeeripper never did back down. His self-righteous opponents offered nothing but scorn, ridicule, fear, and loathing:

hdhouse said…

You need to shower because some of you who have posted some doggeral on this board very much in tune with the propaganda minister should be so ashamed, so repentent, hateful that you truly need to rot in hell.

A vision comes to mind of old Obi Wan Kenobistein waving his hand while saying, “You feel shame, shame, shame!”

In answer to his quote, a quote from an old Anglo Saxon comes to mind:

The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favorable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it.

– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859