Blog

Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction

17 Comments

Only 16 million Hispanic voters will be eligible to cast ballots in next year’s election – so why are so many of our politicians acting like they run the country? The politically correct answer: a sign of respect to the fastest-growing segment of American society. The unpleasant truth: it is a craven capitulation to a flood of invaders coming from Latin America to fulfill their dreams of reconquista.

What is reconquista? The politically correct answer: a completely bogus conspiracy theory/fantasy/boogeyman imagined by anti-immigration activists. The unpleasant truth:

"It doesn’t end with secession," Norwood wrote. "The final plan includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African and Asian descent out of `Aztlan.’"

Reconquista is a fantasy, a brown supremacist fantasy that’s coming true. The ethnic cleansing is well underway.

Why have European elites invited Muslims to flood their countries? The politically correct answer: there is no danger from Islam, only bigotry. The unpleasant truth: Saying there is a problem with Islam is considered bigotry worthy of repression. As accommodating and tolerant of Islam as Europeans have been, it still hasn’t been enough. They have been attacked, by doctors even, and will continue to be attacked until the only diversity that remains will be of the very narrow sort permitted by Sharia, and the only culture that remains will be an Islamic culture.

Throughout the Western world the citizenry sees this growing threat, and implores their leaders to do something. Yet instead of stopping immigration they increase it. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders they make excuses why it can’t be done and open the gates ever wider.

It is clear our elites put a very high priority on immigration. The media boosts only those political candidates who are pro-invasion. Any candidate who strongly opposes immigration is portrayed as a marginal nutjob who can’t possibly be elected. The power of this propaganda is difficult to overestimate. Observe the number of people who regurgitate the media’s sentiments with barely any direct knowledge to support them. Do they control your mind? Do you know what Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo stand for or against before you call them kooks and say they have no hope to win an election?

What is the purpose of the immigration invasion? Does it matter? It is an essential element of the elite’s globalist agenda, their pyramid scheme, steroids for their almighty economy. But there is no need to chase them down their rabbit hole, no need to debate how much wealth trickles down or whether Wal-Mart is good or bad. Whatever the justification, whatever the goal, immigration is destroying our culture, our infrastructure, our families, and our quality of life.

Yes, it makes the immigrants very happy. And yes, it makes the elites very rich. But why would the citizenry, the ordinary folk who are being disenfranchised and displaced, why would any of us favor immigration? Having until recently been of that belief myself and to this day encountering many others who still are I can say with certainty that the main reason is delusion.

Every day the news brims with the disastrous consequences of immigration. But most of this isn’t seen for what it is, not only because to do so is politically incorrect but also because we are simultaneously fed a constant dose of pro-immigration propaganda. There is a constant stream of statements from people in positions of authority to the effect that immigration is wonderful, it is essential, and without it our economy would collapse. None of it is true. It is a deliberate inversion of reality. It is disinformation.

Upon examination every justification for immigration boils down to either benefits for the elites or benefits for the invaders. There is nothing for the citizenry but the imaginary joys of multiculturalism and diversity. And if you don’t enjoy watching your culture be dismantled and your town being overrun by invaders? The explanation for such political incorrectness is that you must be crazy or mean, and probably both. Whether you’re a loser who can’t stand competition, a paranoid who imagines conspiracies, a racist who just doesn’t like brown people, a xenophobe who hates foreigners, a fascist craving boxcars and concentration camps, or all of the above. You are nothing but a hater driven by irrational fear.

Multiculturalism and diversity are lies. When our elites tell us to "celebrate diversity" they’re asking us to celebrate our demise.

Am I worried about America and all of its ordinary law-abiding tax-paying Americans? Yes. But I’m also concerned about Europe. And I’m particularly concerned about my race. Under the strictures of political correctness whites aren’t supposed to criticize other races, even indirectly, and it is absolutely verboten to consider what might be good or bad for whites. Non-whites are free to think and talk all day long about their race, to dedicate their lives and their fortunes entirely to that cause, and to speculate what is in their own collective best interest. Far from being frowned upon, it’s considered noble. It is only fair that the same should be true for whites. Political correctness forbids this. Thus I reject political correctness and everything associated with it. Those under its influence are misinformed. Those who preach it are evil.

I reject the requirement that whites must stand by and watch silently as their race, which is already an overall minority of the world’s population, is reduced to minority status everywhere. Minorities are often abused, and whites have been so thoroughly demonized and unfairly tarred with the blame for the ills of the world that we know what to expect wherever we are outnumbered. We are brutalized. The violence begins even before we are outnumbered. Look at our cities. When and where we slip entirely from power we can expect far more grim treatment. Look at South Africa or Zimbabwe.

So I ask, what is it about replacing the white majorities in the US and Europe with non-white aliens that is so good? Can somebody explain this? Why are we blamed for resenting what we didn’t ask for and so clearly don’t want? Aren’t we entitled to protect our ever dwindling homelands?

Of course we are.

Update, 15 Sept 2007: The insane denial continues in Europe:

We have to look at immigration not as a threat but – when well-managed, and that is our new task – as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today’s world.

Enrichment? Inescapable phenomena? Unbelievable.

Update, 15 Sept 2007 #2: Two frank assessments of what happened in Brussels this week: Democratic Europe RIP, and And Shariah For All? When US elites announced their collaboration with the invaders we at least had the opportunity to publicly and peacefully rebuke them. Opponents of the European elites will not have that opportunity. If the people cannot get redress via the vote or peaceful demonstrations then only one avenue remains. In the US it’s still possible to hope that the treasonous bureaucrats can be deposed in a bloodless reboot. In Europe, it seems clear now, if it happens at all it’s going to be bloody.

Blog

Sippenhaft: Great Idea

16 Comments

Read about it.

The poster is, according to the United Nations, the sinister symbol of the rise of a new racism and xenophobia in the heart of one of the world’s oldest independent democracies.

A worrying new extremism is on the rise. For the poster – which bears the slogan “For More Security” – is not the work of a fringe neo-Nazi group. It has been conceived – and plastered on to billboards, into newspapers and posted to every home in a direct mailshot – by the Swiss People’s Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) which has the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of the country’s coalition government.

Racism, xenophobia, and extremism! According to the UN! Oh my! The tone of the article is so overwrought I could hardly keep from laughing. To the author, the idea that a nation and its people might have the temerity to act in their own self interest is obviously heretical – why it completely violates multicultural dogma!

The PC police have terrorized us for decades with their grim tone and scary names. Sippenhaft is something the Nazis did, huh? Well then, maybe they had some other good ideas. Give the scaremongering a rest you liberal twits. Some of us are wise to your treasonous tricks and we’re conscious of a real threat. You invite barbarian invaders to walk among us and then propose we simply act natural, not panic, and hand over everything with a smile? Jam it.

This article is a very long but informative read. What it makes clear, from a Muslim point of view, is why the Swiss are smart not to follow the path of the Dutch, the path to suicide the preachers of multiculturalism and diversity urge us all to follow.

Update, 15 Sept 2007: Here’s the homepage of the Schweizerische Volkspartei, which links to some Swiss alien crime statistics:

Insgesamt (altogether): 52.8%
Koerperverletzung (body-violation): 52.7%
Vorsaetzliche Toetung (premeditated murder): 55.5%
Erpressung (extortion): 66%
Vergewaltigung (rape): 85.5%

From the Independent article:

* More than 20 per cent of the Swiss population, and 25 per cent of its workforce, is non-naturalised.

* At the end of 2006, 5,888 people were interned in Swiss prisons. 31 per cent were Swiss citizens – 69 per cent were foreigners or asylum-seekers.

The aliens, who are only one fifth of the population, are committing more than half the crime!

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the US had a political party, or even one candidate for president, who would face the similar unpleasant reality we have here? Google state most wanted, or sheriff most wanted for a sobering illustration of that problem (thanks to Katie’s Dad 2.0).

Blog

Invasion Evasion

18 Comments

The most important question of last night’s debate:

Lieutenant, give us an idea of what it is you see, and then what it is you are worried about?

J. ROGERS: Well, we’re overwhelmed in the street. I mean, just the crimes are getting more violent. They’re out of control. We can’t communicate with these immigrants. My concern is these illegal immigrants get here, you know — what makes you think that they’re going to follow any of these rules put in place?

They’re not. Either you can build all the fences you want. If you don’t man them, they’re going to go over them, they’re going to go under them. They’re still going to get in here.

What are you going to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here? How are you going to handle that problem? There’s millions of them.

The opportunities I’ve had to deal with the situation — you call INS; they won’t even come down and talk to you. They’re just understaffed, undermanned. What are you going to do about that?

CAMERON: So we’re going to spin this one back to both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and ask the lieutenant’s question: How can you not call it amnesty?

Yes, spin away Cameron. The officer said law enforcement and ICE are overwhelmed with immigrants and asked what are we going to do with the ones already here? Watch as the media’s top three GOP darlings eagerly talk about anything but the officer’s call for reinforcement and leadership:

Guiliani blathers about IDs. Promises to secure the border. Never says what to do with the invaders already here. Can we assume he wants to issue them all IDs? How that will address the threat they pose to our country? What will we do if they refuse to carry the IDs? And by the way, Earth to Rudy…most of the rest of the country doesn’t want to be anything like New York City.

McCain blathers about his shamnesty’s toothless “enforcement” provisions. Then he talks about how wonderful “these people” are because some of them are working hard and dying in Iraq. Does he think we’re all stupid? He must. How else could he answer a question about illegal alien invaders with a story about legal immigrant US soldiers? McCain, like so many invasion supporters, thinks “these people” (you know who he means) are better than his own countrymen. Despicable.

McCain is already toast, but you wouldn’t know that from the time they gave him.

Romney chimed in at the end to point out that the Z visa would have legalized all the aliens immediately. He wants to crack down on the magnets: sanctuary cities and employers. He favors legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Sorry. No cigar. He doesn’t answer the question: what do we do with the ones already here? Of course we should put an end to the sanctuary cities and crack down on employers. But that won’t solve the problems. They don’t just come here for jobs and they don’t just live in sanctuary cities.

None of these guys comes close to recognizing the invasion for what it is, for the damage it’s doing, or the drastic steps that will be required in order for us to keep this country from becoming a balkanized turd world shithole with a banana republic government. With the massive political corruption that tolerates sanctuary cities and a wide open border, despotic judges ignoring the laws and the will of the public, and mobs and gangs running unchecked in our streets we’re more than halfway to shithole already.

Who will recognize this madness, face it, and end it?

Of them all Tancredo seems to see it most clearly. Paul and Hunter are also relatively clued in. The crowd rewarded the candor of these three with loud applause. As loud or louder than the media’s darlings got. At times the others were chuckling at Paul, laughing at him like stupid jocks. I may not vote for the man, but he at least has a saner position than any of the morons who were chuckling. Our country is in deep deep trouble. And some of these people think it’s a laughing matter.

The Democrats are in more or less complete denial, obsessed with climate change and health care. And more than half the Republican candidates are so deeply infected with liberal ideology they can’t or won’t recognize that America is being invaded and transformed into a place that soon not many of the indigenous people is going to want pay taxes to, live in, or die for, much less be president of.

Blog

Interesting Predictions

13 Comments

Steve Sailer wrote an article reflecting on what makes for interesting predictions. I was motivated to make a long comment which instead turned into this post.

I’d like to know why so many predictions of the Latino population in 2050 are in the news. We’re told these predictions can be made with confidence because of trends in birth rates. However, this is patently false.

Imagine the utter absurdity of predicting, in the 1950s, what US demographics would look like today. Back then the country was roughly 90% white and 10% black. The trend was toward something like 85% white and 15% black. Less than 2% of the military during WWII (300K out of 16M) was Mexican American. Up until 1980 Latino numbers were so small the census didn’t include a category for them.

Realizing the absurdity of predicting populations 50 years in the future, in spite of the trendy trends, makes me wonder why exactly anyone would be trumpeting such predictions now with the benefit of this hindsight. Especially in this case, where the focus on birth trends neglects the factor that invalidated extrapolations from the 1950s: immigration. Who knows what future immigration will bring? Besides that, official statistics massively undercount the mostly Latino illegal invaders. The predictions also disingenuously focus on majority status rather than when you-know-who will outnumber you-know-who. In a multicultural society like the one being forced down our throats that’s what really counts. In light of all these factors the prediction that should be in the news is for a Latino plurality in 2020!

So what’s behind the population prediction misinformation? Here’s what I think:

Let the Pilgrims know what’s happening, because after all we can hardly deny it, they have eyes. Convince them however that it is inevitable, but also so far off it won’t matter to them personally. In this way we can reconquer Aztlan (and perhaps more!) and do it in a single generation. Viva Raza!

To my fellow Americans I say: this isn’t inevitable. It doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to accept “a path to citizenship” for millions of invaders. They’re afraid we’ll wake up before they’ve pushed beyond the point of no return. Our backs are up against a wall. We can wake up and fight back – or we’ll watch ourselves and everything that was great about this country get washed away by Turd Worlders and replaced with one or more banana republics with rule alternating between narco-crime gangs, death squads, and mobs – just like the rest of Latin America.

Read here what our new overlords have in store for us. That’s also the source of the image above.

Postscript: Shortly after writing this I discovered Vanishing American made a recent post questioning the wisdom of mass immigration. Besides pointing out the outrageous cost of cheap labor she linked to an excellent article by Srdja Trifkovic titled Half a Billion “Americans”? I found the comments there grim but oddly reassuring. It seems there are more and more people who see what’s going on and are willing to speak against it.

PPS: Note the new Search fields to the right. The one labeled "Age of Treason" searches just this site. The one labeled "AoT Links" searches all the domains linked under Pundits and Right. I used it to find the Limits to Growth story from which I shamelessly stole the WWII links above. I remembered reading it but couldn’t find it again because generic Google often returns boatloads of disinformation, especially for jihad- and immigration-related searches. Problem solved.

Blog

Time to Celebrate Fatigue

10 Comments

Is there anything more hypocritical than the New York Times complaining about 9/11 tributes?

Again it comes, for the sixth time now — 2,191 days after that awful morning — falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week.

Again there will be the public tributes, the tightly scripted memorial events, the reflex news coverage, the souvenir peddlers.

Is all of it necessary, at the same decibel level — still?

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.

Six times in 2191 days! The horror!

The virulently anti-American NYT and their loyal readership of holier-than-thou world-saving bleeding-hearts don’t have any problem celebrating the anniversaries of Abu Ghraib. In fact they don’t need any anniversary as an excuse to pay it tribute. Every day, several times a day. Umpteen days and counting.

Even more frequently the media concocts and then marks a fresh grim milestone of casualties in Iraq. For some reason they and their readers never bore watching a counter tick up.

The anniversary of Hiroshima just passed – 62 tributes in 22630 days – and the anniversary of Pearl Harbor approaches – 66 tributes in 24090 days. No complaints of fatigue from the NYT on these tributes.

There is something I am fatigued with however that I wish the NYT, or anybody with a national soapbox for that matter, would address. That would be the widespread denial of the Jihad, the immigration invasion, and how the two are related.

In the few short years since 9/11 the West has suffered several serious attacks and preempted many more. We have seen enough to recognize a general pattern:

A) The attackers are Muslim. Their rhetoric and rationale arise directly from Islam. They consider themselves jihadis (holy warriors) waging jihad (holy war) in service of their faith.

B) Their organizations are decoupled and command is decentralized. They are legion and they answer to no single man or nation state.

C) They deliberately infiltrate areas they do not control to wage guerilla war and gain control.

On all these points our leaders and the media feed us lies. Why do they try so hard to obscure these objective facts?

First of all they use the generic word “terror”. As in “terror attacks” perpetrated by “terrorists”. This would be fine if we were faced with a variety of unrelated people working toward a variety of purposes. The threat this situation would pose might then be most accurately described as “terror”. On the contrary, the clear and common purpose in all the high-profile attacks (of which 9/11 was only the most severe) is jihad and the attackers are jihadis. If we used the proper words to describe what is really happening, The War on Terror would instead be called The West’s Inept and Incomplete Attempt to Counter the Jihad.

Second, whenever a travesty occurs the authorities and talking heads stumble over themselves to quickly assure the public that it couldn’t possibly have been a terrorist attack. What’s obviously impossible is that they could be so certain of that so quickly.

Then, as soon as the facts indicate it is an attack, the very next thing we hear are questions whether the attackers were tied directly to Al Qaeda. If they aren’t card-carrying Al Qaeda, the thinking seems to be, then the attack has nothing to do with 9/11. Ergo there’s nothing to worry about, it’s just another random terror attack in no way whatsoever related to that imaginary War on Terror. Decentralization, infiltration, and other sneaky tricks are classic jihadi tactics. They are also the best means the jihadis have at the moment to attack the West. If our talking heads studied Islam, or history, or the history of Islam they might know and share this information instead of spreading the mistaken idea that these jihadi attacks are random.

When the attackers turn out to be undeniably Muslim, the next thing we hear is how they are “home grown” – a description directly at odds with reality. Virtually nothing about Islam or its jihad philosophy has its roots in the West, and the jihadis perpetrating these jihad attacks are predominantly here on visas or are the children of immigrants. They are often here illegally. The only thing “home grown” about these attacks is perhaps their planning and funding.

Finally we hear, for the zillionth time, the “terrorists are a tiny minority” lie. They hate us. We know they hate us. And still our leaders let them come here. Still our leaders deny that a wide open Mexican border makes no sense, not only because it allows in a flood of poor, uneducated, unskilled, reconquista-seeking Mexicans, but also because the jihadis can so easily join them. After so much terror perpetrated by Muslim immigrants why do our leaders continue to insist that multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration are good? Doesn’t diversity just make it harder to spot them? Doesn’t multiculturalism just make us hate and distrust each other? How much would it cost the West to eject all Muslims? At what point will it become clear that the costs of pretending that we need alien Muslims with heads full of hate walking among us and the internal security we require to defend against them far outweigh any contribution they make?

I think these thoughts every time I take my shoes off at the airport, every time I look around and see myself surrounded by aliens, and every time the news starts buzzing with the latest travesty. I’m getting pretty fatigued.

Note: I downloaded the image above several years ago from a jihadi site discovered by Tracking Al Qaeda, an amateur obviously more skilled and motivated to expose the truth of the jihad than the NYT or anyone else in the mendacious MSM.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light