Quoting from this article by an insider to the upper levels of this kind of politics:
"Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions. These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and 'crack' their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as 'politics by other means.' Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.
Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out 'plan,' as Echeverría did? That is unlikely."
There is much to learn from this article, and it especially shines in showing the intermediate measures connecting pragmatically to the ultimate goal driving them on: total power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
John wrote:
"These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and 'crack' their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as 'politics by other means.' Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.
Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out 'plan,' as Echeverría did? That is unlikely."
I agree with everything EXCEPT THE LAST SENTENCE. Its not only likely, its true.
Democrats who personally dont have anything to do with Mexicans are overjoyed at the "invasion", as they were well aware that conservative whites tend to outbreed them. So fearful are they of having untouchables like abortion or gay marriage overturned, they are willing to wager the very well being of this nation to save it.
A white liberal hates NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING as much as they regular chuch-going white guy and his two or three kids who is literate and thinking and straight.
John,
On another note since you are an intellectually honest man. I present this scenario to you.
If one wants a world-government, but finds that feelings of nationalism and ethnic identity of standing in the way..............what better way to achieve their end but by getting rid of ethnic identities (by intermingling of the races and encouragement of interbreeding of the races) and by erasing national borders of those nations most hesitant to intermingle and interbreed?
I suppose it sounds like conspiracy-theorizing to ask something like that, but really John, how in the hell can one explain immigration policies in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and America that are not favored by the majority of the citizens in spite of decades-long PR campaigns from the establishment and guilt-mongering by the establishment in support of them? Yet the policies remain in place, marching toward minority-majority populations in all these places decade by decade, against the true will of the whites?
I don't doubt that there is some pure anti-Caucasian hatred, motivating the support for these policies. I usually say, power-greed, malice and the taste for freedom-for-aggression. Malice covers what you're suggesting. Power-greed is discussed in the quote. The majority is an obstacle in the way of those want freedom-for-aggression, as is civilization in general. All these things go together. Disrupting the reproduction of the majority has been an obvious major preference of the powerful here for at least 40 years. No need to disentangle it all, though, knotted up together as it is, just cut through it.
Regarding your point on promotion of mixing: there is malice involved and there is positioning by leftists and other power-greedy types, so as to smear opponents as motivated entirely by racial hatred etc. This has been done so often and for so long, that it cold even be imitation and trial-and-error which explain why many use it. Last year, I said:
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Openness to Inaccuracy of Reproduction as an Ersatz Ideal
The attempted idealization of inaccuracy of reproduction, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
As the genetic differences between the parents grow larger, each must reproduce less accurately.
Reproduction is of like unto like, not of dissimilars to further dissimilars. Therefore, propaganda making out each additional increment, of genetic distance between the parents, sound like an improvement
in itself, is contrary to the accuracy of reproduction, and to reproduction in a more general way.
Similarly, a false dilemma is set up, when one is asked to choose between extremes of inbreeding and further and further degrees of outbreeding, as if there were not a best level much closer to the threshold of literal inbreeding, which is best for accuracy and excellence of reproduction.
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.
Now what would it mean, then, if insofar as a population has been resistant to despotism, they are asked to value this push towards inaccuracy of reproduction; unless those promoting such
further outbreeding, believe that the resistance to dictatorship has a significant genetic influence to it?
Post a Comment