An excellent post at Daniel Greenfield's blog. Here's the gist of the article:
Amnesty is a declaration of war by big government and big business against the American middle class. It is a statement that they have no room for the middle class in their vision of the country.
Truer words never were spoken. I highly recommend the whole article.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
What Do You Think about this Scenario?
With few exceptions, the ruling elites of countries governed and peopled by blacks believe that racial and cultural diversity are great strengths, if not their greatest strengths. By "ruling elites," I mean those in government, academia, and the entertainment and mainstream news media. Governments of black countries have opened their borders to massive numbers of legal and illegal aliens who do not share their race, religion, language, culture, heritage, or values. In many cases, elites have enacted such policies not by replacing old laws with new, but by flouting the rule of law altogether. Those in power who threw the borders wide and sat on their hands as a deluge of migrants poured into their territories now call for illegal alien amnesties and taxpayer-funded privileges for illegals -- perquisites for which natives do not qualify.
Blacks become dispossessed in the societies that they built -- displaced from employment opportunities, higher pay rates, timely medical care, and the same volume level of voice in the political process. Their "representatives" pay less heed to black citizens' concerns, even as they pander to those of newly-arrived migrants.
Foreign languages become more common on signs in shop windows and in open conversations, in what once were monolingual black states.
Crime increases, especially in areas heavy with immigrants and migrants.
Around the world, polities once inhabited by overwhelming black majorities now see blacks sinking to sixty-five percent of the population, or less, with substantial white, Hispanic, and Asian minorities.
The establishment in black countries characterizes racial solidarity within minority groups as indicative of unity or strength. The establishment further describes such unity and strength as positive developments, as racial and/or cultural "vibrancy." Establishmentarians denounce as racists all blacks who either decry the demographic transformation of their lands, or call for black solidarity. In other words, race-centric thinking among whites, Hispanics, and Asians is beautiful; race-centric thinking among blacks is racism.
In addition, racial sensitivity is so high in the aforementioned commonwealths that the successful labeling of one as "racist" can mean loss of livelihood, a destroyed reputation, and possibly even prosecution. It is no trivial accusation.
In conclusion: blacks become an ever-shrinking demographic group in the civilization that they built, even as non-blacks become ever-growing demographic groups in the lands in which they are invited -- or uninvited -- guests.
*****
Here is a thought exercise; keeping the above scenario in mind, please mull over a few questions:
1. Would it be fair to say that the powers-that-be are hypocrites, in that they hold blacks to a standard to which they hold no one else?
2. Given inconsistent standards on racial solidarity, would it be fair to say that blacks not only will become a minority group in their own states, but will become a despised, persecuted, scapegoated minority?
3. Is it wrong for a black-majority country to want to remain majority-black? If "yes," why is it wrong?
4. Would it be fair to characterize the ruling elites as traitors or seditionists?
5. Would it be fair to characterize the establishment as anti-black in its policies?
6. Would it be fair to say that the political aristocracy is committing demographic genocide?
I asked the above questions not as a lark, but because the scenario I fleshed out is real, not fiction, and is a deadly serious, life-altering problem. In this case, the sole difference between reality and fantasy is that demographic displacement executed by the ruling elite is not occurring in black countries, but in white countries throughout western civilization. Replace "blacks" with "whites," and "whites" with "blacks" in the thought experiment, and you have an accurate depiction of real-world events. I used blacks as the victims of demographic destruction because I wanted to get people to think outside the proverbial box.
I would add that, outside western civilization, most of the rest of the world rejects the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity as the sheerest nonsense.
I welcome comments/thoughts.
Blacks become dispossessed in the societies that they built -- displaced from employment opportunities, higher pay rates, timely medical care, and the same volume level of voice in the political process. Their "representatives" pay less heed to black citizens' concerns, even as they pander to those of newly-arrived migrants.
Foreign languages become more common on signs in shop windows and in open conversations, in what once were monolingual black states.
Crime increases, especially in areas heavy with immigrants and migrants.
Around the world, polities once inhabited by overwhelming black majorities now see blacks sinking to sixty-five percent of the population, or less, with substantial white, Hispanic, and Asian minorities.
The establishment in black countries characterizes racial solidarity within minority groups as indicative of unity or strength. The establishment further describes such unity and strength as positive developments, as racial and/or cultural "vibrancy." Establishmentarians denounce as racists all blacks who either decry the demographic transformation of their lands, or call for black solidarity. In other words, race-centric thinking among whites, Hispanics, and Asians is beautiful; race-centric thinking among blacks is racism.
In addition, racial sensitivity is so high in the aforementioned commonwealths that the successful labeling of one as "racist" can mean loss of livelihood, a destroyed reputation, and possibly even prosecution. It is no trivial accusation.
In conclusion: blacks become an ever-shrinking demographic group in the civilization that they built, even as non-blacks become ever-growing demographic groups in the lands in which they are invited -- or uninvited -- guests.
*****
Here is a thought exercise; keeping the above scenario in mind, please mull over a few questions:
1. Would it be fair to say that the powers-that-be are hypocrites, in that they hold blacks to a standard to which they hold no one else?
2. Given inconsistent standards on racial solidarity, would it be fair to say that blacks not only will become a minority group in their own states, but will become a despised, persecuted, scapegoated minority?
3. Is it wrong for a black-majority country to want to remain majority-black? If "yes," why is it wrong?
4. Would it be fair to characterize the ruling elites as traitors or seditionists?
5. Would it be fair to characterize the establishment as anti-black in its policies?
6. Would it be fair to say that the political aristocracy is committing demographic genocide?
I asked the above questions not as a lark, but because the scenario I fleshed out is real, not fiction, and is a deadly serious, life-altering problem. In this case, the sole difference between reality and fantasy is that demographic displacement executed by the ruling elite is not occurring in black countries, but in white countries throughout western civilization. Replace "blacks" with "whites," and "whites" with "blacks" in the thought experiment, and you have an accurate depiction of real-world events. I used blacks as the victims of demographic destruction because I wanted to get people to think outside the proverbial box.
I would add that, outside western civilization, most of the rest of the world rejects the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity as the sheerest nonsense.
I welcome comments/thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)