Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.

Merkel: ‘Repatriation’

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Angela Merkel has reportedly reversed her previous ‘we can do it’ stance on taking in multitudes of ‘refugees.’ Now she says ‘Repatriation, repatriation, and more repatriation‘ is the most important thing.

Steve Sailer and commenters discuss it here.

Does she mean it? Did she mean it several years ago when she said that “multiculturalism is a failure“? Actions, remember, speak louder than words, especially when the words are coming from a politician. Remember that there was a chorus of globalist politicians back in 2011 saying, almost word-for-word, what Merkel said. Did they all have some kind of simultaneous, coincidental epiphany? Or was it orchestrated, calculated, for effect? Gee, what do you think? Oddly enough, as soon as the words were out of their mouths, it was back to business as usual.

Of course if you read the fine print back then, when they started parroting these scripted statements for the benefit of us rubes, they were not conceding that multiculturalism was wrong and destructive, but that what was needed was more ‘integration and assimilation’ of the foreigners.

Sarkozy’s statement comes after Prime Minister Mr Cameron said last week that public money should not be handed to ethnic groups who did not share British values.

He called for an end to the ‘passive tolerance’ of divided communities and said members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.”

‘Integration, integration, and more integration’ were the magic words back in 2011. The fact that things have only worsened since then has never caused the globalist politicians to change course, not really. And yet, people are easily gulled by them into believing that they mean it when they make some forked-tongued statement that sounds good to the uncritical listener. Even Marine Le Pen was fooled, apparently:

[David Cameron’s] remarks were praised by the leader of the French National Front Marine Le Pen, who said Mr Cameron’s views proved that he supported her far right-wing party’s ideals.

She said: ‘I sense an evolution at European level, even in classic governments. I can only congratulate him.’ “

I think it’s best to hold the congratulations this time around, pending some evidence that Merkel meant what she said. Likewise with other pols. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Italy ferries in 10,000 invaders

Posted on by | Leave a comment

A while ago I blogged about the news (via the Reference Frame blog) that the Italian navy was purposefully picking up ‘migrants’ in the Mediterranean — only 13  miles off the Libyan coast. How’s that for service?

Now, the New Observer Online is reporting the story as well, with new details.

I mean, rescuing them out of the water is questionable enough, at least if they are to be brought to Italy instead of sent back, but deliberately going to fetch them? Obviously there is intention at work here, not happenstance.

10,000 in 2 days is a lot of people; imagine if this is a trend. Imagine the results if the numbers continue to increase.

It’s bad form to rub it in, but I’ve heard many Italian-Americans boast that Italy would never end up like France or Britain, swamped by hostile ‘migrants’ because the Italians are tough and not the least bit politically correct. Well, they may be basing that belief on the behavior of some Italian-Americans, such as the urban Italian-Americans of the past. But it definitely appears that the Italian politicians are globalist one-world fanatics like the rest of their class in Europe and the West generally. And if the average Italian citizen is not happy with this state of affairs it seems they are not making much of a fuss about it. But then again, neither is the average American.

When I posted the link to the blog where I first read of this bizarre ferry service, I had one comment, from someone in Europe who insisted that the EU is ‘open and democratic’. I responded in a less than patient way; I no longer have time for such nonsense. Who can honestly, with a straight face, defend the EU is after reading so many stories like this?

Politics replaces tribe, for some

Posted on by | 3 Comments

Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)

I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.

One example: a news story reports that Quanell X, (born Quanell Evans), a ‘black activist’ has endorsed Donald Trump. And this is one response:

Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.

“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”

Or this:

Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”

One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.

But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?‘

It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.

And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.

Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.

But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”

 

 

Problems with the post below

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The post below this one did not format correctly, hence there are not paragraph breaks where there ought to be. I tried in vain to rectify that but to no avail. I find WordPress to be not very user-friendly in that respect. So please don’t take me to task for the lack of paragraph breaks in the below post; sincere apologies about that.

Could it be done today?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”

 

Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

At last

Posted on by | 3 Comments

At last, here’s one blogger who sees the situation somewhat as I do. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would say it.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump betrayed his supporters on the issue that has defined his campaign: immigration. Unfortunately, with Hillary setting her campaign on fire left and right, this has gone mostly unnoticed. We need to make noise about this everywhere and immediately.”

Well, here I am, making noise about it in my quiet little corner of the blogging world, if it will do any good.

Why is there so little commentary from the (real) right on this issue? Are people especially quiet because they are uncomfortable with acknowledging the situation after investing so much in the Trump candidacy? Is it peer pressure or a desire not to rock the boat?

Of course there are some comments (I knew there would be) defending Trump’s ‘going for the centrists’ or trying to ‘get more votes’ because it’s all about ”winning.” I’ve heard all this before, when G.W. Bush was in office and campaigning for re-election. The Bushbots said all the same things, and they used the same blustering tone to shout down anybody who dissented. But the dissenters were right all along, as time has shown, while the Bushbots never, ever acknowledged that their guy was indeed selling out not only his base but the American (White) people. But he won, you see, he got re-elected despite his devotion to the ”immigration reform” (amnesty) cause.

As I said then, if we ”win” by compromising, selling out, whoring after minority votes or ‘squishy centrists’, what will we have won? Winning the election is not an end in itself, although politicians seem to see it as such.

And in retrospect, what did we win, by winking at Bush’s moving to the left?

I said before, when the Univision story appeared,  that I would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and hear what he had to say. What he has said since then has not convinced me that the initial story was ‘a lie’, as his devout followers said.

As to his latest promises to deal with criminals (“cartel members, thugs”) it very much sounds as if his plans to deport immigrants will apply only to illegals who are known criminals. This will leave tens of millions of un-vetted illegals and legals, people with no valid identification or with forged IDs (many of them have multiple fake IDs, which can be purchased most anywhere where there is a large Latino colony). Deporting only known or convicted criminals who are here illegally will be a mere drop in the ocean.

And what’s to stop them from returning multiple times, as so many criminal aliens have done, and are doing?

As for the plan not amounting to ‘amnesty’ because ‘they will have to pay a fine, and back taxes‘, as Trump said, this is much like the earlier amnesty proposals (which the pols said were not amnesty); it’s not much different from the ‘Gang of Eight’ plans.

Trump is supposed to make another statement soon on his immigration plans. But I have a feeling that he will again parse his language carefully so as to mollify his supporters, throwing a few crumbs to his White base. I am open to being proven wrong, but as I’ve said before, he can’t serve two masters. He seems to have betrothed himself to the ‘black community’ whose plight he has expressed so much concern for, and to those ‘terrific people’ who just happen to be here illegally.

G.W. Bush redux.

Update: here’s another blog piece on the subject, from the Unorthodoxy blog.

From 2013

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I’ve spent more time than usual, this past week, in searching through many blogs looking for something elusive; I suppose I am looking for other views that are somewhat on my wavelength, and seeming not to find them. I think that of the blogs I used to read, which are no longer there, I miss the Bad Eagle blog the most. Why? I didn’t always agree with all that he wrote, as I rarely agree 100 per cent with anyone. Some of the subjects on which he wrote were a little esoteric for me, but when he wrote as an ethnopatriot he wrote some very good pieces.

[Maybe it’s not ‘the thing’ to praise an American Indian, but if many on the ‘pro-White’ side can laud Thomas Sowell or certain (((other))) bloggers, then I can cite Bad Eagle.]

Those of you who remember the late Dr. David Yeagley, aka ‘Bad Eagle’, know that he was a Comanche Indian (though his father was White) and he was not in any way hostile to White Americans, not given to striking the ‘victim’ pose. He was very friendly to White ethnopatriotism/ethnonationalism. Most Americans are only familiar with the grandstanding ‘professional Indians’, the ones who denounce Columbus as a ‘genocidalist’ every October. Yeagley called these ‘campus Indians’, because in general it is only the university-educated Indians who become radicalized and militant. Yeagley was an academic by profession, yet he was that rare exception, a non-liberal academic.

I came across this article of his from 2013; in it he asks the pertinent question:

Has the White Man Gone Soft?

He is not asking the question in a hostile way; quite the contrary. He is exhorting Whites and trying to encourage a resolute response to what is happening to our country and to the West. I recommend reading it, and the comments — though I will warn that the first comment may not be palatable to some (because of the link  it contains).

Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.

Reinforcing illusions

Posted on by | 4 Comments

At VDare.com, Matthew Richer writes on “Moderate Whites” and the opportunity presented by the ‘race problem.’

Donald Trump is being criticized for his tweets about a recent shooting, in which a cousin of an NBA star was killed in some kind of crossfire incident. He tweeted the following:

“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”

Predictably, the left seized on this to castigate Trump. Examples:

    That time Donald Trump used Dwyane Wade’s cousin’s murder to campaign for the Black vote. https://t.co/fQPlUuDdEx pic.twitter.com/SjxOqPjshu
    — BET (@BET) August 27, 2016

    Trump fixed the spelling of Dwyane Wade’s name. Still doesn’t offer condolences. Same self-congratulatory tone.

    @realDonaldTrump An absolute disgrace

Honestly, the leftists love this kind of thing; it gives them a chance to gleefully express their moral outrage, and virtue-signal to each other.

In the VDare piece, Richer notes that Trump does not respond in a defensive manner to this kind of thing. He advocates that Trump should react aggressively to the left’s attempts to smear him as a ‘Nazi’, bigot, or whatever else:

“If Trump is to win, therefore, he must employ the language of assault to bypass the Left/MSM narrative and establish himself as the genuine America First candidate.”

Richer says, correctly I think, that recent speeches by Trump addressing black concerns were not so much appeals to the black vote or to blacks as a group, but directed at ‘moderate’ White voters:

”While the black vote is insignificant compared to the white vote, the challenge is that Trump must campaign for the black vote, to some extent, in order to win a significant portion of the white vote.

A great many whites have a strong psychological need to see themselves—or more exactly, to be seen by other whites—as people committed to the well-being of allegedly oppressed minorities.

If a candidate can be depicted as someone insensitive to minority concerns, some whites will not support him—even if they largely agree with the candidate on everything else.”

I realize I am outside the majority, even on the right, when I say that in adopting this kind of strategy, Trump is in fact playing according to the PC rules. He is, in fact, reinforcing the PC ‘narrative’, and because so many on the right (the ‘cuck’ establishment notwithstanding) support him so unconditionally, they will ‘go there’ with him, and nod their heads, and say, yes, he has to do this. If he wants to ‘win’, he has to do this.

All the talk of Trump ‘shattering political correctness’ and refusing to play that game by the left’s rules is just so much talk, if he is to adopt this strategy and follow it.
All the talk of the ‘Overton Window’ being shifted for good by Trump’s bluntness and iconoclastic image may also prove to be illusion based on wishful thinking.

Maybe those younger than 40 or so don’t remember the George W. Bush years, but this is much like what happened when G.W. Bush began to push amnesty and talk of Islam as a ‘Religion of Peace.’ Those who pointed out that this was not what we thought we were voting for were castigated for being ‘purists’ or ‘Bush-haters’ when warning about Bush’s disregard for his ‘base’ and for Americans in general.

Bush pushed amnesty relentlessly and yet the true Bush believers shouted down any conservative who had a problem with that, just as they did with those who objected to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I remember that very well, as it was what drove me away from the GOPe and into blogging. Loyalty to leaders is good — provided they are in the right, but loyalties should be to something more than an individual.

So does Trump ”have to” make speeches about how blacks have ”suffered more than anybody else”, carrying on the rancid ‘Democrats are the Real Racists‘ meme?

If this is for the benefit of the ‘moderate Whites’ (I would call them liberal, if they are more concerned for black interests than their own, but that’s just me), then how long must both political parties and all candidates cater to these people, as well as to the ‘Victimocracy’? Some of us began to hope that Trump would be the one to break the mold and thus pave the way for others to have the courage or the ”permission” to speak up for the rest of us, the majority. So if he is declining that role, preferring instead to continue this charade which is de rigueur as of now, who will ever have the courage and the independence to say ‘No!’ to the whole farce? The longer it continues unopposed the stronger it will become.

I mean, if not now, when? When will it ever be time?

‘Moderate’ Whites who see themselves as protectors or champions of blacks are people who need to have their eyes opened, rather than having their silly ideas reinforced by politicians. They urgently need to see that we (including those same clueless Whites) are under an existential threat. Politicians on both sides who perpetuate their politically correct platitudes and false morality are complicit in what is happening to us.