Home » elites

Category Archives: elites

Shock and denial

Posted on by | Leave a comment

‘…there is nothing new under the sun.‘ – Ecclesiastes, 1:9

That was written by Solomon many centuries ago. And it’s true, even when it comes to human depravity. Some of us say that today’s world is much more depraved than the recent past, and at least on the surface, that view can be defended. There was a brief period, under the influence of Christianity, when human evil was somewhat diminished, or at least, to take a more skeptical view, driven underground.

Critics of the Bible, who are more outspoken today than ever, frequently like to point at certain incidents in the Old Testament which they say constitute proof that the Bible is ‘full of filth’. Yes, there are some very distasteful and shocking episodes in those books of Scripture, but they are there as a stark illustration of what unredeemed humanity is capable of. In no way are they meant to titillate, or to sensationalize, much less to excuse human evil.

On the other hand, we have Christians who are so high-minded that they avoid such passages because they prefer a Christian faith that is all sweetness and light; they don’t like to be confronted with the ugly side of this world. Then there are the many Christians of today who don’t believe in the supernatural; they may (or may not) believe in the virgin birth, or Jesus’ miracles of healing, or his walking on water — but they don’t believe, truly, in a Devil. One of my highly-educated Christian friends says she does not believe in a ‘literal’ Satan, only in the fact of a human ‘shadow side’ that we all possess, and that we must all ‘own’. That’s not the same, though, as the Biblical view that all human beings are fallen; she believes we are ‘basically good’.

For these people, any talk of various forms of depravity being practiced by prominent and powerful people is not credible, because it does not fit the complacent worldview these people have cobbled together for themselves. It shakes their very idea of life itself and of human nature to even ponder the possibility that some of the worst rumors may be true. They don’t want to believe it.

We see that expressed here on this Reddit thread, where several people who appear to be very worldly-wise are voicing extreme shock about some of the allegations that are being bandied about. Yet I myself am not shocked, nor do I rule out the real possibility that where there is smoke, (which has been evident for many years), there may just be fire. And this, considering that I don’t watch modern movies or TV shows because of their decadence and vulgarity;  therefore I’ve developed no tolerance to it, as have many of those who consume it avidly. It does have a way of inuring people, making them shockproof, as I call it. Yet many people are seemingly shocked by what is being discussed these last few days.

Ann Barnhardt writes briefly about the allegations on her blog, and points out that she has been warning of this for years. Maybe it takes someone who seriously believes in such a thing as ‘spiritual wickedness in high places’ to accept the plausibility of it. I think that she has written about similar allegations regarding the highest circles in the Catholic hierarchy. So these things are not unheard of; where were all these oh-so-stunned people all these years?

Remember, too, the ongoing accusations against the rich and powerful in the UK? Maybe many Americans are not as familiar with those stories. There were many, many people of both sexes who reported being the victims, as teens or children, of certain celebrities like the late Jimmy Savile.

But Jimmy still has his staunch fans who defend his ”good name”, saying that the accusers were liars looking for attention or money. And that response to their stories explains, in part, why we don’t hear from the purported victims — there are powerful forces who will stifle their claims, and there are just plain stupid people, fans of the ‘celebrities’ and the politicians who are the accused, who will shout ‘liar!’ at the victims.

More examples? Rolf Harris, yes, the ‘Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport’ guy. “Oh, but he was so warm, so funny, so witty, he just couldn’t do things like that!” Same with Michael Jackson in this country.

Another factor in these cases is the “normalcy bias” which I referred to the other day. People are strongly invested in protecting their particular, comfy version of reality. It seems to pose a threat to people’s mental well-being to imagine that they may have been wrong to trust in a predictable and mostly benign world and people.

But we might dismiss the accused celebrity deviates as just being the typical ‘artistic’ personality, the type who dabble in the transgressive. Michael Jackson was just eccentric and misunderstood. Savile just liked kids. Same with Rolf Harris, et al.
But what of the very powerful, who presumably have ‘everything to lose’? Have people forgotten, or maybe they never heard of, the Belgian scandals?

The link above may be considered biased by some, but here are other accounts:

From the left-wing BBC

and as we see here, Wikileaks was also involved in publishing details of the Dutroux case several years ago, which implicated people at the highest levels in Belgium and possibly elsewhere.

Why, then, is there still an unwillingness to even consider the veracity of the allegations? It’s not as though it’s unprecedented. Maybe the fact that only those who are sneered at as ‘tinfoil hat’ sources have written about these things, while the “mainstream” controlled media, in recent years, shies away.

I suppose we should be encouraged to see that there are still Americans who are capable of being shocked at the mention of these things. Yet if we avert our eyes and insist that it’s just too much to believe, then we are enabling such things, which do in fact happen in this fallen world.

Christians in particular are called to be ‘wise as serpents’ yet harmless as doves. But if we are to be  ‘dove-like’ when confronted with evil, what use are we?

Old nations, new countries

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Germans and Swedes were recently told via advertising and other propaganda that their countries are essentially gone, and that they must integrate into a ‘new country,’ apparently multicultural and multiracial.

Despite the fact that we’ve all been watching this unfold, and we’ve all heard that the endgame is submersion of the indigenous peoples of Europe in a Third World tidal wave, it’s still shocking to hear it said so blatantly.

In Sweden, a tax-funded TV ad created by a government-backed “charity” called “Individuell Manniskohjalp” (Individual Relief), or IM, informs Swedes that their old country is never coming back. Translated to English, the slogan for the campaign is #TheNewNation. “There is no way back,” the ad begins. “Sweden will never be like it was. Europe is changing and Sweden is needed as a safe space for people who seek refuge. Now we must look forward and find a way to live side by side.”

As African and Middle Eastern faces intermixed with Swedish faces cycle through on the screen, the ad informs viewers that Sweden is in for some dramatic changes. “It’s time to realize the new Swedes will claim their space, and will take up room with cultures, languages and customs,” the narrators say in Swedish, alternating between male and female voices. “It’s time we see this as a positive force. The new country is about shaping a new future.”

The closest “our” country has come to spelling it out has been in the incident in Minnesota, in which Governor Mark Dayton told his constituents, the taxpaying citizens of that state, that if they don’t like mass Somali (and presumably, other) immigration, they must get out of the state, and find new homes.

The increasingly explicit message, in Germany, Sweden, and in Minnesota is: you citizens and native-born people no longer have any rights in your birthplace. You are not citizens but subjects in a totalitarian state, one in which you have no say, and no rights, except the right to shut up or get out. But if some wish to get out, per Mark Dayton’s advice, where do they go? The globalist regime is implementing the same twisted and tyrannical plan everywhere in the West.

We can see the handwriting on the wall as the situation in France worsens, with France on the brink of some kind of armed conflict. The recent attack on four policemen in Viry-Châtillon, where the officers were set on fire, has escalated things. Tiberge at Gallia Watch tells us that France is preparing for an ethnic civil war.

This is the entirely foreseeable and inevitable result of forcing mass immigration, mainly from Mohammedan countries, on France. Because anyone with an ounce of good sense could predict the outcome of decades of coerced ‘diversity’, it is inexcusable that those in authority continue to push more and more immigration and ‘tolerance.’ It beggars belief to blame this on just malfeasance or blundering; it’s deliberate. I concluded long ago that the explanation had to be either extreme stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate malice. And I don’t believe that the Oligarchs are that stupid and clueless.

Interestingly, Tiberge’s piece at Gallia Watch contains this passage:

Philippe de Villiers revealed the existence of secret, discreet agreements of submission, beyond the pale of legality, with the complicity of the French State, to surrender quietly portions of French territory to Islamic sharia law. The collaborating State is already negotiating with the invader.”

Not long ago I posted a link to piece quoting from a supposed ‘inside source’ in the UK who spoke of a plan in which at least some European leaders had a covert agreement with the Islamics to cede certain areas to them, or implicitly, to surrender the whole country provided they retained their positions as quisling puppets, presumably, within their respective countries. Nobody seems to be discussing that subject, though it is hinted at here and there. It seems more and more plausible to me that the deal is already done, and that the governments are now feeling bold enough to take off the masks and lay down the law, as the German and Swedish authorities (collaborators?) are doing.

Of course we’ve been aware for ages that there is a globalist agenda, and a plan to eradicate nations under some kind of One World system. But just because it hasn’t been officially announced in the Mainstream Media, some still insist that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia. But here it is, being put out in the open.

And when I speak of eradicating ‘nations’, I don’t just mean the geopolitical entities or the governmental apparatus, but ‘nations’ in the original, true sense: nations are peoples. They consist of flesh-and-blood human beings. The quote in my previous post, from Corneliu Codreanu, was dead-on; it’s about destroying nations.

Note: For an interesting piece on Philippe De Villiers, and the validation of some of his predictions about France, see this.

A New ‘New Deal’

Posted on by | 3 Comments

Donald Trump says ‘African-Americans’ deserve a ‘New Deal.‘ Not the old ‘New Deal’ which FDR offered to all Americans, but their own ‘New Deal.’ Apparently they haven’t gotten a fair shake.

The United States must set up a new commission involving the African American community to end the pattern of young people going from failed schools into lives of crime and imprisonment, Donald Trump told a campaign rally.

[…]I will… establish a new commission to tackle the school to prison pipeline and to shut that pathway down and to create instead a new pathway that leads from great education to a great job.” Trump described school choice as the great civil rights issue of current times and promised to champion it in all 50 US states if he is elected president on November 8.”

Isn’t this all awfully familiar, a variation on the various taxpayer-funded programs of the last, oh, 50 or 60 years? And how much good have they done, except to foster a sense of entitlement and a demand that ‘more’ must always be done?

I won’t belabor this because I think most people on the right are gritting their teeth when they hear these kinds of things,  or reassuring themselves that ”he just has to say these things, and besides we need the votes; winning is crucial…”

“It’s time for a 21st century Glass Steagall and… a priority on helping African-American businesses get the credit they need.”

Trump criticized the policies of two-term President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, the current Democratic nominee for president, as playing a major role in impoverishing the African American community. “The policies of the Clintons brought us the financial recession — through lifting Glass-Steagall, pushing subprime lending, and blocking reforms to Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac]” – the two giant federally supported mortgage-supporting corporations, he stated. Trump also said he would encourage small-business creation by allowing social welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but forgive-able micro-loans. “I will also propose tax holidays for inner city neighborhoods… [and] financial reforms to help young African Americans to get tax credits to pursue their dreams in their communities.”

This is just all too redolent of the ‘Democrats are the real racists‘ line; it seems that blacks are forever to be a catered-to and coddled segment of the population, regardless of who is in office. That’s what depresses me.

All right; I’ve gotten it off my chest for now, though I know it’s hopeless to talk about it. I hope we don’t all have ‘buyer’s remorse’ after the election, if Trump is elected. Yes, I know, the alternative is far worse, and yes, the Overton Window and all that, but still…

I wish I could be wholehearted about my vote. These kinds of things make me doubt.

Categorize this under ‘more White paternalism.’

 

‘Germany is going down’

Posted on by | 4 Comments

From a German citizen, (via Irish Savant and commenter Flanders) read how the ‘refugee’ situation is worse than many people realize. Most of us know of the dire situation in Europe, especially Germany, but I believe many may still be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. And while this blog is obscure and the piece won’t likely get many views from this posting, someone just may re-post where it will garner more attention.

Please read it and re-post where possible.

The thought that came to my mind is that in a sense we are in greater danger of ignoring the problem, which is also present here: the influx of ‘refugees’ and others, about which we are given no say whatsoever, and the attempts to stifle and silence all dissent or criticism. How far are we from that scenario here? Europe is being subjected to a sudden shock with a great influx, in a smaller geographical area. That tends to get people’s attention. We, however, have been lulled into a sense of complacency; our country is so large, and we have become inured through long experience with immigration to having aliens introduced into our midst. Many Americans have been inoculated, you might say, against any sense of apprehension about it: after all, this was always a nation of immigrants, and we’ve always assimilated the newcomers. Give them time, and they’ll fit right in, and be as American as apple pie. We’ve heard others say that ‘oh, I have Moslem co-workers and they’re nice people’ or ‘My new Hindu neighbors are friendly’ or ‘Mexicans have lived here for centuries; they’re not as bad as people say’. We’re entirely too smug or too resigned, in some cases.

Maybe the sudden shock to Europe may produce a quicker reaction, as we here lull ourselves and each other to sleep. But let’s hope we also wake up.

‘Chronic kinglessness’

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The term ‘chronic kinglessness‘ is apparently a coinage of Curtis Yarvin, better known as the NeoRx guru, Mencius Moldbug.  In this thought-provoking post from Free Northerner, we are told that the idea of ‘chronic kinglessness’ comes from Thomas Carlyle, though I haven’t found that exact term attributed to him, but whatever its source, the subject is an interesting one, and very apposite to our time.

The blog piece quotes from a British MP, Rory Stuart, in an interview from 2014, in which Stuart says that the dire political situation in his country (and the rest of the world, apparently) is due to the fact that no one has any real power.

“But in our situation we’re all powerless. I mean, we pretend we’re run by people. We’re not run by anybody. The secret of modern Britain is there is no power anywhere.” Some commentators, he says, think we’re run by an oligarchy. “But we’re not. I mean, nobody can see power in Britain. The politicians think journalists have power. The journalists know they don’t have any. Then they think the bankers have power. The bankers know they don’t have any. None of them have any power.

[…]It’s like the wizard of Oz. This is the age of the wizard of Oz, you know. In the end you get behind the curtain and you finally meet the wizard and there’s this tiny, frightened figure. I think every prime minister has sort of said this since Blair. You get there and you pull the lever, and nothing happens.”

This, says the blog piece, is chronic kinglessness.

The blogger postulates that there really is no one in effective charge. The problem, he says, is not one of a world run by a cabal or an oligarchy of faceless men, a huge far-reaching conspiracy, as many of us believe, but of there being a vacuum at the center — insofar as there is a center.

It’s an interesting thought, especially for those of us who have spent so much time and who have written so many words over the years analyzing or opining or speculating about the cause of the rampant madness in the world.

It would be an almost comforting thought, in a way, to believe that to be the case. And I am willing to entertain that possibility if only because it would be preferable to believe that it is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ scenario, in which whoever is at the center is just a big humbug (as ‘Oz the Great’ said he was) or just an inept and insecure little man (or group of men) hiding behind a show of power and bluster. If only that were known to be the case.

I can’t say it might not be true. But let’s just suppose for the moment that it is true. What then? How do we rectify the situation, as we are about to careen off the cliff in a driverless, brakeless vehicle?

I can’t do justice to the essay here but I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

I will say that I agree with many points made by the writer, but I tend to agree with the commenter NZT, who says, among other things, that this apparent lack of power is often just a cover for lack of will to do certain things, whether for political or ideological reasons — or just for reasons of sloth and ineptitude, or even malice. The question raised about lack of action by the administration on behalf of the kidnapped girls in Africa, taken captive by Boko Haram, was probably an example of a show of concern being made for political (PC) reasons, but lack of real commitment to do anything. In our corrupt world, showing ‘good intentions’, or virtue signalling, too often stand in for actual caring and ‘compassion.’ What one does means less than saying the ‘right’ things, or the politically correct things. Even for presidents.

And in connection with this question of ‘who is in charge’, who holds the real power, and how does one obtain legitimacy to exercise power, I immediately thought of the writings of Étienne de La Boétie, whose work Discourse on Voluntary Servitude I excerpted years ago on the old blog. Among the main points of that work was that tyranny was always made possible by the acquiescence of the populace. Of the tyrant, he wrote:

“[H]e has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?

[…](Y)ou can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

It may be that Rory Stuart, the Tory MP who was quoted at the beginning of this post, is engaging in some deceit himself, attempting to deflate all the ‘tinfoil hat conspiracy theories’ that are out there, attempting — as we’ve read of paid operatives doing on the Internet — to discredit those who point to what is going on under our noses, and those who see patterns at work.

Who knows? It is certainly something to ponder, though it seems as if there is little time to philosophize, as things rapidly build to — what?

An inside job

Posted on by | 1 Comment

No doubt I’ve grown more suspicious and cynical about politics over the last couple of decades (especially in the post-Clinton years) but this media-created Trump scandal smacks of an inside job, probably planned by the GOPe/Never Trumpers. Ted Cruz is now ‘considering’ withdrawing his half-endorsement of Trump; I think he only did it knowing full well this ‘bombshell’ was coming in October, then he could affect a stance of moral outrage and withdraw his support. Likewise, Ryan.

And it’s possible, at least according to this, that the whole thing may have been co-ordinated with Hillary’s people, who may have given a ‘heads-up’ to the GOPe.

This is all just more evidence that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that they are in fact a ‘uniparty’ who merely put on a ‘pro-wrestling’ type of show of being antagonists, each claiming to represent the people. To them, we are just dupes and fools, apparently. A plague on both their houses.

Trump should really run as an independent although I am sure that would prove to be more difficult than it sounds.

Debates: some historical perspective

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I have no opinions to voice about the debate really as I didn’t watch it. There is a lot of analysis online from people who did endure the debate, and so my impressions, based on what I’ve heard or read are not worth much.

I actually haven’t watched any presidential debates since 2000, I think, which was also an important election for anybody on the right then, because the Clintons and their minions were on the way out of the White House (or so we hoped; if Al Gore had been elected it probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton regime with the same corrupt and venal cast of characters.)

A lot of us on the right then were desperate to get the Democrats out of the White House but the candidates were not inspiring. Most of us who voted for G.W. Bush did so only because he seemed preferable to the other options. At the time the election seemed all-important because so many of us were just living to see the back of the Clintons and their ilk. Even then, mind you, there was talk of Hillary planning to follow her ”husband” as President, eventually. But none of us could have envisioned the situation that we find ourselves in now, with our country in such dire straits, being overrun by immigration, our economy in a shambles, race conflicts at a possible all-time peak. No one could imagine that things could get so bad, so fast. It is dizzying, in retrospect, to ponder how far we’ve fallen.

But again, the younger people among us have no memory of the days of the Clinton scandals and all the corruption and deception which marked those years. If the younger generations know anything about the Clinton years they may know about the ‘sex scandals’, ‘Zippergate’, and so on. They may not have heard of Chinagate, Whitewater, the Mena, Arkansas drug-running allegations, the ‘tainted blood’ scandal which had to do with Arkansas prison inmates (on Bill Clinton’s watch as governor) donating tainted blood to Canada, etc. And what about the White House travel office scandal. Then there was the Arkancides, and let’s not leave out Waco, and the OKC bombing. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We then thought that our country had reached a nadir in politics, and that things could not be worse than what we had seen under the Clintons. Yes, we thought the 2000 election was very important, and I remember how frustrating and angering it was that the Democrats managed to contrive a way to contest the election when Bush was declared the winner.

Some may wonder why so many of us were ‘fooled’ by G.W. Bush but the thing is, we thought he was a prince compared to the Clintons, or Al Gore. And the ‘prince’ we elected turned out to be a frog, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if whoever pre-selects our candidates purposely chooses the worst possible candidate on one side to ensure that the other one is elected.

When G.W. Bush started showing his true, globalist/neocon colors early in his first term, I remember on an online forum I used to frequent, quoting from Scripture  “Put not your trust in princes.” Did I catch flak for saying that! I’d uttered blasphemy and treason, as Bush was still above criticism among average Republicans. So I was disaffected with Bush very early on, and left the GOP fold to ultimately find myself where I am now. Wherever that is; on the right side, I hope.

The recent terror attacks

Posted on by | 2 Comments

It’s been my pattern generally to blog about the various terror attacks in our country and in Europe. It appears that quite a few bloggers are writing about the recent spate of attacks in New York and New Jersey, while I’ve been silent on that, while in the past it was the other way around.

The fact is, I seem to find little to say as these things become frequent. Not long ago some French official arrogantly told his countrymen that they would just have to ‘get used to’ the acts of terror. And sadly I think it’s easy to become hardened and blase about these things, horrible though they may be. Ever since 9/11 and the ensuing acts of violence against us, there has been talk of how this state of  things would become ‘the new normal’, and we would just adapt to it, ceasing to be troubled or outraged, unable to even feel reasonable fear.

I certainly haven’t become callous about this state of things. I do know people in the areas which were hit by the recent bombings, both in northern New Jersey and in Manhattan, Chelsea to be precise. I know people who knew relatives of 9/11 victims.

It is hard to find anything new to say about these things, something that has not been said hundreds of times before by me and by numerous others. We can wryly observe how the Lying Press rolls out the cliche stories with headlines like ‘Local Muslims fear backlash.‘ And they never disappoint, these media whores: there was an article from the Minnesota press titled something like ‘Local Somali community fears backlash.‘

All they do is change a few names and dates and they just use the well-worn template for these insulting stories — insulting in that they imply that American White Christians are bloodthirsty, violent people who attack innocents at every opportunity, and that Moslems are helpless, blameless victims. Lying Press, Luegenpresse, what an apt term.

For the moment I seem to be burnt out on writing about the terrorism/open borders syndrome, because there is nobody in positions of power who will care or heed us at all.

9/11: Fifteen years on

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I remember 9/11/2001 vividly, as do all of us who were old enough to realize the import of what happened then.

Who ever would have imagined, looking back to that day, that fifteen years later we would have a much larger Moslem population in the aftermath of that horrible attack on our country?

In the years since 9/11/2001, the whole subject of the destruction of the ‘Twin Towers’ of the World Trade Center has become very controversial, thanks to the fact that there is now a sizeable percentage of people who reject the official version of what happened that day. Those who believe the official version are often reviled as fools and dupes, as ‘patriotards’. But those who reject all the details of the official story disagree amongst themselves as to just what did happen, and who was responsible.

I don’t want to dive into that controversy today, on this fifteenth anniversary of that horrible day. Suffice it to say that I’ve become something of an agnostic about what happened, and about who was ultimately responsible. I don’t have my own theories of what happened; I am no expert. I am not an engineer, or in any  way qualified to argue about whether the tower could collapse from the heat of the fires caused by burning jet fuel. Few of us are qualified to do that, and we have to rely on conflicting opinions of those who are experts.

The most I can say is that it seems as though the event was at least allowed to happen, just as Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen.

Beyond that, it seems to me to be futile to try to theorize about the details of what happened. I think it seems obvious that we will never know for sure.

And above all, I think it fitting that we take some time to remember the 3,000 or so people who were killed on that day. On the five year anniversary, during my first year as a blogger in 2006, some 2,996 volunteer bloggers each wrote tributes to one victim of the attacks. I was assigned to write a tribute for a couple who were on one of the planes out of Boston. Doing that simple act somewhat personalized things for me; learning something of the people I was assigned to memorialize made them real to me, more than just a statistic.

We do know, if we know nothing else, that thousands of our fellow Americans were needlessly killed on that day, and we know, sadly, that their deaths were preventable, avoidable. And we know how those many deaths could have been prevented. But “our” government refused to take the obvious measures to prevent the attacks and the deaths, and they still refuse to do what they should and must do. Instead they choose to knowingly increase the odds of another such attack sooner or later. It’s only God’s grace that has kept another such attack from happening so far. But for how long?

May those lost on 9/11/01  rest in peace and may God continue to have mercy on us.

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Posted on by | 3 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.