Wednesday, January 07, 2004

 
Beating Raoul*

Having a really bad day: Yesterday the 9 year old deleted the beginning of "Dances With Wizards" (See *Commentary*'s Grenier(Indian Love Call-March 1991), Sioux, L. Frank Baum)and the entirety of a piece on obscenities, oaths, neurosociobiology and The National Lampoon's collected wit of Churchill disappeared with a click on Blogger's "Post & Publish" icon while using the "Draft" mode(big mistake). which I had thought would make loss less, rather than more, likely. Then a great hunk of dental filling sheared away from a molar.
But all have "become insubstantial, reduced by a wind" or a er, "Santa Anna," carrying on it Aztec "voices prophesying war" by today's headlines regarding Bush's proposal for most seem to agree is a form of amnesty.(gawd, that wuz awful prose'n poetry-like I said, a bad day)
gonna wrap this up quickly: The Weaseley Clark post focused unfortunately on the H1-B program, which, causing harm to mere millions of techies, is far less harmful than the "program" of doing little about illegal immigration. If John Derbshire's experience is any guide, relatively few techies are from Mexico or other "hispanic" countries. And Hispanic immigrants are particularly *undesirable.* Is such an assertion racist? No, to deny it is racist, because of the anti-anglo racism of most hispanics. The word "amnesty" has its roots in "amnesia" but Hispanics are *increasing*not decreasing their "memory" of their conquest by Spanish conquistadors and loss of territory to norte americanos. Poor Bush may gain a few per cent of the hispanic vote by granting amnesties, but as noted elswhere by many commentators, he is likely to lose votes overall given that a majority of hispanics will still for Democrats, and as perhaps not noted elswhere(or at least not often I think), the more predominantly anti-anglo immigrants arrive here, the *more* numerous will be their cries of "racism" *regardless of how much pandering is done by Republicans. For quite some time the charge of "racism" is not so much a complaint about mistreatment or powerlessness as it is an asssertion that the maker of said charge is in fact, more powerful than those charged, and that those groups accused by them of racism should have no rights other than to disappear.
Merde! Another hunk of tooth or metal crunched off. Slow learner. Well, at least I didn't support the *first* amnesty either. This is the worst writing that I've done in a long time, but will rehash some Great Wisdom from a previous post(not made on REACTIONARY RAMBLING). A couple of years or so ago VDARE gave some coverage to a lawsuit alleging "genocide" with respect to the massive immigration of recent decades. It linked to a reply from Raoul Contreras(sp?). He asked something like, "Just how are whites being genocided?" -never mind that someone of Contreras' mentality would have no difficulty in seeing "genocide" in a situation wherein some country a Hispanic majority became a hated minority by way of immigration. What is more to the point is that, unlike many North American Indian tribes, whites(and those who should be their allies-that is to say, all decent peoples of any "race" residing anywhere on earth)have not (largely with the exception of vile white racists who are as likely to murder a Sikh or Jew as an illegal invader) chosen to violently resist immigration. To flog this further, someone who decides to resist immigration in the manner of say, the Sioux, would likely be subjected to his personal "genocide." And to gedank along, if say, the Sioux had decided to not violently resist incursions by whites(who, after all, "just wanted a better life")very few would have been killed outright.-though they would have still lost the west and much of their culture. And, of course, Indian tribes waged genocidal wars against each other. Today, few have any problem saluting the courage(if not the savagery)of many Indian tribes, but the opinion that whites should do anything to avoid their fate is rarely heard from our elected Guilty White Fathers.
Finally, it should be noted more often that someone who lives in another country selling us tee-shirts, computer programs, tech support or whatnot is not living *here* utilizing schools, roads, social services, doing crime, screaming at police, voting, screaming "racism," gloating about whites becoming a minority etc. etc. etc.
With respect to East Indian immigrants, my own limited exposure to them suggests that their contributions have likely been positive overall, although one wonders what multicultural propagandizing will or has wrought amongst them. Perhaps Ramesh will give some insights in this manner, and one hopes that they won't be as troubling as those given by J. Derbyshire with respect to some of the Chinese.

*-don't remember much about the movie "Eating Raoul" except that it was a comedy about cannibalism. Also it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the infamous brain gobblers of Matamoros.