I'm not directly concerned by this one, but you may be... Long, needs to be p.49-ed.
By Lawrence Auster
The Mexican invasion of the United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities. It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our countrya project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican society.
It is, in other words, war. War does not have to consist of armed conflict. War can consist of any hostile course of action undertaken by one country to weaken, harm, and dominate another country. Mexico is waging war on the U.S. through mass immigration illegal and legal, through the assertion of Mexican national claims over the U.S., and through the subversion of its laws and sovereignty, all having the common end of bringing the southwestern part of the U.S. under the control of the expanding Mexican nation, and of increasing Mexicos political and cultural influence over the U.S. as a whole.
Again, just annex the whole bloody place. Make them a Commonwealth like Puerto Rico with mandatory plebiscites every 10 years to placate the chauvinists. Integrate them to the dollar and vigorous purging of corrupt officials and bureaucrats, champion the civil rights of the lower class against the entrenched neo-autocrats and land[grabbers]owners, clear the Constitution of its xenophobic obstructions to foreign investment, etc. You start by propagandizing the media with the benefits of union versus the status quo of double digit unemployment, rife corruption, and squandering of Mexicos resources to enrich the old established family systems. The very reasons that millions of your brothers trek north can be there with you and your family and children. Opportunity not oppression.
Watch the attitude of the entrenched powerholders when that message arrives on the scene.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/18/2006 13:19 Comments ||
You all may not see it, but living in Phoenix, I've noticed that the Mexicans who have lived here any length of time are integrating at a very accelerated clip. Normally it takes three generations, but in this good economy, they are Americanizing seemingly overnight.
First generation illegals are earning enough to buy a small house, and their children are pushed right into public school. Unlike other waves of immigrants, that have a "ghetto-crime-mafia" phase, a lot of the Mexicans are skipping that part entirely. If they enter the US over the age of 10, they are first generation. Under 10, and they grow up American.
Just today, there was a funny local news item about re-activating the moribund MeCha. But there was quick agreement that it would NOT be radical, or protest, or make any trouble at all, as it had in the past. Instead they were hoping that they could use it, I quote, "to help network".
We're talking from business, here. They were also quick to poo-poo the entire "Aztlan" thing. Not interested.
Yeah the great irony in this piece is why a citizen fleeing a failing state, whose corruption and endemic disregard for Life or liberty, would flee to another state and than want to install the previous state over his adopted home! Its illogical and this long piece is in fact the wishfull thinking of the mexican elites. We should adopt a plan that reverses these trends by suggesting the border states of Mexico might best be served for application into the greater US, whereby the tax base of the mexican myth makers would further be eroded.
KPS Gill is a Sikh policeman and national hero in India. He was the head of the Punjab police during the khalastani terrorist campaign of the 1980s. His police crushed the Sikh insurgency in what ranks as one of the most effective counterinsurgency operations in history
By KPS Gill
A great deal has been written on the 'cartoon controversy', but it is far from enough. The current storm of orchestrated violence and intimidatory protests across the world is symbolic of a deep and sustained intolerance among Muslims, and of rising levels of tolerance of Muslim intolerance, that jointly undermine the possibility of freedom in large parts of the world.
Crucially, it is precisely this tolerance of intolerance that has allowed vocal and violent radicalised Islamist minorities to silence Muslim majorities and to transform the global image of Islam into the grotesque parody of the faith that the Danish cartoons sought - perhaps indelicately - to reflect.
Offensive though these cartoons may have been - and they were not offensive to at least some Muslims, who saw in them, not an insult to the Prophet or the faith, but rather a critique of the unrelenting violence that has become the defining character of much of the Muslim world - the criminal incitement and calls to 'butcher/kill/behead those who insult Islam' have only reinforced the images the cartoons reflected, "allowing mass hysteria to define Islam's message".
What dishonours Islam more? A few irreverent cartoons? Or the acts of remorseless murder, of relentless violence against people of other faiths, of the intimidation and abuse of all other faiths and communities, which the Islamists - including states adhering to the Islamist ideology, such as Pakistan - routinely engage in? Why, then, does the Muslim world not rise up in rage against these fanatics and political opportunists who are bringing disgrace and disrepute to their faith? Why are the voices of criticism against extremist Islam and Islamist terrorism so muted?
Indeed, why is it that all occasional and invariably qualified criticism of these terrorists is accompanied by vague justifications of the need to 'understand root causes' and the 'hurt' caused to the 'Muslim psyche'? Is the 'Muslim psyche' uniquely susceptible to injury?
Venomous characterisations of Hindus, Jews, Christians and, generally, all kafirs, are the stock-in-trade of the discourse in some Muslim countries, often communicated through official media, such as national television channels. The ideologies of hatred against other faiths are systematically propagated in so many Muslim states - we in India are familiar with the Pakistani case, where school curricula routinely demonise non-Muslims.
And do the words or pictures or caricatures by non-Muslims do more injury to the 'Islamic world' than the hideous acts of terrorism that Islamists have been inflicting on non-Muslims - and, indeed, on so many Muslims - all over the world? Worse, after so many Muslim-majority states have simply wiped out their own minorities, or are, even today, in the process of doing so, these very states go shrieking around about 'hurting the sentiments of minorities' when something is said against Muslims or Islam.
Indeed, 'Islamic' states oppress even their own sectarian minorities - be they non-Wahabbi Sunnis in some cases, or Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, or Sufi, in others - not only through systematic denial of elementary religious rights to these sects, but, as in the case of Pakistan, through state sponsored terrorist movements against such minorities - recall that the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was set up by General Zia-ul-Haq to target Shias in the wake of the Iranian revolution, and continued to enjoy the support of the state under successor regimes, till it got mixed up with the Al Qaeda and anti-US terrorism, and lost its status as a sarkari (state supported) jihadi organisation.
Many 'Islamic' countries have institutionalised this intolerance, outlawing the public practice of any other Faith, and made the possession of any religious icon, other than Muslim, a punishable offence. Non-Muslim minorities live in abject terror of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim countries.
The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no 'spontaneous outburst' of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced.
In Pakistan, the protests and the violence have principally been led by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa - the reincarnation of the purportedly 'banned' Lashkar-e-Toiba - which has flourished under state patronage, and that was cast by the Musharraf administration into a 'leadership' role recently in the relief operations after the earthquake that devastated parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
But the 'cartoon crisis' is not unique. Even while this controversy was raging across the world, Shia minorities were being attacked by Sunni terrorists in Pakistan; in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, a case was registered against the local chapter of the Bible Society of India for the 'grievous crime' of distributing "gas cylinders, three water bottles, audio cassettes and a copy of the New Testament in Urdu" to earthquake victims in a village in Uri.
In Ladakh, riots were engineered between Muslims and Buddhists because some torn pages of the Quran were recovered, leading to allegations of sacrilege. In the Aligarh Muslim University, a young girl was being threatened with collective rape for daring to protest against a diktat against wearing jeans and a T-shirt. These are only a few current and proximate examples of a remorseless oppression over the decades.
Such thuggeries are, of course, not unique to Islam. There are extremist groups drawing dubious 'inspiration' from other faiths who ape such conduct as well, and Valentines Day this year - as in the past few years - attracted the ire and violence of Hindu extremist hooligans. But these remain - fortunately - aberrations in the larger context of conduct among adherents of other faiths. They have increasingly become the dominant form of public articulation in the Muslim community.
There is an American Indian saying: 'it takes an entire village to raise a single child'. Similarly, it takes a very large community, often entire nations, to raise a single suicide bomber. For far too long, extremist Muslim discourse has been tolerated - to the point of incitement to murder - in the belief that acts of terrorism are distinct from such ideologies of hatred. But it is the wide acceptance within large sections of Muslim communities in many countries of these ideologies of hatred that produce the environment within which groups can mobilise, recruit motivate, train and deploy terrorists and suicide bombers.
Muslim liberals have long advocated 'understanding and tolerance' when dealing with Muslim sensibilities, but have seldom been known to aggressively argue for greater 'understanding and tolerance' for other faiths in 'Islamic' countries, where the record of intolerance towards and oppression of religious minorities is utterly revolting. There is a great 'Muslim exceptionalism' at work here.
The 'Muslim world' demands an absolute freedom without limits, but confers no freedom whatsoever, either on other faiths, or on dissent within its own faith. The 'tolerance' advocated by certain passages in the Quran is only something to parade at inter-faith conferences, and constitutes no part of the practice of most Muslim majority states - no doubt with occasional exceptions.
The demand, today, to impose a selective censorship in Europe on speech that is insulting to Muslims - when similar speech against other faiths enjoys full freedom - is an effort by Muslim minorities to impose, through mass violence and intimidation, their belief systems within the larger systems they have come to inhabit.
Europe would be, not only foolish, but suicidal, if it succumbs to this terrorism and coercion to invent new curbs on the media and on the freedom of speech. The democratic world must remain committed to its enlightenment values and ideals, and to the rough-and-tumble of free discourse in the 'marketplace of ideas'. All communal thuggeries, whatever faith they may claim to 'represent', must be brought to an end, and every available means must be bent to this purpose.
Personally, I think, the more fun we make of our own religions, the better it will be for the whole world, and, indeed, for our respective Faiths. I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.
I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.
One of the things that have struck me theses last years is how feeble actually is the muslim faith, if one must at all price forbid any criticism of it, any disrepectful comment, any joke on it, anything.
Not only do muslim have to fight for their god, for he has ennemies (who knew God had ennemies???), but it looks like their belief system may come crashing down at the slightest threat. Such sensitive skin!
Since faith is not interiorized, but rather manifested through obsessive ritualistic behavior, superstitions, public affirmation of submission to the collective credo,... I can only conclude they are very, very afraid of being "proven wrong".
The "proof" of islam is its "superiority" (to conquered people from other religion), I wonder how this "proof" stands the test of Reality(tm), since last time i looked, the islamic civilization is the big underachiever, with no prospect of getting any better, quite the contrary (farewell, oil money!)... unless they can conquer Europe soon, of course, and restart the parasitical process the arab Master Race (islam is a vehicle for arab colonialism, always has been) has enjoyed in the course of centuries.
"One of the things that have struck me these last years is how feeble actually is the muslim faith..."
Heh. Any "god" who simply cannot endure disrespect or rejection by us mere mortals is hardly worthy of worship.
And any "god" who occupies his attention with such trivialities as which direction a person faces when he squats to take a shit (i.e., DO NOT face Mecca), or precisely what order various parts of the body are washed in at the end of each day, or any of the other senseless minutae Allah is allegedly so strict about, is not a "god" at all: he's a neurotic, obsessive-compulsive control freak.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/18/2006 11:56 Comments ||
I think a lot of people have lost their respect for these drooling rioting fools. I refuse to tolerate their intolerance, as most all RBers refuse. It's time to spread that mem- do not bow before these idiots pretending to be thugs. Incidents here need to be front and center. Don't let the Dhimmis hide.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/18/2006 12:35 Comments ||
Since it isn't insults to God that enrage these crew, but insults to Muhammad; can we figure out who is really their god? And if its who I think it is, then this certainly is a feeble faith. . .
Of course not all the Muslims are getting their underwear in a knot about the cartoons. I think there might be some room for a PR campaign offering a distinction between true Muslim and Muhhamadan.
Once had a Morman friend whose I enjoyed talking about differences in our faiths with. Dennis Rodman, american basketball player and attention seeking dufus, made disparaging remarks about mormons. I asked my friend if he was offended and he said " When I was on my mission in Germany I was regularly pelted with stones while I rode my bike. Unless Rodman starts hitting me with rocks, there is not much he can do to shake my faith.
Pretty elegant answer I thought.
His heart is in the right place, but the times, geography and practicality may not be. First of all, NATO is moribund, and remains almost solely in case Russia decides to become pestiferous again, which could still happen.
However, geography dictates that a similar treaty organization, like NATO, would not be a bad idea.
Right now, the Middle East could be poised for a window of opportunity that I had previously mentioned--like Europe was just after WWII. That is, to form regional organizations of several kinds: a "METO", like NATO; and a Middle East Common Market (MECM), intent on evolving into something like the European Union, call it the Middle East Union (MEU).
As in the EU, only true democracies with popular and transparent governments and a willingness for unrestricted trade could be members. And as with the EU, the advantages of doing so would be so great that countries would contort themselves to be able to belong.
Right now, Iraq and Turkey are about on a par as far as their ability to be founding states to such a union. If the two got together to take advantage of the most liberal character of both, they would match France and Germany as nexus countries for a MEU. Smaller countries, such as the UAE and Kuwait, would be irresistably drawn into such a union, and already are showing signs of making some of the changes they would need to make to do so.
Grand enlargements such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, even Syria, Lebanon, etc. would come in phases over decades. Israel might be like Switzerland to the MEU, friendly, but not a member.
Iran, however, is just too dominant in the region to belong, as such. But, if it were to be partitioned into smaller states, with representative governments, things might change.
Like it. But the name would require permanently excluding France. The Canadians would have to work hard to stay in, too.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
02/18/2006 17:18 Comments ||
New American Treaty Organization? Coalition of the
Willing? Make it a free trade zone as well as a mutual defense pact. Include nations that have stood and will stand with us like Britain, Australia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Denmark, Italy, Ukraine, Iraq, et al. Exclude the pathetic Eurolosers like France, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Russia etc.
So, I suppose the question is...what kind of civil trial will we see, or not see, between Cheney and Whittington? Whittington is certainly no stranger to a court room and to civil litigation. Will Cheney pay him off, preemptively? Will they go to court? I would imagine if a guy with a few beers in him shoots you in the face on a hunting trip, how could you turn down that opportunity?
What would Cheney do about the whole secrecy thing then? I mean, this is the guy that sicced Enron on Gray Davis and the state of California to embarrass Davis, trigger the recall and then watched Arnold Schwarzenegger become governor of California. (To this day, perhaps, still the low point in American political life.) Then Cheney covered it up.
Cheney's the guy who told Libby to out Valerie Plame. The rumor I heard is that someone yelled, "Look out! Shooter!" and Cheney thought he said Scooter and fired in that general direction.
Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America's prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions.
Ya' know, I'm really beginning to hate these traitorous clowns.
There goes "Hunt for Red October" - I just can't forget this kind of stuff when I'm watching movies. If I were to watch it again, I wouldn't see Jack the character, I'd see Alec the traitor, and no amount of Sean Connery would change that. *Sigh.*
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/18/2006 11:11 Comments ||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.