The Crossroads

Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Marry Mexico

2007-03-05T23:17:00.000-08:00

I have been always been an advocate of Vdare. Occasionally, I get out of synch, and have to go back and read their archives. I discovered an article going all the way back to Jan 17, 2007, in which Brenda Walker makes a compelling case against Mexico and Mexicans.

Top Ten Reasons Why the US Should Not Marry Mexico
January 17, 2007
By Brenda Walker

Mexichurian President George W Bush is determined to cement the North American Union as much as possible during his term. Incredibly, he aims at a European Union-type political merger between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, including replacing the dollar with a Euro-style currency called the Amero and rearranging trade patterns to favor Mexico. Central to the deal is the uncontrolled movement of people throughout North America.

This EU mega-state concept has actually been losing support among average folk in Europe. For example, the Dutch and French voted down the EU Constitution in 2005. Doesn’t matter to globalist elites, though. They push forward with expanding bureaucracy slanted toward one-worldish interests in the corporate style.

This is not a joke. The "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP) is not a nutty conspiracy theory, but is a genuine government policy explained in White House documents and a Commerce Department website. While prettied up in trade language, the intent of the SPP is clearly continent-wide political unification and the dissolution of American national sovereignty. Business elites believe that borders and laws are an annoying impediment to commerce. They have decided the nation-state must go.

With that unhappy possible future in mind, perhaps we should consider the intended spouse in Bush's shotgun marriage. You wouldn't marry your next door neighbor just because of that person's convenient location. Why then are Washington elites working to dissolve sovereignty in order to unify with a third-world sewer best known for corruption, violence, poverty, sexism and apathy toward education?

The only answer is Mexico's enormous supply of cheap, exploitable labor, which business wants to fuel the neo-slave economy of its dreams. But the cultures of the peoples of Mexico and the United States are deeply incompatible, and have a history of bad blood going back centuries.

Below, my list of cultural reasons why the United States should avoid further entanglement with Mexico. Please remember that these are societal averages only; there are many admirable Mexican citizens—particularly those living in Mexico. Also, ten should be understood as an arbitrary number. It does not imply that there are only ten reasons to shun a Mexican merger.

The reasons listed by Walker are primarily because of Mexican character defects of a national and personal nature. She doesn't even go into why having 30-50 million illegal aliens is a nightmare for a US already burdened by internal strife and corrupt politicians. But you know about that. I have personally known quite a few Mexicans who would probably (privately) agree with her assessment of the national character, while mildly objecting to her characterization of their personal character. But these Mexicans I have known are the ones with Platinum Credit Cards. I do know that there tend to be two types of Mexicans: the ones who have money and power, and the ones currently teaming over the border at the sound of "AMNESTY'.

So why are corrupt politicians getting away with unleashing this nightmare upon us?
Power. They have it and we don't.
The ones on our side of the border and the ones on the other side. It's that "Corporate Mentality" thing .
Money. They have it and we don't.
Are there forces in Congress strong enough to put this amnesty issue out of its misery?

Get serious.

Our Shrinking Liberties

2007-03-03T13:56:00.000-08:00

.................................

Our liberties, personal and otherwise are shrinking daily, hourly. Almost anyone in a position of power is working to limit our freedom. And that's not going to change. Politicians are working in concert with the Administrative and Judicial branch, creating laws which have as their goal to restrict our speech, to restrict our freedom to raise our children, to restrict how we think, speak and act. It is the Humanist's dream to deny us the right in short, to act in accord with Judeo-Christian values. And to the extent that many of us were not brought up at least to try to follow the 10 Commandments, they have already largely succeeded. The Cultural Relativists are laying down a totalitarian vise which no one in America, let alone the world can escape. The Cultural Relativist's aim to put our future in the hands of a few elitists is achieved by creating and spreading notions of moral doubt and confusion. Since the sixties, obedience to impulse has been encouraged in order to dilute the concept of right action. Irony of ironies, we have become more 'tolerant' only to end up losing our freedom. The notion of tolerance, as defined by 'do your own thing', Herbert Marcuse (Eros of Civilization) - is that anything coming from the Left is good, anything coming from the Right is bad and not to be tolerated.

In our K-12 school system the 'No Child Left Behind' policy of the Bush Administration has been diabolical and disastrous. They first set up impossible goals to achieve test results, then they never got around to provide funding, while at the same time holding a sword over the heads of school administrators. This leaves them no choice but to try to teach students how to take a test, leaving aside just about everything of importance in a child's education. Hell, even the NEA is opposed to it (!) and considers it an unworkable way to blackmail school administrators.

In our universities there have been unprecedented pressures brought to bear upon college students to kowtow to the Leftist ideology, and to buck the saddle is to risk being labeled 'racist' or 'homophobe', Islamophobe, etc. Students are forced make ideological decisions before all the facts are considered. To be even once so labeled means one can no longer be a member of the cultural elite. There is no option for redemption save abject, debasing apologies to the offended parties. Apologies which almost certainly will not be accepted, because by your act of insensitivity, you will have shown yourself to not be one of them, ergo, a piece of crap. The Left's war on academic freedom is relentless, and the message is clear: (If you are white) NEVER cross the line of offending the Multicultural Victim's Feelings. It is simply inexcusable. To show them the error of their ways, anyone who dare cross that line in the name of freedom of speech, there is a 'sensitivity' re-education class. It's not optional.

The Nanny State, engorging its bloated self on the fruits of labor (by unfair taxation) of the People, daily grows bigger, more powerful, less prone to self-correct. We are rendered powerless by a taxation system administered by a corrupt system of government, and yet many believe it to be just. It is not just. America's citizens are being reduced to living in a Welfare State, or in the ever-growing prisons. This is as the elites would have it. A populace kept at the edge of existence is easy to dominate and control. The power elites don't want people properly educated. They can get people with the skills needed to implement their designs. Just import them. Why raise up a nation of men and women able to think for themselves? Too hard to control.

The gods must think we're crazy.

As an example, currently, there is a concerted attack on freedom of expression in the form of 'Hate laws'. Rep. Keith Ellison, in concert with CAIR and the ACLU, will in the coming months and years, do his best to make it a crime to confront the radical Islamists as they begin to insinuate themselves in a position to realize their dream of an Islamic Caliphate in the world. By exploiting our legislative and justice system and using the Leftist tool of 'Multiculturalism', they will try to tie the hands of students, parents and right-minded Americans, making it impossible to stop them by legal means. By whatever means, they must be stopped. Frankly, as important as it is to fight the Islamists, I consider the threat of an Islamic Caliphate to be of secondary importance to that of stopping the take-over of our government by the governing elite. Government has taken on a new persona in the past 30 years, which is becoming a mouthpiece for the 'New World Order' which President George Bush, and his father before him have laid out, and which Orwell and Huxley and CS Lewis The Abolition of Man warned us about way back when.

Illegal immigrants have been allowed to swarm our land because the plan is to eliminate the border anyway.

Time to turn off the TV, folks. There's work to be done.
................................................

The Next Conservatism

2007-02-28T12:27:00.000-08:00

The Grand Strategic Context, Part II
By William S. Lind
March 6, 2006

During the Cold War American conservatives faced an easy choice. On one side was the United States and the free world, which represented good. On the other was the Soviet Union and world communism, which was evil.

The next conservatism must deal with a more complex grand strategic context. On the one hand are the forces of the Fourth Generation, which I described in the previous column; al Qaeda is an example. We easily recognize these forces as evil.

But on the other hand we find not a force for good but another evil, Brave New World. And while the old United States did represent good during the Cold War, the new, post-1960s America, or at least its elites, is the global leader of Brave New World.

When I was in high school, which was sometime ago, students everywhere had to read two books that laid out two alternate totalitarian futures. One was 1984, which described a future similar to Stalin's Soviet Union. The other book was a short novel written in the 1930s by a British author, Aldous Huxley, titled Brave New World. I suspect few public school students read Brave New World today; it might lead them to question the direction in which America is heading, led in part by the public schools.

Brave New World presents a totalitarian future where the first rule is, "you must be happy." Happiness comes from a combination of materialism, consumerism, electronic entertainment and sexual pleasure. The world is ruled by a global government, which controls all culture and subjects people everywhere to endless psychological conditioning. Does this begin to sound familiar? It should because America has already gone far down the road Huxley envisioned.

Even reproductive processes are becoming much as Huxley foresaw them; in his Brave New World, children were born from bottles in laboratories, not mothers, and were genetically conditioned for their later roles in life. Sex was purely recreational, and everything was permitted except long-term relationships such as marriage. Soon enough, genetic engineering (one of the technologies of which the next conservatism should be extremely skeptical) will give us the genetic conditioning Huxley foresaw to add to the already ever-present psychological conditioning. Together, they will create an inescapable prison for the human will. At that point, we will face what C.S. Lewis called the Abolition of Man.

America's elites have added to Brave New World one element Huxley did not foresee, the ideology of cultural Marxism, otherwise known as Political Correctness. Cultural Marxism has as its goal the destruction of the Christian religion and Western culture, two obvious obstacles to Brave New World's total control over the human will. Cultural Marxism now holds sway over all Western elites; to deny or contravene it (without groveling apologies) is to cease immediately to be a member of the elite. Ordinary people are psychologically conditioned, especially through television and the public schools, to be unable to contravene cultural Marxism. Its marriage with Brave New World is mutually convenient.

Just as Brave New World is correct when it says that the forces of the Fourth Generation represent a return to the Dark Ages, so the Fourth Generation is correct when it calls Brave New World Satanic. Yet as I said at the outset, the collision between these two vast forces will define the grand strategic context in the 21st Century.

How should the next conservatism deal with this situation? Choosing the lesser of two evils is not an option because if there is one thing Brave New World and the Fourth Generation agree on it is that "Western culture's got to go." Western culture defines who we are as conservatives.

Rather, we must do what seems impossible. We must rally the remnants of the Christian West to fight the Fourth Generation and Brave New World simultaneously. The next conservatism must strive to keep the old faith, the old morals and old ways of living alive as, hopefully, Brave New World and the Fourth Generation destroy each other. Will that be possible? With God, all things are possible. But it certainly is not going to be easy.

William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation.

Goal: Restore The American Republic

2007-02-27T22:59:00.000-08:00

The man unwilling to fight for freedom doesn't deserve it.
- Ben Franklin

The Next Conservatism #32:
The Grand Strategic Context, Part 1

By William S. Lind
February 27, 2006

One of the topics the next conservatism will have to address with some urgency is grand strategy. Grand strategy is a country's overarching idea about how it intends to relate to the rest of the world.

Currently, America's grand strategy is to press "democratic capitalism" on the rest of the world, by force of arms if necessary. Not only has that grand strategy led us into a morass in Iraq, it has greatly undermined our moral standing almost everywhere. As Russell Kirk wrote, the surest way to make someone your enemy is to tell him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.

By the end of the Bush administration, if not before, it will be clear that America needs a different grand strategy. The next conservatism will have to offer one. But before we can offer a new grand strategy, we need to understand the grand strategic context - the environment with which our grand strategy will have to deal. Paul Weyrich asked me to lay out the 21st Century grand strategic context as I see it in this and the next column.

In my view, the 21st Century will be shaped on the grand strategic level by a collision between two vast forces, the Fourth Generation of Modern War and Brave New World. The forces of the Fourth Generation are non-state elements such as al Qaeda and other "terrorists," as well as gangs, waves of immigrants from other cultures and anyone else who is willing to fight for something other than a state.

As I said in an earlier column, conservatives have to grasp that with the advent of Fourth Generation war, we are facing the greatest change in armed conflict since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. That treaty gave states a monopoly on war. The Fourth Generation is marked by the state's loss of that monopoly and the rise of non-state elements that can fight states and win.

At the heart of this vast change is not a military but a political, social and moral development, a crisis of legitimacy of the state itself. All over the world, including in America, people are withdrawing their primary loyalty from the state and giving it to a wide variety of other things, of many different kinds: to families, clans, tribes, ethnic groups and races, gangs, ideologies, "causes" such as environmentalism and "animal rights," religions and so on. Many people who would never fight for their state are willing, even eager, to fight for their new primary loyalty.

The result of this shift in loyalties will be a 21st Century marked not by "the end of history" that some advocates of American empire have projected, but the return of history, specifically the return of a world similar to Europe between the end of the Middle Ages and the rise of the state. As the state recedes and in some places disappears, life will become nasty, brutish and short. We already see this in places such as West Africa, Somalia, and Iraq, where the state has either vanished or become a fiction, merely a name adopted by one of the many gangs of armed robbers. Where the forces of the Fourth Generation prevail, the Dark Ages will return, and they may once again last for centuries.

The threat represented by the Fourth Generation is easy for most conservatives, and most Americans, to grasp. We are told that we are fighting just that threat in Iraq. In reality, it was our invasion that destroyed the Iraqi state and turned Mesopotamia into a happy hunting ground for a variety of Islamic, non-state, Fourth Generation elements.

Here we see the point where the grand strategic context grows difficult for American conservatives. We want to accept the Washington Establishment's assurances that the counter to the Fourth Generation is more American troops, more American intervention abroad to promote "democratic capitalism."

But that is not the reality. The reality is that the Fourth Generation's main enemy is not the America that most conservatives identify with, a culturally Christian American republic, but another force just a sinister as the Fourth Generation itself: Brave New World. In my next column, I will address that aspect of the grand strategic context.

William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation.