Thing is, the Scottish people, who still make up 95% of Scotland's population, are white, so without a genocide of the Scottish people, Scotland will go on being populated by white people. But then genocide of the Scottish people is apparently what some migrants want.
Related:
Once You Let the Alien In, He'll Seek to Take Control
It's really not the same situation as in the US up to the mid-60s. The victims of inequality were mainly native Americans or blacks. The natives were already here, and as a matter of fact the Europeans were the immigrants who insisted on taking control. (So that supports your thesis but also modifies it somehow.) The blacks were brought involuntarily. (I don't think there are many exceptions to that, but I could be wrong.) Then, they were granted citizenship, and this citizenship explicitly promised equality. Citizens of the US could point to any signs of inequality as a violation of their rights as citizens and a breaking of a promise.
ReplyDeleteIt does occur to me if this man is a citizen of Scotland, he has grounds for pointing out his race is being treated unequally. Therefore it isn't just a matter of immigration policy but also of the granting of citizenship to immigrants.
In the US the policies of granting citizenship (and allowing immigration) were modified in a way which has led up to the problems we're now seeing. Yet I have not heard serious debate about reversing those policies, or intelligently coming up with new ones which better treat our contemporary situation. That makes me angry. It is in this context I scoff at Trump and his damned wall. That is a gesture he's making, a bone he is throwing, to a certain part of his constituency which probably really is racist. And is definitely stupid because they never notice it is just a bone they're being tossed.
It is actually not hard to legally get into the US and become a citizen. You'd never know that, though. A lot of the illegal immigration coming in from the south is due to desperation. They can't get in legally because they face time and other constraints faced by the desperate. We could accommodate these people as refugees temporarily and do much more to right the wrongs in their home country and allow them to return there. I don't really believe people leave their homes that way voluntarily. Women don't give up their children like that unless they believe it is the child's only hope for survival. I truly believe if they had the choice they'd stay at home and keep the child. And that they would return willingly if it was feasible.
My name isn't Yusef. It is Tim Thomas. I have used the Yusef nom de plume online since March 2001. I keep it in part because I am interested in the reactions it draws. Just the other day I was defending a Trump supporter online. The support was appreciated by her, until I dared criticize him as well. Then she reacted with a racial epithet. I don't know how many, but some of Trump's supporters are vile racists.
Yusef,
DeleteWhat you say sounds liberal but it just don't fly.
When the Rustbelt years were digging the white working class a big hole, was there any relief for their }"desperation"? I can speak from experience, NO.
In fact, if you had plates on your vehicle from Michigan or Pennsylvania and went seeking work in Colorado or New Mexico, they explicitly buzzed and hassled you till you left their state. In Colorado they even halted out-of-staters at rest stops and if you could not prove you had an employment interview in the works or a vacation address to go to, you were told to finish you rest and move right along... till you were out of Colorado.
As an industrial fellow I heard stories like this throughout the 80s, the exact time the "sunbelt" states were hiring the most Mexicans. If there are white racists leftover from that era, there is a fairly cogent reason for it.
The one point Peter Brimelow made that stuck with me in his 90s book ALIEN NATION was when he called embassies and missions of non-American nations in the USA, asking for information on how to migrate to India, Malaysia, etc. They laughed at him. And flatly told him they don't take immigrants, so STFU.
Brimelow's point, simple and logical, is turnabout is the only way to look at all this. Can we imagine a Irish white guy in India or Pakistan making the same sort of speech? How about Somalia? Namibia? Yeah, I can really see our hypothetical Irishman saying complaining that there's "Only black faces" in Uganda.
Nations exist because people want to feel at home. When it stops being home for the majority, the nation collapses. Sam Francis made that point a quarter century ago. It's still true.
"The natives were already here, and as a matter of fact the Europeans were the immigrants who insisted on taking control." Yes. That is my chief point. The Europeans supplanted the natives wherever they could, but are forcefully told by the state to ignore it when the same is being done to them. The implication is clear: we are ruled by traitors.
Delete"Nations exist because people want to feel at home." It's more than feeling at home. It's a matter of not being positively discriminated against by the alien immigrant, as that pseudo Scotchman evidently wants to see happen in Scotland: No more bluidy white-faced Scots running Scotland. It's time for the colored immigrant, the Muslim and the practitioners of Voodoo.
Delete"Yeah, I can really see our hypothetical Irishman saying complaining that there's "Only black faces" in Uganda."
ReplyDeleteOur immigration "policy" is deeply flawed. Then why doesn't it get changed? I do not believe it has majority support among the working classes. If it did, Trump wouldn't be President of the United States.
I don't see turning to racism as the answer. It may be understandable under the circumstances. I don't think so because I think it betrays some underlying nastiness in an individual which I will never tolerate. But more to the point, it never solves anything and it makes matters worse. It is divisive, and if the immigration policies are truly going to get reformed or replaced, this would require concerted organization and unity among the man on the street.
I don't think the average man on the street is a racist, either. I think this charge has been used to help block the truthful expression of what the average man on the street is seeking, needing, and wanting. It isn't action against these people based on their race or nationality. It is to protect his economic interests and quality of life interests he is concerned. I may have said some things making you think I thought the working class is racist. I don't think it is to a large extent, but whatever extent it is, is harmful to its economic and quality of life interests.
I'm always concerned when people try to compare what should be happening in the US with something which shouldn't be happening elsewhere. Especially a country such as Uganda. It just isn't an apt comparison. The US is a democracy, or should be, with a Constitution and a strong judicial and executive apparatus, resting upon the key concept of equality. (I'm not just making that up.) It has been an advanced industrial nation, a world power, and one of the most affluent societies the world has ever known. What is Uganda? I'm not quite sure how it is going there now, but in the past it has been ruled by merciless brutal tyrants who were above any law, whether there was some semblance of the law. It had been a colony until much more recently than the US. And in my opinion the scale of colonial brutality in Africa doesn't compare to any mistreatment British America received. It could be, though, Uganda's immigration policies are more sound than US ones. Ours are not sensible. I agree with you 100% there. If the Irish guy could contribute something valuable and important to Ugandan society and they refused him migration, that would be stupid. On the other hand, if he just wants to become Ugandan because of a wild hair, and there is a danger he'd become a burden on society, there is every reason to deny his entry. That the US has operated in an opposite manner is a stupidity I find unfathomable. (Except I think I know what's really happening, and from the perpetrators POV it is likely cunningly smart.)
But as to people who have already immigrated legally, already become full citizens, we're stuck with them and if they want to make their bid to become powerful, they have every much right to do so as you or I. If this guy above garners popular support for what he advocates, he is in and he deserves to be in. That's the way we do things and that's alright by me. In fact if his idea is to make our homes not feel like homes to us and he has majority support in an uncorrupted election, it means nothing, really, we don't like it. More people do than don't-- that's the deal we operate with.
"Our immigration "policy" is deeply flawed. Then why doesn't it get changed?" The answer, in a word, treason. The destruction of white America is the elite objective. By destroying the nation, they will destroy the nation state, and by destroying the nation state they will be free to bring on the global system of corporate control, by way of bribed officials at the globalist institutions such as the WTO, the UN, the World Bank, etc.
DeleteAbsolutely dead on.
DeleteTwits like the one above are only effects. Not causes. They're pawns in someone else's game.
"They're pawns in someone else's game."
DeleteAgree.
I don't think a majority of people like the card that guy is playing. If all he's got is "there need to be more coloreds" and the people he is running against are talking about what matters to people, he is toast. So I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteHi ggreat reading your post
ReplyDeleteThank you. CS
Delete