…the numbers and concentrations of Mexicans in America are such that before long they will be able to tell Eurowhites to screw off, and form their own society in the Southwest. If that happens, so much for the Union. They know that in 1848 the US stole half of Mexico, specifically those states in which Mexicans are marching toward a majority. (Blowback, do we call it?) Americans, who typically have never heard of that invasion, can say, “Get over it.” Good luck. Young Mexican males, some anyway, are saying things like “We will be the majority. We will rule.”
Actually, that probably wouldn’t be much of a social change here in Texas–especially in South and Far West Texas. Anglos and Hispanics have been co-existing from the beginning. (In fact, the roster at the Alamo includes a large number of Hispanic names.) –so much so that we have our own unique culture (including language and music) that we refer to as “Tejano.”
And we have other things in common too. For example, just like the Mexicans and American Indians, the Yankee Imperialists took us Southerners’ land (and independence) with military force too.
And besides all of that, just about anything would beat our current Yankee Occupiers. So there might call for dancing in the streets. — jtl, 419
by Fred Reed via Fred on Everything
If you want to see why Congress is a zoo, check this. Guam is going to tip over.
A few thoughts for Americans (justifiably) upset by the influx of illegal Mexicans:
First, they come because you invite them. In effect you say, “Diego, don’t you cross that river. If you do, and we catch you, we’ll just put you back across the border and you can try again, perhaps the same night. When you make it across, which is easy, we’ll give you a good job and, depending on where you are, a driver’s license, schools for your kids, welfare, food stamps, and medical care. Any children you have will be US citizens and, as we all know, sooner or later you will have amnesty Now, don’t cross that river, you hear?.”
Second, they come because you guys changed the immigration laws. Mexico didn’t change your laws. The illegals didn’t change your laws. You did.
Third, you let them stay. You are not deporting them. You encouraged them to come and, when they did, you let them stay, and now you complain that they came and stayed. How sensible.
Fourth, you grouse that Latinos take American jobs. They do not. It is probable that no Latino has ever taken an American’s job. How would he do it? Point a pistol at the gringo’s head and say, “Give me that shovel or I’ll blow you into gruel”?
In fact conservative, noisily patriotic American businessmen give them American jobs. Businessmen know they are doing it. After all, Mexicans are easy to recognize. They are brownish and speak Spanish. These are the same conservative, patriotic etc. who off-whored (that was a typo, but accurate so I’ll leave it) other American jobs to China. They are the same ones who import programmers from India. My country tis of thee….
Fifth, Americans don’t want the jobs that Latinos do. If a young man from El Salvador can come all the way from Central America to harvest tobacco in North Carolina or work in restaurants in Washington, so could an unemployed “teen” from Detroit or Chicago. They don’t, which leaves the jobs to…yes!…Latinos.
Sixth, the federal government is complicit. Obama does all he can to further immigration. Mexicans didn’t elect Obama. You did.
The feds know where the illegals are: You can’t hide an entire agricultural work-force, or construction sites and meat-packing plants manned almost entirely by obvious foreigners. How many Mexicans do you think can go unnoticed in a small Midwestern town?
Do you think immigration a bad thing, mis amigos? You did it to yourselves. And you are still doing it.
Seventh, all the grrr-bow-wow-woof about a border fence is silly. It isn’t going to happen. Republicans will make appropriate noises, but the businessmen who desperately want Mexican labor are Republicans.
Eighth, methinks amnesty is a foregone conclusion. The current racially-obsessed administration may get it through soon, in bits and chunks perhaps. De facto amnesty is still amnesty. A Republican administration may block it for another eight years (while leaving the illegals in place to work). Yet the illegals are not going to go away, and Latino political power will grow.
Ninth, there will be serious bad blood between black and brown. It is beginning. Latinos already are more numerous than blacks, and become more so daily. The two compete in the same strata of society, and do not like each other. Blacks now have immense political power, but numbers eventually tell.
Further, Latinos seem well on the way to becoming absolute majorities in four states: California (sometimes referred to as North Mexico), Arizona, Texas, and the appropriately named New Mexico, . Think about that.
Tenth, there is grave danger that the newcomers will be corrupted by the American welfare state. Mexicans at least arrive with a strong work ethic. They take any job they can get and maybe a couple of others on the side. When have you seen fifteen members of any other ethnic group waiting outside a Seven-Eleven at five in the morning hoping for work?
But if they find that they can go on the dole and get things for free, they will. Nobody who doesn’t have to will shovel asphalt under a hot sun or stand in two inches of blood in a slaughterhouse ten hours a day. Would you? They seem to be beginning to demand things on grounds of historical mistreatment. Where have we heard this before? The economy probably cannot stand another large dependent class.
Eleventh, the absolutely crucial question is whether they will assimilate, or at least co-exist, or become another self-aware anti-white group. The intense hostility of nativist whites drives them toward confrontation.
How assimilable are Latinos? It is hard to tell. Much depends on the country of origin I think. I can speak with any degree of knowledge only of Mexicans.
They, the majority of the immigrants, are sort of half European genetically, for what that’s worth, Christian, and speak a European language. In Mexico itself, they maintain a mostly modern society functioning at perhaps seventy-five percent of the declining American norm. Call it sixty, or eighty if you will. How do you measure? But it is clearly, if certainly trailingly, in the European mold of technology, semi-democracy, and ascent into the middle class. Their intellectual tradition—for example, the works of such men as Octavio Paz, Carlos Fuentes, and Alejandro Colunga—are within the European framework, though with a Mexican flavor.
On the negative side, those going to the United States are mostly from the lower half of Mexican society. Though not evil people (crime is low in the villages) they are not ready for American society. While illiteracy is not as common as imagined by gringos, literacy in Mexico is not the same as literacy in Finland. And it is people with a fourth-grade education, not the middle class, who swim the river.
If you want a straightforward idea of how emigration to the US actually works, I suggest Crossing Over: A Mexican Family on the Migrant Trail by Ruben Martinez.
Twelfth, the numbers and concentrations of Mexicans in America are such that before long they will be able to tell Eurowhites to screw off, and form their own society in the Southwest. If that happens, so much for the Union. They know that in 1848 the US stole half of Mexico, specifically those states in which Mexicans are marching toward a majority. (Blowback, do we call it?) Americans, who typically have never heard of that invasion, can say, “Get over it.” Good luck. Young Mexican males, some anyway, are saying things like “We will be the majority. We will rule.”
Monument in Guadalajara to Los Niños Heroes, young cadets who died fighting the Americans in the Mexican-American War, in which America annexed the Southwest. There are at least hundreds of Niños Heroes Streets all over Mexico. This explains why Mexicans have little sympathy for complaints that they are illegally entering American territory. They don’t think it is American territory. Payback’s a bitch.
Having become a voting majority in the Southwest, they could choose, piecemeal or all at once, to ignore the central government. Then what? Do you send the Marines to conquer California?
All of this results from American policy. You buttered your bread, a curmudgeon might say. Now lie in it.
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.