White Nationalist Alert
 

Thank God you're on the ball. What could be more threatening than white people showing up at a rally?

White supremacists showing up at our rallies, that would be more threatening.

Are you one of those folks who likes to play Orwellian games with definitions and labels? If I say illegal aliens are you going to insist upon calling them immigrants, too?

I was at the Simi Valley sanctuary church a couple of years ago when neo-Nazis showed up. I could not have been more proud of the old SOS as then, when Old Preach demanded that they leave the protest. Unfortunately, Naui used them to attempt to paint the entire protest as being a white power rally.

Don, if you are that supportive of this organization, don't you think that their board, and their events would better suit you? After all this board is multi-cultural and I would hope would not support any members or supporters of ANY white power group.

We are not multi-cultural here. One Culture; American. We may be multi-racial though.

Agreed. Although I am weak on the notion of our culture being "American". I think we need to be more specific than that.

Our culture is the culture of the United States Citizen. Our culture is the culture of citizenship.

It's true, there are a lot of word games going on. Increasingly I think the idea of being an "American" does not include anything like being a US citizen any more.

Not only is our culture the culture of US citizenship, but we advance the idea of national citizenship for other countries as well and respect their citizenship no matter what their race. Most peoples deserves a country they can call their own that respects the borders of others as well as their own. This is a respectable enough notion that people are willing to lie about their claims to nationalism, just as people lie about claims to citizenship.

I keep saying it...

Brown supremacists need "evidence" of "white bigotry".

All it takes is just one of those nazi goofballs to show up and the media jumps on it when they would otherwise ignore the crowd. The issue of illegal migration morphs into that of racial hatred. Race obsessed "Latino activists" smear border control advocates and paint a picture of "the white man is out to get YOU!" to their target audience.

And politicians who might otherwise be sympathetic take a few more steps back.

Symbolism and words have meaning, whether or not the original intent of symbolism and words is taken out of context and twisted into a new meaning through propaganda.

Brown racists need white racists. It makes their "job" a lot easier when the object of their racial hatred hands them ammunition. Note that a lot of them make their living off of racial enmity. The worst thing that could happen to those hucksters' self interest if everyone liked everyone else.

So, if you don't object to white nationalists hanging around or like to spout out stuff like "cockroach invaders", you just may as well lay your hand on the table and severely beat on it with a hammer for all the good it's going to do you towards the goal of immigration law enforcement.

Just one wet dog makes the whole house stink.

I've been to many rallies and it hasn't mattered if there was all kind of different skin colors. The media would focus on a couple of old white people to paint the picture of racism.

Exactly. So why let brown shirt assholes with swastika armbands give the media something real to focus on rather than "journalists" making it up as they go along?

I'm not slamming you in this post, just some commentary.

American culture does change to some extent as time goes on. 1830's America was not quite the same as 1780's America, just as the early 20th century was not the same as America in the 1950's.

However, there was a continuity of something which came out of the English Civil War (fought on both sides of the Atlantic) which infused itself into a dynamic, classically American essence of American culture. However, that is being chipped away by our education system and instant gratification of short attention spans.

I would agree that we are a nation of citizens rather than a nation of immigrants, but I'm not sure if the definition of culture is that of "citizenship" as opposed to "American".

In this context I am reminded of all those people who join Fraternal organizations not because of any great desire to to be helpfully brotherly or exert oneself towards the purported charitable goals of those organizations, but rather to take benefit of the "economy boozing" to be found in many of those organizations.

So they join up for cheap drinks and spend their time forming cliques and stabbing each other in the back.

It seems that same scenario is what America is all about anymore.

God, did I just depress myself.

I'm going to go have a drink...

The most key point to your assertions is the quotes around evidence.

Evidence? Only the most scant is required, and anything that's missing from substance they'll be more than happy to fill in with sh - - they've made up out of whole cloth.

To the most rabid on the Left, of the type that repeatedly confront or oppose us at our public appearances, here is the "evidence" of our racism - A) We're Caucasians who B) disagree with them. And to any SOS member who does not fall into category "A," be advised that your problem is that you're a house slave/coconut/race traitor/Tom/Tio Taco who is embarrassed by, or in denial of, your heritage.

The point: We will never convince the most rabidly opposed to employment and immigration law enforcement otherwise. Never. The value of your actions and the merits of what you have to say count for nothing. Their minds and hearts are made up. They will accuse us of racism to the bitter end.

Therefore, attempting to "look good" in front of the enemy is practically pointless. It's like trying to keep the extremist Muslims happy by shutting up this would-be Quran burning pastor in Florida. Folks, they hate us already and what we do or don't do won't convince them to love us (outside of maybe killing ourselves)

Just like PAM said, the press is going to interview the old white folks anyway, and somehow, the TV cameras are quite likely to miss the waving Mexican flags and ugly racial invectives being mouthed by the opposition. I've seen it too many times.

Therefore, why do we bother to toss out white supremacists when they try to snake their way into our events? Especially if they're not noticeable.

Because it's the right thing to do. The accusations made about us are not true. We rid ourselves of the bigots in our midst because we're better than the opposition. We don't embrace our worst elements in the same fashion as the Green Party and Socialist folks welcome Brown Berets and Mexica Movement members to their gatherings. We're not with white nationalists because that's not what we're about. Real racism is found among the open borders zealots, not us.

Well said. Another distinction to be made between the anti-illegals and the open borders is that guilt is not a motivator. The white pro-illegals are motivated by a sense of guilt and are afraid of purging the non-white racists. The anti-illegals have nothing to worry about there. To be anti-illegal has no natural relationship with race. Illegal immigrants are not distinguished by race, just the fact that they are here without permission or invitation by citizens. White racists who claim some kind of solidarity with anti-illegals clam up whenever you start talking about white illegal immigrants. They are all for open borders, but for white people between "white" countries only.

A term definition is needed here. I believe in "soft" multi-culturalism". This means that people of various cultures are respected, but never given a superior position. There are different cultures in this country that though "American" have unique characteristics. Hard "multi-culturalism" is the state in which all non-white cultures are given a superior position, and white culture is denigrated and disparaged.

This is true. There is no convincing the terminally rabid.

However, there are those among "Latino" citizens who aren't totally poisoned by "Latino advocates" who benefited from Johnson and Nixon's continuing and greatly accelerated "affirmative action" policies and now loudly pretend forty years later that it's still 1954 in terms of racial equality.

In allegorical terms, you might call them "independents" as compared to "democrats" and "republicans", the swing vote you might say.

Does it make a crap whether we have people around us who confuse them with illegal aliens and are just as rabidly racist as "Latino advocates" are when the press isn't around?

It does.

Oversimplification !
 

Customarily there is an oversimplification to the basic attitudes about immigrants. Dealing with two basic categories. 1. Americans. 2. Foreigners:

AMERICANS:

* The attitudes of Americans towards immigrants covers a wide spectrum. One basic concept is political. The spectrum is from left to right, liberal to conservative. It also encompasses the prevalent political parties, Republican, Democrat, and to lesser degrees, independents, constitutionalists, communists and several other minors.

a). The Americans can be categorized as religious - Churches and Congregations, politicians - Federal and State Senators, Congressmen, Attorneys Generals, US Attorneys, Aldermen, Free Holders, Assemblymen,Law enforcement - Police-Sheriffs, District Attorneys, City, Town, Village officials and the various councils, committees, legislators, Mayors, Business owners, Corporations, domestic and multi-national, farmers, dairy's, tree/plant/flower nursery's,retailers, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels/motels, rental accommodations/rooms/houses construction...................................... .................. ad infinitum.

1) Each of these has a different agenda, a different attitude, a different opinion. Some see only economic exploitation, some see the opportunity to fill pews and collection plates, some have a personal conviction of one sort or another, some see voters, some are anxious to ensure a steady supply of illicit narcotics and addicting substances........................................ ............... ad infinitum.

2) The apparent majority of these that are aware are ready willing and able to aid and abet illegal aliens one way or another and are completely committed to place those desires, convictions and aspirations above the law. Willing to run the risks until caught and prosecuted and not before.

3) There are some in law enforcement and public office that are willing to enforce the laws and some who are not.

FOREIGNERS:

* The foreign immigrants come from 197 countries. The illegal aliens come from the majority of these same countries. The head count has been estimated by some organizations as possibly 1 million per year.

1) Legal foreigners come for many reasons. To work, to marry, for asylum, to rejoin families, for religious freedom, for political freedom.

2) Some of these foreigners join with other foreigners and Americans to form lobbyists, pressure groups, advocates, organizations that have designs of one form or another on the USA, intending to bend it to their models, liking, aspirations by overt and hidden means and methods. Some are political, some are economic and some are terrorists. All try to advance their personal agendas by one means or another, legally or otherwise.

3) Illegal aliens come for various reasons from the majority of these countries. They are separated by DHS, CBP, into two broad categories: Mexicans and OTM's. The Mexicans comprise about 60% of the illegals. Of the balance a majority come from Latin countries in Central and South American and the Caribbean. The balance come from a broad range of countries all over the world and from all continents. Probably the majority come for economic reasons but those reasons are both legal and illegal. Some are already criminals escaping prosecution, pedophiles, human and drug traffickers and smugglers but universally the basic underlying reason is almost always some form of economic gain.

4) Of the illegals and legals, including the Americans, the Mexicans are the most active in fomenting political and economic mayhem in the USA. There are at least 6 basic categories. Some dream of Aztlan, some want to retake the territory, some do not, some aspire to political and economic dominance, some do not. Mexico is implementing the plan CONAPO to inject 25 to 35 million Mexicans into the USA in the next 30 years. It is a form of Germany's territorial expansion Lebensraum *( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum )

By the year 2050 it is projected that minorities will overtake white Americans and become the majority. Rhodesia *( Zimbabwe ) and South Africa are examples of what to expect vis-a-vis black/brown on white. Some of them have already said it !

No, that's ridiculous. In Zimbabwe and South Africa and the rest of Africa too, even the Muslim colonized territories, Africans are the natives and have always outnumbered the colonists. Always. The historic, cultural, economic and political momentum has always been and will forever be in their hands. Their relatively recent struggles with colonizers and their real imperialist sponsors (with the exception of the Dutch South Africans) are of no long term consequence, but only if they can seize the initiative outside of colonial influence.

Illegal immigrants, no matter how they dominate demographically in the United States will ever have any kind of real meaning here, except as they are licensed to have by power holders. They have no cultural roots here and are not really interested in establishing any. The best they can manage or neighborhood facades and cultural adornments. The best representative of who they are will always be where they came from, not where they are at. And to the extent that legal immigrants share their cultures, they will exist here the same way.

At the roots of the United States of America is resistance against colonization. We were born from it and we will shake it off again if we have to. Floods of people dumped here will not be enough to restrain us or dampen our resolve or confound a solution.

CONAPO is a department of the Mexican government, Consejo National de Poblacion - National Population Council.

As I read it, CONAPO has a mission by law to compare social phenomena which affects the whole population (of Mexico), the structure and dynamics of the population and population distribution within Mexico, with the goal of everyone equally enjoying the benefits of economic and social advancement.

I found the CONAPO Adobe document concerning Mexican national statisics and Governmental goals for the period of 2008 - 2012. PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE POBLACION at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/pnp/PNP_2008_2012.pdf

It's about 100 pages, extremely wordy and repetitive, and to completely comprehend it I would have to print it out and study it. However, skimming through it, it seems concerned with about every aspect of Mexican society: population; education; public health; women's rights; reproductive rights; sexually transmitted diseases; employee rights; lots of commentary and opinion concerning migration within, from, to, and through Mexico with all sorts of charts and maps of Mexico and America; Civic participation; the usual harangue concerning "human rights" and allegations of mistreatment of Mexican citizens in America; the social benefits and social costs of immigration to America, including family disruption and loss of domestic labor; and a goal of legalizing the flow of Mexicans into America.

It could be a Spanish language Boxer / Feinstein / Reid / Baca committee document or United Nations report from what superficial reading I gave it.

I didn't readily see an overt plan described to "inject" tens of millions of Mexicans into America, although it may be an unspoken, presumptuous forgone conclusion. The Mexican government has approved and abetted mass exodus for years as a social pressure release valve and defacto national welfare program, and some in their government see it as a method of territorial expansion by population transfer.

However, none of this is breaking news.

As I understand it, the white owned farms in Zimbabwe and other African countries were broken up and given to people who had no idea how to manage them, thus constituting a great leap backwards in respect to national nutrition.

Same thing happened in Mexico after the revolution. Many of the haciendas exchanged hands from criollo landowners to mestizo generals and the disaster was furthered along by politically popular "land redistribution" in favor of relatively unproductive subsistence hand farming.

I believe you may be underestimating what has already occurred.

CONAPO plan
 

The CONAPO plan that I read did specifically refer to the continuing migration of millions over 30 years.

Here is one report from CIS:

http://www.cis.org/MexicanGovernment...assImmigration

Kill the Gringos !
 

[QUOTE=Twoller;11952]No, that's ridiculous. In Zimbabwe and South Africa and the rest of Africa too, even the Muslim colonized territories, Africans are the natives and have always outnumbered the colonists. Always. The historic, cultural, economic and political momentum has always been and will forever be in their hands. Their relatively recent struggles with colonizers and their real imperialist sponsors (with the exception of the Dutch South Africans) are of no long term consequence, but only if they can seize the initiative outside of colonial influence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


Kill the Gringo and Latinize America
June 5th, 2004 ·

Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, is a busy man.

Gutierrez was recently in Mexico City at the invitation of the Mexican government to participate in the binational Reconquista jamboree reported in my last column.

The very next day (April 30th, 2004), he was in Kansas City speaking at something called the “Latino Civil Rights Summit.

There he boasted that: We are the future of America. Unlike any prior generation, we now have the critical mass. We’re going to Latinize this country.
In a puff piece on the conference, Lewis W. Diuguid of the Kansas City Star reported that

“Gutierrez said people from Mexico, Central and South America are not immigrating to the United States. They are simply migrating because this land had been theirs…Hispanics should never put up with others telling them to go back where they came from” [Hispanics will help build future of U.S., April 18th, 2004]
That argument, based on absurd historical claims, completely invalidates the existence of the U.S.A.

Gutierrez also discussed Hispanic demographics. He told the audience that half of the Hispanic population is under the age of 21—and that for every Latino who dies, 5 white people die!

Gutierrez has been saying this sort of thing for some time. Speaking in California in 1995, he said:

“The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot—we will not—and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.”[listen here]

The same themes as Kansas City—a claim to U.S. territory, denial that the U.S. is a legitimate nation-state, exultation over Hispanic demographic growth.

If a white English-speaking American expresses displeasure over the prediction that his ethnic group (if present trends continue) is destined to lose its majority status, he will be called a “racist.”

But Hispanic activists publicly gloat over the increase of their ethnic group. Why isn’t that racist?

Who is Jose Angel Gutierrez ? He’s technically an American citizen, born in Crystal City, Texas in 1944—an example of the great National Question truth that, just because the cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits.

He is activist and lawyer, has served as county judge in Texas, and is an author who has penned such classics as A Chicano Manual On How To Handle Gringos. Since his youth, he has been active in the Chicano movement, and was one of the founders of MAYO, the Mexican American Youth Organization.

Texas Democratic Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez made some interesting comments about MAYO, entered in the Congressional Record, April 3rd, 1969:

“MAYO styles itself the embodiment of good and the Anglo-American as the incarnation of evil. That is not merely ridiculous, it is drawing fire from the deepest wellsprings of hate. The San Antonio leader of MAYO, Jose Angel Gutierrez, may think himself something of a hero, but he is, in fact, only a benighted soul if he believes that in the espousal of hatred he will find love. He is simply deluded if he believes that the wearing of fatigues . . . makes his followers revolutionaries . . . One cannot fan the flames of bigotry one moment and expect them to disappear the next.” (Nativist and Racist Movements in the U.S. and their Aftermath, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, Henry A. Rhodes)

Back then, Gutierrez said

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

Later, Gutierrez told The San Antonio Express and News (April 11th, 1969) that the term “Gringo” referred to a bigoted and racist individual or institution. And “kill” just meant the elimination of the political, economic and social foundation of “the Gringo.”

Oh, well—that’s OK then!

Bottom line – Gutierrez wants gringos out of Texas.

Here are excerpts from an interview in 2000:

Q: “If the main goal (of the old Chicano movement) then was to reclaim Aztlan and control all the institutions of civil society, what is the main goal now?”

GUTIERREZ’ answer: “I think it is still the same thing. You hear the Hispanic Republicans talk about the same thing. … this idea has even been co-opted by the Republicans. ….The Hispanic Democrats and Mexican-American Democrats and Tejano Democrats, synonymous in Texas, they are doing the same thing….. ”

Q: “How are Mexican immigrants of today different from Mexican immigrants of decades ago?”

GUTIERREZ:” They are different in one salient aspect…they are keeping their Mexicanness. ..The Mexicanos that are coming today, even though they are political refugees and migrants returning to their homeland, are keeping their Mexicanness … They are recreating Mexico here. I think they are doing it because of the sheer numbers. …”
continued>>>

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-in...erica_515.html

The 2002 CIS report referenced appears to covers an earlier version of the document I provided a link to (covering projections from 2008 - 2012), which might be a projection of wishful political thinking. Any plan, political,personal, business can be full of rosy assumptions towards a goal.

In 2001, our economy was going strong, lots of "positive" assumptions could spring forth.

The CIS report itself refers to the document it covers as a report rather than a plan.

I have no doubt there is an unspoken Mexican governmental plan to shovel millions of Mexicans in America, but I don't believe this is the "smoking gun".

Not only are Mexicans not the future of the United States, they are hardly the future in their own country.

I've said it before. How can Mexicans claim to be able to take over this country if they can't even take over their own.

The Mexican presence in the United States is licensed by the Catholic Church and enabled by Catholic control of the economy and political life. Mexicans have nothing to contribute here and where they appear to be doing so, if you look closely you will see it's only Catholic patronage that makes it possible to look like they are.

When they admited former Spanish colonies into the United States, they should have changed the Spanish names to something else. We need to reject the whole notion that there is anything like a Latin American "heritage" to the United States. It has never been anything like a contributor to it.

Aztlan is a concept born in America, I'm not sure who originally dreamed it up. My guess is Corky Gonzalez's "Crusade for Justice" bunch in 1960's Denver. There was a a big conference there in or about 1968 which greatly influenced the Texas and California groups, I believe the idea spread out from there.

It was Gutierrez and some of his buddies who originally approached Mexican President Echavarria in the late 60's or early 70's seeking his assistance on either creating the new state of Aztlan or failing that, restoring the US / Mexican borders to what it had been in something like 1823. I believe the Mexican government didn't have the idea before then.

There was some resistance to the meeting. I believe Gonzalez objected because of Echavarria's role in the 1968 Tlateloco student massacre, Tijera was involved with his land title obsession, and Cesar Chavez wasn't going to have anything to do with it until the Mexican government held back the illegal entrants who were breaking his strikes.

The American born group was an embarrassing assemblage in Mexican eyes. Brown skinned people with Spanish last names who couldn't construct a sentence in Spanish, and one of the group even pointed to a picture on a Mexican war hero (of the Mexican American war) and commented that it was a great picture of Santa Anna, an unintended insult. However, Gutierrez has been in contact ever since, and there has been an official Mexican liaison to what became the NCLR since those times.

Even though he is an old man now, Gutierrez is a brilliant strategist and planner - don't ever underestimate him or those who learned from him. Even though much of it it ended up crashing, his takeover of the local governments and school district in and including Zavala County in Texas is the model for what has been quietly happening across the country over the last forty years.

Where can I find the original quote about killing the gringo, where it happened, who witnessed it? I have no doubt he said it, I haven't been able to find the original occurrence.

The difference is that before the Civil rights movement, most Mexicans told their American children that they needed to forget about speaking Spanish and become a part of America. However, for any of those people to become acceptable and successful in America they had to change their name, which is why Richard Valenzuela became Richie Valens. They generally couldn't eat in "white" restaurants, it was clear that the brown man worked for the white man and not the other way around.

No one can tell me it wasn't that way, there is memory of it in my house.

Then the 60's happened, and the pendulum has been forced to swing the other way, with kids who have no idea who Nixon and Johnson were -architects of affirmative action - carrying on as if pre 1960 white racism was their own experience.

The civil rights movement was to bring about equality, not exchange one racial pecking order for another or throw out the melting pot for the "salad bowl". Therefore every form and source of racism needs to be addressed, the issue of illegal immigration resolved, we need to reclaim our schools for the purpose of education rather than a fount of political and racial agenda, and we - regardless of race or ancestral origin, need to become one people as Americans.

Conapo
 

Allan Wall Archive Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...

September 23, 2003

Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Mexico Has No Intention Of Decreasing Emigration
Could mass Mexican immigration to the United States be only a transitional phenomenon until Mexico gets its economy in order?

A hypothetical question, of course, since Mexico is a long way from getting its economic house in order.

But this is the answer: don’t count on a decrease in emigration from Mexico any time. The Mexican government has no intention of decreasing it. In fact, it’s working hard to increase emigration.

According to a document issued in November of 2001 by CONAPO, the Mexican National Population Council, even with a decrease in the birth rate and an improved Mexican economy, emigration to the U.S. will not diminish for at least the next 30 years! CONAPO called this emigration “inevitable.” Of course what CONAPO really means by "inevitable" is that it doesn't want it stopped.

The Mexican central bank recently reported that income from remittances from Mexican migrants in the U.S. now tops that of every other sector other than petroleum. Migration, in other words, earns more for Mexico than tourism, more than manufacturing, more than mining, more than agriculture, more than direct foreign investment in Mexico.

In just the first 6 months of 2003, recorded earnings from remittances totaled $6.3 billion (Petroleum – over $8 billion, direct foreign investment – $5.2 billion, Tourism – $4.9 billion). [Mexican Central Bank: Money Sent Home By Migrants Tops Foreign Investment, Tourism by Mark Stevenson, Associated Press, August 29th, 2003]

Mexico has great economic potential. It’s a tourist bonanza with some of the world’s finest beaches, colonial architecture, pre-Hispanic archaeology, and more. Mexico has mineral wealth – for example, it’s the world’s number one in silver reserves - a large industrial sector, a highly-educated upper class and a small but growing high-tech industry. Mexican agriculture is blessed with a wide variety of ecosystems and long growing seasons.

Yet, except for petroleum, not one of these sources of wealth production can surpass the value of remittances from migrants in the U.S.!

This is a stunning indictment. How could a modern nation-state allow itself to get into such a predicament?

This incredible failure should be a first-class embarrassment for Mexico’s ruling class. Instead, it's being utilized for political gain. The power of migrant remittances in the economy is yet another built-in disincentive to reform Mexico’s economy.

Where does remittance money go? It goes to buy groceries, consumer goods and into home improvement. In some cases it encourages its recipients not to take up productive work in Mexico. Very little of remittance funds are channeled into savings or productive investment in Mexico. Once again, no incentive for emigration reduction.

Indeed, Mexico is losing its attraction for foreign investment due in part to its government’s ongoing failure to enact reform in the fiscal and energy sectors [México pierde su atractiva, Romina Róman, Universal, September 11th, 2003]. Why should it, with that emigration safety valve?

You can't blame Vicente Fox for the economic and political errors of the 71 years before he took office. On the other hand, his election provided a window of opportunity which his administration has failed to exploit.

Fox defenders blame the Mexican Congress, which does deserve its share of the blame. However, there are elements in the PRI – the former ruling party – open to energy reform. Why can't Fox build a coalition with this faction - as Ronald Reagan did with southern Democrats in the 1980's? The Fox administration has simply not shown the necessary political skills for such coalition-building.

Instead, Fox's obsession with emigration has diverted time and political capital which could have been spent more constructively in substantial reforms.

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who recently declared that Mexico would give the U.S. nothing in exchange for a migratory accord, laid out the goals of Mexican foreign policy in a recent Reforma article. Generally, these goals are what you would expect given the globalist principles outlined in Vicente Fox’s Madrid speech. But of special interest to the U.S. National Question is one item that Foreign Minister Derbez describes thusly:

“Through our network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States regardless of their legal or migratory status…We seek with our northern neighbor the negotiation of a total migratory package which includes (a) the regularization of undocumented [a.k.a. illegal] Mexicans resident in that country, (b) border security, (c)an increase in the number of visas for temporary workers and (d) regional economic development.

“Besides seeking a total migratory package defined above, with the goal of improving living conditions of our fellow Mexicans, we have issued in the past year 1, 130,000 matriculas consulares. [They are] accepted in 280 banking institutions and in 32 states of that country [the U.S.] The [U.S.] Department of the Treasury announced yesterday that it permits the use of the matricula by commercial banking. This will doubtless increase its acceptance, to the benefit of all Mexicans.

“In April we established the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, whose Consultative Council is composed of 100 consultants, elected directly by the Mexican Communities, which institutionalizes the relationship between Mexico and the communities abroad.” [Estrategias de la Nueva Política Exterior de México, Luis Ernesto Derbez, Reforma, September 19th, 2003]

Notice that, as usual, the Mexican foreign ministry is closely monitoring the matricula consular situation, pushing for a migratory accord, and utilizing Mexican consulates as operational bases for the continuing colonization of the United States.

Americans need to understand that Mexico’s leaders, who head its white minority government, have no intention whatsoever of reducing emigration. Why should they? Emigration keeps them in power. It removes a portion of Mexico’s poor, reducing demographic pressure on the government. And, as recent Mexican administrations have learned, it gives Mexico an opportunity to exert influence over U.S. immigration policy, which enables the cycle to continue.

In Mexico’s fractious political world, “defending the immigrants” is one issue which draws support across the political spectrum. All political parties and centers of influence support the continued promotion of emigration and the concomitant subversion of American law and sovereignty.

Cutting off emigration would do Mexico a gigantic favor. It would finally force the ruling elite to break the addiction to its emigration safety valve.

Still, we can’t expect the Mexican government to defend U.S. sovereignty. That’s the job of American leaders.

If our leaders won’t defend our sovereignty, shouldn’t we replace them with leaders who do?

American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers can contact Allan Wall at allan39@prodigy.net.mx.

Gutierrez
 

The original audio of his speech is found here:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERE...rrezQuote.html

Jose Angel Gutierrez, Prof. Univ. Texas at Arlington, founder La Raza Unida Party at UC Riverside 1/1995
This is a truly classic maniacal racist rant: "The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot - we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."
Click here to download this audio clip from the CCIR website (1.8 mb

The reproductive strategy of human beings is quality over quantity. The reproductive strategy of rodents and insects, like cockroaches, is quantity over quality.

This is part of why our current public education system is broken. It is trying to produce human beings while the parents who are sending their anchor babies there are reproducing like insects.

That's sort of accurate.

The reproductive strategy of people in agricultural or blighted/impoverished areas is to crank kids out in volume (labor assistance and improved chances that some will survive difficult conditions).

The reproductive strategy of people in developed capitalist societies (i.e. just about any place you'd actually want to live) is few or no children (less expense, low child mortality rates), which is essentially why we are seeing this immigration dilemma across the globe. It's a byproduct of successful capitalism I'm not sure anyone anticipated. If you have an education and live in a city or suburban area, it is a more rational decision to reproduce later in life and to have fewer offspring. It's more cost effective.

The problem with this, and this is happening in every advanced society (Japan, UK, Australia, France, U.S. ... even So. Korea now) is that the people you want to have children (can afford kids and enjoy middle-class or better existences) aren't producing at replacement levels or better. That's why the impoverished are flooding into advanced nations around the globe to fill the vacuum.

The Europeans have been getting the Sheets and the U.S. has been getting Mexicans and Central Americans.

I clicked on the link for the audio and got this message:

Any other links I have tried from other sites seem to be disabled, or maybe not accessible to my computer.

UCR in January of 1995. For some reason I thought it was a much older quote.

I found the clip to the Gutierrez 1995 UCR speech here http://www.theamericanresistance.com...nda_audio.html


It is quite the racist rant. However I didn't hear the "kill the gringo" statement as a part of that speech, or at least what I heard of the speech.

I don't think that really explains it. I have to confess that I was steadily employed between 1981 and 1996, there is a lot of stuff I didn't pay great attention to during that time period (I had "mine"), but did observe what happened in the construction trades during that time period. Prior to 1981 I was primarily employed in the construction industry.

I don't believe the work situation was all that good in the 70's, and a lot of employment was derailed during the 1981 recession. Then when the recession came to an end, American employers hired illegals rather than idled American workers within their own trades - an industry originally full of American citizens was now taken over by illegal foreign labor almost overnight.

I believe it had more to do with contractors who got their licenses during the late 70's stabbing each other in the back for work, and felt that hiring three or four unskilled illegals for the price of one skilled Americans was worth it to underbid their competitors. And if you actually saw the construction as it went up then you would see what shit work was being thrown up and sold to unknowing home buyers. That is until homeowners banded together en mass to sue developers for faulty construction.

It's been going on ever since, with some better than others.

As I said, I was busy with other things so I wasn't even aware of the 1986 amnesty law until 2005.

I believe that after the 1981 recession ended and so many Americans were still out of work that there was a loud outcry concerning illegality, so the politicians in Washington cynically put together a "reform" law which, if enforced, would have largely taken care of the illegal immigration problem. However, Washington refused to fund or enforce its own immigration law.

All these years later, during the worst economic period since the depression, I know people who have been out of work for a long time, and still Washington refuses to enforce immigration law in order to clear up some jobs for American citizens - of all races.

I think illegal immigration was originally more about who gets a bigger piece of the dollar rather than low national reproductive rates. Now I believe the driving factor is the Democratic party gaining a constituency through amnesty they just can't muster Among Americans.

Works for me.
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

The link I provided works just fine for me.
Jose Angel Gutierrez


External Links May Expire
At Any Time



Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington; founder of La Raza Unida political party; and beneficiary of American generosity: "We have an aging white America. . . . They are dying. . . . They are ******** in their pants with fear! I love it!" "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."Reference is MSE HTML source doc: URL http://www.stoptheinvasion.com/racism5.html

And since 1970, he has professed, "Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes."

Listen to this raving fifth-columnist

Interview with Gutierrez - October 18, 2000


Allan
Wall VDare.com -- June 3, 2004
Who Is Jose Angel Gutierrez-And What Does He Want?
Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, is a busy man. -- Gutierrez was recently in Mexico City at the invitation of the Mexican government to participate in the binational Reconquista jamboree reported in my last column.


Jose Angel Gutierrez, Prof. Univ. Texas at Arlington, founder La Raza Unida Party at UC Riverside 1/1995
This is a truly classic maniacal racist rant: "The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot - we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."
Click here to download this audio clip from the CCIR website (1.8 mb)


Prepare to be majority, Gutierrez tells LULAC
Feb. 20, 1999 -- ...Based on U.S. Census estimates, Hispanics will become the majority population in Texas by 2008, said Jose Angel Gutierrez, a founder of La Raza Unida Party and now a political science professor at University of Texas at Arlington.

"We have this bright future because we have the critical mass," Gutierrez said. "We have the means now to take government and to lead. We have to get busy to work on our skills, our abilities, our competency to build that social capital, so we can be excellent leaders....."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You may have to disable your security temporarily. It is NOT blocked on the on
the Internet, only on your personal access/computer.

Absolutely !
 

That's not true, and it is a commonly held myth that industrial societies are not sustaining their populations. You completely ignore the labor demands of industrial societies. But the labor demands of industrial societies is decresing as technology increases. Robots have largely replace human labor in just about every level of productivity and in just about every economic sector.

And also, the middle class used to take up a lot of labor in the workplace that is also now being done by computers.

The only reason that people are floodiing industrialized countries is because of Catholic and Muslim license to do so. The countries where these beliefs dominate are incapable of sustaining their own population, both ideologically and economically and they must export their surplus populations. It is a perfect strategy for them to export them to countries where peoples have been able to live free and protect themselves from the influence of these beliefs. They prop them up there and the natural resistance to the degenerative influence of these belief systems create foment and corrode the productivity of the host countries.

We don't need these people here. We don't need people who reproduce over one child per family. The truth is, we never did. The whole notion that agricultural families have to be large to sustain themselves is a myth. Large agricultural families have only ever served empires and emperial belief systems. Their children were born to be serfs with the bulk of their productivity going somewhere else.

Looks to me as if you are wrong.

The link you provided worked fine for me too. It was the link from that web page to the audio that brought up the warning, and other links I found to the audio seemed to be blocked. However, after quite a bit of perseverance, I finally found a link that worked.

I still haven't found where and when Gutierrez flung out his kill the gringo comment.

Large subsistence farming families were the original retirement system for people too old to work anymore.

You still see it in third world countries.

Kill the Gringos.
 

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

PayPal

NSU/WEJB's First Fundraising Drive!
Please support Nicholas Stix, Uncensored/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau, by hitting the gold "Donate" PayPal button, and giving whatever you can, in order to keep America's most independent journalist in booze and broads. Thanks, in advance!

Saturday, May 29, 2010
“Kill the Gringo”; Arizona Reconquista Ethnic Studies = Racist Violence 101

By Nicholas Stix

The back story to HB 2281, the law passed by Arizona state legislators banning Reconquista “ethnic studies” is that the inquiry into “ethnic studies” was provoked by pervasive racist violence that Hispanic kids were committing against white and black kids, and that parents discovered that the “expert,” “Raza [Race] Studies” educators were teaching Hispanic students to kill whites, except that the educators used a term that is the equivalent to “nigger” or “honkey” to describe whites: “gringo.” As in, “Kill the gringo.”


[Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by communist Paulo Freire] is required reading in “Raza Studies” or Mexican-American courses in the high schools in Tucson, Arizona, where students have been protesting Arizona’s new immigration law. Other required books are Occupied America by Rodolfo Acuña, a professor emeritus of Chicano studies at California State University in Northridge (CSUN), and Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Communist.

Occupied America, the fifth edition, includes an image of Fidel Castro on the front cover, and Castro and Che Guevara on the back cover. It refers to white people as “gringos” and actually includes a quotation on page 323 from Jose Angel Gutierrez of the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO), who was angry over the cancellation of a government program. He declared:

“We are fed up. We are going to move to do away with the injustice to the Chicano and if the ‘gringo’ doesn’t get out of our way, we will stampede over him.”
The book goes on:

“Gutierrez attacked the gringo establishment angrily at a press conference and called upon Chicanos to ‘Kill the gringo,’ which meant to end white control over Mexicans.”

Reviewing this material for the National Association of Scholars, Ashley Thorne commented that, “Actually, ‘kill the gringo’ meant ‘kill the gringo.’ But admitting that makes Mexicans look radical, infuriated, revolutionary, Acuña sidestepped that image and substituted it with one of browbeaten Latinos rising to overthrow injustice.”

The Arizona citizens upset about this kind of material said that they initiated an investigation into the problem back in 2007 and found it difficult to get access to the books. One activist said the concern began when parents came to be aware of violence in the schools directed against white and black children. “This investigation was undertaken to find the roots of this hate,” she told me. Another person, in turn, “told me the books in their Mexican-American classes are kept under ‘lock and key’ and the kids can’t even take them home. She said she asked to see them but they were very secretive about them and she was prohibited.”

However, the citizen activists persisted, demanding access to the books under a state open records law. The courses, after all, are taxpayer-funded. Eventually, a list of books was produced, and a controversy ensued.

“Arizona Ethnic Studies Exposed,” by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, May 24, 2010.

Ashley Thorne writes of La Raza [The Race] studies,


This revolutionary fervor is even more pronounced in Occupied America, which tells the story of the Southwestern United States from the perspective of Mexican Americans and has been called “the Chicano bible.” The book is sympathetic to Mexico in a reference to the battle at the Alamo….

In another place, Acuña wrote:
Gutiérrez attacked the gringo establishment angrily at a press conference and called upon Chicanos to ‘kill the gringo,’ which meant to end white control over Mexicans.

Actually, “kill the gringo” means “kill the gringo.” Jose Angel Gutiérrez, who is referenced here, is the co-founder of the Raza Unida Party, a U.S. political third party. At a 1995 conference Gutiérrez declared, “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” Today Gutiérrez is a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Arlington.

The Raza studies program housed its revolutionary aims in terms of “transformation” and social justice.” Among its goals were to “Advocate for and provide curriculum that is centered within the pursuit of social justice,” “Work towards the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student,” and “Promote and advocate for social and educational transformation.”

While such aims and books do not explicitly call for the overthrow of the U.S. government, they do seek to stir up in students a racial consciousness that perceives white Americans as the enemy and oppressor. Freire invites minority students to identify themselves as victims and to fight back [read: violently assault whites]. Acuña invokes an America where ‘gringos’ are power-thirsty imperialists whom Chicanos must overthrow.

“Arizona Ends Divisive Chicano Studies in Schools” by Ashley Thorne, The National Association of Scholars, May 13, 2010.

“Transformation”=“Kill the gringo.”

“Social justice”=“Kill the gringo.”

Any questions?

The MSM routinely refuse to report the pervasive racist violence in “diverse” schools. And when they do, they refuse to report on the role of “diverse,” diversity-promoting “educators,” for whom promoting diversity is inseparable from promoting anti-white violence.

Whenever an educator says “I celebrate diversity,” he is really saying, “I celebrate racist violence.”

For more on the true face of educational diversity, I suggest that readers peruse my chapter on education: “Pseudo-Pedagogy, Real Hatred,” in NPI report, The State of White America-2007, which I edited and co-wrote with economist and VDARE.com contributor Edwin P. Rubenstein and historian Robert J. Stove.
Posted by Nicholas at 7:39 AM

Book
 

http://www.amazon.com/Occupied-Ameri.../dp/0321044851


Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (4th Edition) [Paperback]
Rodolfo Acuna (Author)
3.1 out of 5 stars See all reviews (14 customer reviews)
14 Reviews
5 star: (4)
4 star: (3)
3 star: (2)
2 star: (1)
1 star: (4)

› See all 14 customer reviews...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Available from these sellers.






1 new from $141.99 19 used from $3.33



Feedback | Help | Expanded View | Close Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (4th …(Paperback)
by Rodolfo Acuna
(14)
20 used & new from $3.33
Book sections
Front Cover
Front Matter
Table of Contents
First Pages
Index
Back Cover
Surprise Me!

Search Inside This Book Just so you know...

Your Browsing History
Page of
>
Customers Also Bought
Page of Join Amazon Student and get FREE Two-Day Shipping for one year with Amazon Prime shipping benefits.


Formats Amazon Price New from Used from
Expand Collapse Paperback

Paperback
$54.00
In Stock.
Publisher: Longman
Published: December 7, 2006 $54.00 $38.90 $25.98
Paperback, December 22, 1999

Paperback
Available from these sellers.
Publisher: Pearson Education
Published: December 22, 1999 -- $141.99 $3.33
See # more paperbacks
Show fewer paperbacks
ExpandShow 4 more formats
ExpandShow 1 more format
CollapseShow fewer formats


There is a newer edition of this item:
Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (7th Edition) 3.1 out of 5 stars (14)
$57.04

In Stock.
See a problem with this suggestion? Let us know

I can see that a couple of you are unconvinced by what I stated (regarding the large-scale flow of the impoverished and undereducated into prosperous countries largely b/c of the native population's failure to adequately reproduce in sufficient numbers). The only thing I'll say in response is that you might want to check out two books that cover the subject in pretty good detail:

The Pentagon's New Map - Thomas P.M. Barnett

The Death Of The West - Pat Buchanan

Insofar as what is asserted above by Twoller, dude, you're just flat-out wrong.

A reproduction level of 1.0 children per couple would be a disaster for any first world society. To the extent that the nation or area would be unrecognizable and/or gone in a matter of decades.

Reasons: The population would have a much higher average age than most other nations and there would be an imbalance among the age groups. The two biggest problems are that 1) in a relatively short period of time, there wouldn't be enough workers to fill necessary jobs, and 2) the people young enough to work would be drowned in tax burden to support the giant pool of retirees.

1.0 would be a first magnitude catastrophe in any modernized nation. Even Japan is not close to being that low and that country is already undergoing serious hardship resulting from an aging population and low reproduction numbers ... to the extent that the Japanese are going to have to do what most of them consider to be the near unthinkable - allow in a lot of immigrants.