Bloodless Revolutions
Bloodless Revolutions
I recently read a number of quotations attributed to Mexican officials both in the US
and in Mexico boasting that Mexico is regaining the Southwestern part of the United
States that is rightfully theirs - and doing so without firing a shot. Similar statements
have been attributed to Arab and Persian politicians with respect to Europe.
The basis of both sets of statements rests on immigration and birth rates.
Hispanics, Arabs and Persians are reproducing faster than Westerners, whose
birth rates have mostly fallen below maintenance level. Russia for example, if
current trends continue, will virtually lose its European population within several
generations. It must be added that it has been projected that all reproduction is
likely to begin declining by the middle of this century, but by then the developing
countries' progeny will far outstrip those of the West and Japan.
But let's examine the boasts. What happens if, as stated, Mexicans and Arabs do
in fact take over the states that they seem to be targeting? In the case of Mexico the
outlook is already apparent. Mexico is a conflicted nation that struggles to stay
afloat with money sent back from the United States, either by illegal immigrants or
drug dealers. If you want to see what Mexicans pretty much on their own will do to
the areas they wish to reclaim just look at the border regions of the United States
where the poverty of the mother country is spreading to the "conquests." Similar
results can be readily discerned in the new Muslim ghettos of Europe where
violence and poverty seem to be taking over.
How can this happen? That's a no brainer: it's called majority rules. As soon as
Mexicans and Muslims gain majority status in the areas to which they have migrated
they will have the votes first to elect their candidates, and second to change the laws
- democracy in action. So what's wrong with that? It's only fair, considering the form
of government the West has installed. The only problem with it is that the cultures
these peoples bring with them can not sustain the culture of the nation in which they
have chosen to live. And what is the nature of what those cultures have created?
Certainly not the vibrant, self-sustaining strength of what exists in the West today.
That is to say, the future - at least the immediate future - of the conquered areas
cannot help but look like the ones left behind.
Why can they not just take over what is here and continue it as it is? They lack the
skills that are needed to do that. And could they not gain them? They haven't in the
countries they left, so what would be different here? Skills, motivation, leadership -
it takes a lot to create and sustain what we have wrought. If it was so easy the entire
world would already be much more similar to what the West already is. Take Saudi
Arabia as an example. Buildings and infra-structure have been constructed using
massive oil revenues, but who did the work? Arabs? I think not. Even the oil itself
is extracted through the skill and efforts of Western engineers and technicians. I
recall a story told me by a contract employee working in Iran to develop a helicopter
maintenance facility in Tehran. Manuals were translated, equipment installed and
training implemented. After two years of effort the Americans were still doing all the
work and the Iranians were watching with studied interest. An isolated case? I
think not. The Iranians still have to import most of their refined petroleum products
as they lack adequate refining capability; and the refineries they have are probably
run by Westerners.
The two elements that favor immigrant conquest are "democracy" and culture - our
democracy and their cultures. There are already too many instances where freely
elected governments have been hijacked by ignorant despots: Zimbabwe,
Venezuela, Palestine, with South Africa following rapidly. Is the destruction of the
West inevitable? No, it is not. In fact Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan are
examples where healthy forms of representative government have taken hold - not
necessarily the same as in the West, but stable and relatively successful, up to
now. There are other examples as well, and they are more important; they are
where immigrant populations have moved into the West and assimilated - accepted
the culture of the West. Apparently those examples are becoming fewer. Why?
Probably the most obvious reason is there are too many of them and the numbers
sustain their ability to retain their own cultures. But there are others. Many don't
know how to assimilate and are not being aided in doing so. One might recall The
United States at the turn of the last century and difficulties of assimilating
immigrants. There the difference was that the immigrants shared Western culture
(and religion), wanted to assimilate, and were afforded lots of help, however
nefarious (big city political bosses in New York, New Jersey and Chicago).
So, what to do? A first step would be to seriously modify "multiculturalism."
Simply stated it doesn't work and it won't work, and we need to realize it. But that's
easier said than done because we have become ignorant and complacent. We
don't know and we don't care. We need to learn to understand the threat - losing our
culture and all that entails - and do something about it: stop giving in; reverse
complacency. That is another subject, but one broad statement about it can be
made: we need to once again learn to appreciate our culture and work together to
strengthen it instead of tearing it apart - something our current politicians in their
orgy of selfish personal power seeking seem not to be able to appreciate.
The world is about to end? No, it doesn't work like that. But it is changing and
being threatened, not the way Media would have you believe, but more subtly. That's
the dichotomy of such changes: they occur slowly enough so we think we can live
with them - until we suddenly wake up and find out it's too late. See Zimbabwe.
See Venezuela.
I recently read a number of quotations attributed to Mexican officials both in the US
and in Mexico boasting that Mexico is regaining the Southwestern part of the United
States that is rightfully theirs - and doing so without firing a shot. Similar statements
have been attributed to Arab and Persian politicians with respect to Europe.
The basis of both sets of statements rests on immigration and birth rates.
Hispanics, Arabs and Persians are reproducing faster than Westerners, whose
birth rates have mostly fallen below maintenance level. Russia for example, if
current trends continue, will virtually lose its European population within several
generations. It must be added that it has been projected that all reproduction is
likely to begin declining by the middle of this century, but by then the developing
countries' progeny will far outstrip those of the West and Japan.
But let's examine the boasts. What happens if, as stated, Mexicans and Arabs do
in fact take over the states that they seem to be targeting? In the case of Mexico the
outlook is already apparent. Mexico is a conflicted nation that struggles to stay
afloat with money sent back from the United States, either by illegal immigrants or
drug dealers. If you want to see what Mexicans pretty much on their own will do to
the areas they wish to reclaim just look at the border regions of the United States
where the poverty of the mother country is spreading to the "conquests." Similar
results can be readily discerned in the new Muslim ghettos of Europe where
violence and poverty seem to be taking over.
How can this happen? That's a no brainer: it's called majority rules. As soon as
Mexicans and Muslims gain majority status in the areas to which they have migrated
they will have the votes first to elect their candidates, and second to change the laws
- democracy in action. So what's wrong with that? It's only fair, considering the form
of government the West has installed. The only problem with it is that the cultures
these peoples bring with them can not sustain the culture of the nation in which they
have chosen to live. And what is the nature of what those cultures have created?
Certainly not the vibrant, self-sustaining strength of what exists in the West today.
That is to say, the future - at least the immediate future - of the conquered areas
cannot help but look like the ones left behind.
Why can they not just take over what is here and continue it as it is? They lack the
skills that are needed to do that. And could they not gain them? They haven't in the
countries they left, so what would be different here? Skills, motivation, leadership -
it takes a lot to create and sustain what we have wrought. If it was so easy the entire
world would already be much more similar to what the West already is. Take Saudi
Arabia as an example. Buildings and infra-structure have been constructed using
massive oil revenues, but who did the work? Arabs? I think not. Even the oil itself
is extracted through the skill and efforts of Western engineers and technicians. I
recall a story told me by a contract employee working in Iran to develop a helicopter
maintenance facility in Tehran. Manuals were translated, equipment installed and
training implemented. After two years of effort the Americans were still doing all the
work and the Iranians were watching with studied interest. An isolated case? I
think not. The Iranians still have to import most of their refined petroleum products
as they lack adequate refining capability; and the refineries they have are probably
run by Westerners.
The two elements that favor immigrant conquest are "democracy" and culture - our
democracy and their cultures. There are already too many instances where freely
elected governments have been hijacked by ignorant despots: Zimbabwe,
Venezuela, Palestine, with South Africa following rapidly. Is the destruction of the
West inevitable? No, it is not. In fact Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan are
examples where healthy forms of representative government have taken hold - not
necessarily the same as in the West, but stable and relatively successful, up to
now. There are other examples as well, and they are more important; they are
where immigrant populations have moved into the West and assimilated - accepted
the culture of the West. Apparently those examples are becoming fewer. Why?
Probably the most obvious reason is there are too many of them and the numbers
sustain their ability to retain their own cultures. But there are others. Many don't
know how to assimilate and are not being aided in doing so. One might recall The
United States at the turn of the last century and difficulties of assimilating
immigrants. There the difference was that the immigrants shared Western culture
(and religion), wanted to assimilate, and were afforded lots of help, however
nefarious (big city political bosses in New York, New Jersey and Chicago).
So, what to do? A first step would be to seriously modify "multiculturalism."
Simply stated it doesn't work and it won't work, and we need to realize it. But that's
easier said than done because we have become ignorant and complacent. We
don't know and we don't care. We need to learn to understand the threat - losing our
culture and all that entails - and do something about it: stop giving in; reverse
complacency. That is another subject, but one broad statement about it can be
made: we need to once again learn to appreciate our culture and work together to
strengthen it instead of tearing it apart - something our current politicians in their
orgy of selfish personal power seeking seem not to be able to appreciate.
The world is about to end? No, it doesn't work like that. But it is changing and
being threatened, not the way Media would have you believe, but more subtly. That's
the dichotomy of such changes: they occur slowly enough so we think we can live
with them - until we suddenly wake up and find out it's too late. See Zimbabwe.
See Venezuela.