For those of you who may be too young to get the reference in the title, it’s from the punch line of an old, pre-PC joke. It went something like this:
The Lone Ranger says “Looks like we’re surrounded by hostile Indians, Tonto.”
Tonto replies: ”What you mean ‘we’, White Man?
In this latest from Fred Reed, he uses the word ‘we’ in a similarly questionable way. Writing about the recent political/racial violence directed at Trump supporters, and looking at the overall context — illegal and legal immigration out of control, warring ethnic/religious/racial groups, Reed says:
Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.”
While I can find little with which I can disagree there, I can’t help questioning the word ‘we’ as he uses it. What you mean ‘we‘, Fred? Most of your readers are still in this country, while you are ensconced in Mexico — the land from which many of our enemies are coming — and you are married to a Mexican and raising Mexican children. So who is this ‘we’?
Maybe my patience has long since worn too thin but I consider that anybody who appears to have thrown in his lot with Mexico and the Mexican people is no longer part of the American ‘we’, or the White ‘we.’
Most pro-White men condemn White women who marry outside our folk and who bear children of another race, and rightly so. But strangely few people mention the irony of Reed implicitly including himself in the American ‘we’ or the White, Anglo ‘we’ when his choices say that he prefers Mexicans over his own folk.
Actions speak louder than words. Marrying and producing children with a genetically distant mate says that you have no real loyalty to, or even real regard for the future of your own folk. I suspect at heart, despite Reed’s blunt way of writing, he is more of a libertarian — even a ‘colorblind’ libertarian than a nationalist: you know, the right of the individual over the duty to the kin-group, the people to whom you belong by blood.
Deny it though we might, we’re part of an unbroken chain: we are part of our ancestors and we owe them allegiance. We owe it to them to follow their example and carry on the heritage, to keep faith with the past. We are not ‘islands’, entire of ourselves.
And we owe our posterity something. We owe a future to the unborn generations. We have no right to let their future be stolen.
Reed’s children, Mexican as they are (by birth, genetics, and very much by phenotype) have a home and a people in Mexico. Will our progeny have a national home at all? Will their children be absorbed into the ‘huddled masses’ eventually, or be despised in the country their ancestors founded?
Loyalty to our own folk is something that must be rediscovered. In these times we will see testing of this loyalty, and find out who is ‘of’ us and who is not.