Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.

3 thoughts on “Immigration: planned or coincidence?

  1. Timely post VA. Our leaders are in the tank for replacing Whites. They are told many secrets and they become drunk on knowing secrets. The import reality is in front of their face, White replacement.

    All the secrets of the CIA don’t count for a hill of beans compared to replacing the White people of America with others sitting in those buildings. Most of the new people won’t care about any secrets of White America in the 20th century. All they care about is they sit in those buildings not the Wasps who built them.

    Thomas Jefferson High School of science in Fairfax County is 70% Asian. This is what happened that counts and the CIA and NSA drones who replaced their own were dupes.

    The 20th century can’t be reversed. It happened. It was a terrible blow to the White People. It was possibly a mortal blow. The count is still out on that one. As you’ve pointed out, those who think the White People are down for the count are not God and don’t know or control the future. We must make sure the White People rises and removes whoever is knocking it down.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. These whores work for sewer rats who would have to look up to see the gutter. They know they are scum, that redneck and uneducated garbage is just more swill they use to drown their pathetic slave whore microbrains from the harsh reality of their complete and total irrelevance and inferiority. Remember this, only the inferior want equality. Winners do not beg for equivalence.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. My view is that it has nothing to do with chasing Latino or other immigrant votes because the aim of the elites is to abolish democracy anyway. Voting will still take place but it will be even more meaningless than it is now. Effective power will be firmly in the hands of unelected unaccountable elites. This is already close to being achieved in the EU.

    Immigration is useful to the elites for two reasons. Firstly most immigrants have no commitment to democracy. And secondly there’s a good chance that immigration will cause enough social chaos to give the elites the excuse to suspend the democratic process to deal with the crisis that they have engineered.

    Give it another twenty years and elections in the US and other western countries will be as meaningful as elections in the old Soviet Union.

    Republicans support this because the idea that there are two parties is a myth. There is one party, the elite party.


Leave a Reply to Joshua Sinistar Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s