It's simple and direct - so I just had to share it with you.
Stand by, folks! Here it comes:
"If we had annexed all of Mexico then we would have no illegal immigration problem."
Yep.
There it is.
And who was the hero who gave us this bit of wisdom?
Well, he or she is not lacking in courage, this Agamemnon of the Americas.
He or she is so willing to stand up and be counted as to sign off as "Anonymous".
Who says that unthinking racism is dead in America?
Go, Mr Anonymous!
...
If you do not wish anonymous posts then do not allow that option. By the way, I wish I could take full credit but I heard the basis for that quote on NPR.
ReplyDeleteWell, RJW (which I note is still equally anonymous) as a defence to the charges as read, that is a boat that won't float, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteThe crassness remains.
Indeed, it is made worse by your admission that it wasn't even original.
Confucius say, man who cannot think for himself, not improved much by parroting someone else's crassness.
Polly wanna cracker?
Or just dead Mexicans?
Mexican immigration is simply pay-back time for the rape of Mexico by US government forces for 200 years.
And it's not going away any time soon.
Get used to it, buddy!
Sir, I enjoy your blog, and agree with many of your views. However I also think that Mexico now would be much better off if it had been absorbed by the USA in 1848. The US would have benefitted by a major inlux of industrious Catholic anti-slavery voters and would have been spared the dramas it suffers today over border security. Mexico would also have been spared the appalling record of failed governance and anti-Catholic persecution it has suffered since 1848. I do not see any problem in gradually combining Yankee business acuity and Hispanic thrift and piety. Of course, the situation now is very different, to the great disadvantage of the Mexican people, and the great cost of the American people.
ReplyDeleteThank you - I'm glad you enjoy my blog. I'm grateful for your kind comments.
ReplyDeleteSince you now offer some reasons for your statement I shall reply to them.
If you are a Catholic then please understand this: no country can simply go and invade another country just because it wants to take their land.
This is called armed robbery and is a very serious crime and sin.
It makes no difference that such a country thinks it can rule the other country better.
It is still a grievous mortal sin to invade and conquer without proper reason.
Consider history. Mexico would be much better off if there had NEVER been any United States of America since it was largely with US money and arms that the Freemasons in Latin America managed to survive and persist and eventually overthrow Catholic governance.
To say, therefore, that Mexico would have been better off to be annexed by the USA is a yet further, and even more extreme, piece of crassness.
America turned Mexico into a basket case and so, not surprisingly, many Mexicans are choosing to leave and cross the Rio Grande.
If the US government had simply left well alone, stopped poking its greedy nose into the affairs of other countries and - in particular - had not appointed itself the chief destroyer of Catholicism in the American continent, then Mexico would have continued to be rich and successful, as it was under Catholic governance.
But no. We had to have first the odious Monroe Doctrine and then the utterly ridiculous notion of "Manifest Destiny".
In the 1920s, the US government provided tanks, guns and aircraft to assist the utterly grotesque, appalling, vile and murderous regime of Plutarco Calles in engaging in mass murder against Catholic Mexicans. US Ambassador Dwight Morrow was the link man between Calles and the US government.
I do not consider it "business acuity" simply to steal other people's countries or to help them murder Catholics.
I have no objection to Yankees and Mexicans getting together but that is not achieved by the US invading Mexico. Co-operation must be mutual and free.
America deserves to have to pay for its border problem. After all, it was US governments that created it!
If they wish to solve the problem then they should start thinking about how they can actually HELP Mexico and not just how they can keep Mexicans out.
Try to remember that Mexicans are human beings not pigs at market.
Dear Sir Tribunus Knight at Arms(if that is your REAL name), the invective you have for some Americans (or just the U.S.)is certainly humorous at best and uncharitable at least. However you make some interesting points as to the way parts of Mexico were conquered, occupied and stolen. By the way, is England planning on returning Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland any time soon?
ReplyDeleteDear RJW (if that is YOUR real name),
ReplyDeleteThose who, like successive US governments since independence, pray upon other nations, persecute, oppress, and harass them, stealing their land and murdering their citizens, will always get short shrift from me.
So will you - or anyone else - if you support the oppression.
If you are any sort of a Christian or at least person of normal humanity, then you would be equally appalled by such oppression.
You would also realise that it is no sort of defence to such crimes to claim that other people do it.
There can be no sort of justification for the crimes of those US government oppressors - none whatever.
If you think it charitable to defend evil then you are, yourself, a promoter and dupe of evil.
You would not, I am sure, hesitate to support those who, like me, quite rightly pour out invective upon other racist oppressors like the German Nazis. You would not, I am pretty sure, call this uncharitable.
Well, then?
Why should it be any different for Yankee oppressors and racists?
Or do you think - like so many other special-pleader nationalists - that your own country can do no wrong, that it is uncharitable to criticise your country but not others.
If so, then you have uttered yet a third crass remark and you go from bad to worse.
I feel sure that you are better than the sum of your recent crass remarks and have simply made them hastily without proper thought.
I suspect that you agree with me more than you are currently prepared to say. In which case, you are obviously a much better chap than you are currently letting on.
I await for better things.
As to your other points, I answer thus:
1. England does not own Scotland, Wales or Norther Ireland. They are all part of the United Kingdom under the British Crown. To whom do you think they could or should be "returned" as you put it?
2. My position is Jacobite, not Whig or Tory. I am by preference a Crown Unionist and not a Westminster Unionist. That is, I believe in Union under the Crown but not parliamentary union. I believe in what was called in 19th century Ireland "Home Rule".
3. However, I prefer the current parliamentary Union to the European Union which is a far, far worse form of centralism and is, moreover, guided by a completely anti-Christian philosophy. The break-up of the United Kingdom will deliver the people of Britain into the hands of the European Union.
4. Not only is this clean contrary to the Catholic social principle of Subsidiarity but the EU is a corrupt organisation. The European Court of Auditors have refused to sign off the accounts of the European Commission, the unelected bureaucracy who rule the EU, for fully 13 YEARS IN A ROW. The present EU Commissioner for Justice, Jacques Barrot, is a convicted fraudster and embezzler, convicted in a French court and given an 8-month suspended prison sentence, but he is now responsible for the EU's anti-fraud measures. The EU Parliament is not a parliament since it has no power AT ALL, save to sack the EU Commissioners which, even in the face of manifest corruption such as the Edith Cresson financial scandal, they have simply refused to do.
5. The break-up of the UK would hand us over to these corrupt institutions. I am against that.
6. Tribunus is a nom de plume not a name. Any fool can work that out. The country of weird and absurd names is not Britain but America. Tribunus is, in any case, a reference to a Roman rank both military and senatorial and, in the latter case, was the voice of the people in the Roman Senate in the person of 2 elected Tribuni Plebis. Since this blog is called, deliberately, Roman Christendom, since, as the side bars clearly tell, Christendom was first and foremost, Roman in its Christianity, it seemed to be appropriate to adopt as nom de plume this ancient Roman political and military name.
Clear now?
Tribunus