Posted on 05/19/2012 6:13:21 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
What a choice we have between a white president who hates whites and a black president who hates whites. Matter of fact, it seems that the whole Democrat establishment hates whites.
The pre-1965 immigration law had it right, a nation should preserve its heritage for its children any others may be welcome but only in small numbers. We have to stop being so chicken about talking about race.
And who are the racists here?The racists are whoever the media says are the racists. That's the number one lesson of the George Zimmerman arrest and trial.
I am wondering if you have any children.
Brazil is probably the country that comes closest to this but no one is singing kumbaya. In fact, they have many unwanted kids living in the streets and there is still a race continuum from black to white. When people of different races interbreed on a large scale there will be a *rainbow* effect as some take after one side of the family and others take after the other. Even within the same family there will be marked racial differences, as a result the Brazilians have developed an elaborate system of catergorizing people by race. Race never goes away no matter how much you try to *blend* people.
The Bible also teaches that circumsion was a way of distinguishing the Jews from the gentiles. The Jews were told to keep away from the pagans and to avoid their pagan ways. Nations are the best and organic way for people to organize, it is the natural way that people have lived as they have settled in a land many thousands of years ago. We can have people of different races living in this country but the question is how many are too many? When there is a tilt in the balance of power then there is no large or powerful enough group to hold the center together. All the different groups will fight for dominance as we are seeing.
It comes back to the old “if white people don’t notice race, then we will all get along like God and the angels.” So what happens when other people notice race?
The Founding Fathers were trying to have something almost new under the sun-a form of government in which the power wasn’t automatically passed down though the tribe, the clan, the aristocracy, the nobility, the monarchy.
The founders of these groups had indeed done deeds of great bravery or goodness to have won their palms, and it was accepted in their era that part of the prize was to easily be able to distinguish your progeny for posterity on this one basis (though the concept of “noblesse oblige” did more than pay lip service to the idea that those descendants were expected to add more gilding to the laurel leaves won by the founder of the house (though the inbreeding necessary to keep the bloodlines “worthy” had a tendency to produce either greatness in man (the Drakes, Walter Raleighs, etc), or the “chinless wonders”, or the few mediocrities in the middle.
It was a system not designed to make room for newcomers based on pure merit, and after the Industrial Revolution, a new class was rising-the “middle class” who were often well-educated and even well-traveled (the “Grand Tour” was the finish of many upper-middle-class young men’s education). As of yet, there was no room for these men with merit in the halls of power, even under such a relatively enlightened monarchy such as the British style of reigning.
All that to say, that when the American Revolution was gaining speed, it was early agreed , once the stage was reached of speaking about a brand new government for this new nation, that it would be based on merit and the will of the people though their elected or appointed representatives (republican form of government).
For a government like this to suceed, to thrive, requires especially many men of merit and goodness (by which I mean integrity and character). They went straight to the source, rather than hoping each generation of the monarchy or the nobility would produce these exceptional men. These men would come from many classes(though, this being the 18th C, the power would still temd to accrue into the hands of the more educated upper classes (education still being a thing which any man could attain-if he MERITED it, of he was smart and studious enough). Abraham Lincoln was one of the earliest best examples of this new man.
I say all this to say, that when the Founding Fathers said that “all men are created equal”, they still were men of their time. They were saying that all men were equal before God and the law, not that all men should be required to be equal in condition. That’s not even possible under Communism, as they well knew themselves.
All men are NOT, even now, equal in condition, nor can they be made to be except by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. That’s the ONLY way THAT kind of “equality” can ever work, because a person can be prevented from reaching their highest potential, but you just can’t someone inherently smarter than they are. I could never be a Stephen Hawkings if I studied for a hundred years, because I do not a capacity-of freedom, of spatial cognizance, that he has. Should we therefore teach to a curriculum that will make sure, “in the name of equality”, that a Hawking or a Carl Sagan or an Einstein can never happen again?
That is also one reason that the greatest innovations have come from the west and not the east, in spite of their higher iqs. Conformity is a fundamental of their culture-the nail that sticks up, gets hammered (interestingly enough, the Russians also have that saying).
A theory has been proposed, offering something called “the Hercules quality”. It describes a quality which makes men do daring deeds of bravery, explorarion, and discovery, even at the conscious and accepted risk to their lives, in the name of just “wanting to know”. The first balloonists-fliers-astronauts-deep sea divers in tiny submersibles that are the men’s only protection against unbelievable pressure outside if only one tiny crack goes deep enough. I’m talking about the pioneers in these efforts,when the dangers were hardly understood and therefore all the more terrifying. These pioneers have all been white males.
OK, dismiss all of this as just “a tiny part of history”. Then what of the fact that when whites leave, for whatever reason, thriving cities or countries they’ve built up to First World status, and turn them over to black rule-always leaving the infrastructure in place, not “scorching the earth” in resentment (as is done by blacks to innocent home and shop owners in their “riots”), the blacks never fail to NOT maintain the citiy/country (see South Africa, Detroit). All the time before the white presence has been lessened, there would have been blacks working in these enterprises, some of them had to have learned how things work-WHY can they still not teach others and keep things running up to the standard they had under white government?
Could it be that the Founders were indeed wise and knew that equality under God and before the law is as good as it can ever get, considering they were planning a form of government based on meritocracy instead of monarchy or aristocracy?
Whichever race is dominant, it’s culture will be dominant. Frankly I don’t want to live in a nation that has the same third world culture which these people fled, only to proudly recreate it here. England already has problems with Muslims attempting-and in some cases suceeding-to impose sharia. I don’t see Mexico’s culture as especially worthy of emulation, especially now. Black culture in general-what can I say? Has there ever been an irreplaceable, useful field of endeavor in which they’ve led the world to the benefit of all mankind? If any of these cultures are the future dominant culture of America, whites should PRAY to be gone from here one way or another, because if we are so weak as to succumb to these cultures we don’t deserve to live and won’t want to live in them. Whites are “altruisming” ourselves out of existence.
Cultures are what people have made of them. Consider South America compared to Spain and Portugal. The South American countries have so many more social problems than the Iberian countries. There is so much more crime in South America than in the Iberian countries because there are two cultures blended in the South American countries. All we have to do is see how people live in their own countries and we will see how they will live in our country.
These are the end times for America.
Not necessarily, but with the Great Recession still with us, it's certainly time for revisiting our immigration policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.