White Nationalist Alert

[wetibbe]

Customarily there is an oversimplification to the basic attitudes about immigrants. Dealing with two basic categories. 1. Americans. 2. Foreigners:

AMERICANS:

* The attitudes of Americans towards immigrants covers a wide spectrum. One basic concept is political. The spectrum is from left to right, liberal to conservative. It also encompasses the prevalent political parties, Republican, Democrat, and to lesser degrees, independents, constitutionalists, communists and several other minors.

a). The Americans can be categorized as religious - Churches and Congregations, politicians - Federal and State Senators, Congressmen, Attorneys Generals, US Attorneys, Aldermen, Free Holders, Assemblymen,Law enforcement - Police-Sheriffs, District Attorneys, City, Town, Village officials and the various councils, committees, legislators, Mayors, Business owners, Corporations, domestic and multi-national, farmers, dairy's, tree/plant/flower nursery's,retailers, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels/motels, rental accommodations/rooms/houses construction...................................... .................. ad infinitum.

1) Each of these has a different agenda, a different attitude, a different opinion. Some see only economic exploitation, some see the opportunity to fill pews and collection plates, some have a personal conviction of one sort or another, some see voters, some are anxious to ensure a steady supply of illicit narcotics and addicting substances........................................ ............... ad infinitum.

2) The apparent majority of these that are aware are ready willing and able to aid and abet illegal aliens one way or another and are completely committed to place those desires, convictions and aspirations above the law. Willing to run the risks until caught and prosecuted and not before.

3) There are some in law enforcement and public office that are willing to enforce the laws and some who are not.

FOREIGNERS:

* The foreign immigrants come from 197 countries. The illegal aliens come from the majority of these same countries. The head count has been estimated by some organizations as possibly 1 million per year.

1) Legal foreigners come for many reasons. To work, to marry, for asylum, to rejoin families, for religious freedom, for political freedom.

2) Some of these foreigners join with other foreigners and Americans to form lobbyists, pressure groups, advocates, organizations that have designs of one form or another on the USA, intending to bend it to their models, liking, aspirations by overt and hidden means and methods. Some are political, some are economic and some are terrorists. All try to advance their personal agendas by one means or another, legally or otherwise.

3) Illegal aliens come for various reasons from the majority of these countries. They are separated by DHS, CBP, into two broad categories: Mexicans and OTM's. The Mexicans comprise about 60% of the illegals. Of the balance a majority come from Latin countries in Central and South American and the Caribbean. The balance come from a broad range of countries all over the world and from all continents. Probably the majority come for economic reasons but those reasons are both legal and illegal. Some are already criminals escaping prosecution, pedophiles, human and drug traffickers and smugglers but universally the basic underlying reason is almost always some form of economic gain.

4) Of the illegals and legals, including the Americans, the Mexicans are the most active in fomenting political and economic mayhem in the USA. There are at least 6 basic categories. Some dream of Aztlan, some want to retake the territory, some do not, some aspire to political and economic dominance, some do not. Mexico is implementing the plan CONAPO to inject 25 to 35 million Mexicans into the USA in the next 30 years. It is a form of Germany's territorial expansion Lebensraum *( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum )

By the year 2050 it is projected that minorities will overtake white Americans and become the majority. Rhodesia *( Zimbabwe ) and South Africa are examples of what to expect vis-a-vis black/brown on white. Some of them have already said it !

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by wetibbe

....

...
Rhodesia *( Zimbabwe ) and South Africa are examples of what to expect vis-a-vis black/brown on white. Some of them have already said it !

No, that's ridiculous. In Zimbabwe and South Africa and the rest of Africa too, even the Muslim colonized territories, Africans are the natives and have always outnumbered the colonists. Always. The historic, cultural, economic and political momentum has always been and will forever be in their hands. Their relatively recent struggles with colonizers and their real imperialist sponsors (with the exception of the Dutch South Africans) are of no long term consequence, but only if they can seize the initiative outside of colonial influence.

Illegal immigrants, no matter how they dominate demographically in the United States will ever have any kind of real meaning here, except as they are licensed to have by power holders. They have no cultural roots here and are not really interested in establishing any. The best they can manage or neighborhood facades and cultural adornments. The best representative of who they are will always be where they came from, not where they are at. And to the extent that legal immigrants share their cultures, they will exist here the same way.

At the roots of the United States of America is resistance against colonization. We were born from it and we will shake it off again if we have to. Floods of people dumped here will not be enough to restrain us or dampen our resolve or confound a solution.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Twoller

No, that's ridiculous. In Zimbabwe and South Africa and the rest of Africa too, even the Muslim colonized territories, Africans are the natives and have always outnumbered the colonists. Always. The historic, cultural, economic and political momentum has always been and will forever be in their hands. Their relatively recent struggles with colonizers and their real imperialist sponsors (with the exception of the Dutch South Africans) are of no long term consequence, but only if they can seize the initiative outside of colonial influence.

As I understand it, the white owned farms in Zimbabwe and other African countries were broken up and given to people who had no idea how to manage them, thus constituting a great leap backwards in respect to national nutrition.

Same thing happened in Mexico after the revolution. Many of the haciendas exchanged hands from criollo landowners to mestizo generals and the disaster was furthered along by politically popular "land redistribution" in favor of relatively unproductive subsistence hand farming.

Illegal immigrants, no matter how they dominate demographically in the United States will ever have any kind of real meaning here, except as they are licensed to have by power holders.

I believe you may be underestimating what has already occurred.

[wetibbe]

The CONAPO plan that I read did specifically refer to the continuing migration of millions over 30 years.

Here is one report from CIS:

http://www.cis.org/MexicanGovernment...assImmigration

[ilbegone]

The 2002 CIS report referenced appears to covers an earlier version of the document I provided a link to (covering projections from 2008 - 2012), which might be a projection of wishful political thinking. Any plan, political,personal, business can be full of rosy assumptions towards a goal.

In 2001, our economy was going strong, lots of "positive" assumptions could spring forth.

The CIS report itself refers to the document it covers as a report rather than a plan.

I have no doubt there is an unspoken Mexican governmental plan to shovel millions of Mexicans in America, but I don't believe this is the "smoking gun".

[Twoller]

Not only are Mexicans not the future of the United States, they are hardly the future in their own country.

I've said it before. How can Mexicans claim to be able to take over this country if they can't even take over their own.

The Mexican presence in the United States is licensed by the Catholic Church and enabled by Catholic control of the economy and political life. Mexicans have nothing to contribute here and where they appear to be doing so, if you look closely you will see it's only Catholic patronage that makes it possible to look like they are.

When they admited former Spanish colonies into the United States, they should have changed the Spanish names to something else. We need to reject the whole notion that there is anything like a Latin American "heritage" to the United States. It has never been anything like a contributor to it.

[ilbegone]

Aztlan is a concept born in America, I'm not sure who originally dreamed it up. My guess is Corky Gonzalez's "Crusade for Justice" bunch in 1960's Denver. There was a a big conference there in or about 1968 which greatly influenced the Texas and California groups, I believe the idea spread out from there.

It was Gutierrez and some of his buddies who originally approached Mexican President Echavarria in the late 60's or early 70's seeking his assistance on either creating the new state of Aztlan or failing that, restoring the US / Mexican borders to what it had been in something like 1823. I believe the Mexican government didn't have the idea before then.

There was some resistance to the meeting. I believe Gonzalez objected because of Echavarria's role in the 1968 Tlateloco student massacre, Tijera was involved with his land title obsession, and Cesar Chavez wasn't going to have anything to do with it until the Mexican government held back the illegal entrants who were breaking his strikes.

The American born group was an embarrassing assemblage in Mexican eyes. Brown skinned people with Spanish last names who couldn't construct a sentence in Spanish, and one of the group even pointed to a picture on a Mexican war hero (of the Mexican American war) and commented that it was a great picture of Santa Anna, an unintended insult. However, Gutierrez has been in contact ever since, and there has been an official Mexican liaison to what became the NCLR since those times.

Even though he is an old man now, Gutierrez is a brilliant strategist and planner - don't ever underestimate him or those who learned from him. Even though much of it it ended up crashing, his takeover of the local governments and school district in and including Zavala County in Texas is the model for what has been quietly happening across the country over the last forty years.

Where can I find the original quote about killing the gringo, where it happened, who witnessed it? I have no doubt he said it, I haven't been able to find the original occurrence.

Q: “How are Mexican immigrants of today different from Mexican immigrants of decades ago?”

GUTIERREZ:” They are different in one salient aspect…they are keeping their Mexicanness. ..The Mexicanos that are coming today, even though they are political refugees and migrants returning to their homeland, are keeping their Mexicanness … They are recreating Mexico here. I think they are doing it because of the sheer numbers. …”

The difference is that before the Civil rights movement, most Mexicans told their American children that they needed to forget about speaking Spanish and become a part of America. However, for any of those people to become acceptable and successful in America they had to change their name, which is why Richard Valenzuela became Richie Valens. They generally couldn't eat in "white" restaurants, it was clear that the brown man worked for the white man and not the other way around.

No one can tell me it wasn't that way, there is memory of it in my house.

Then the 60's happened, and the pendulum has been forced to swing the other way, with kids who have no idea who Nixon and Johnson were -architects of affirmative action - carrying on as if pre 1960 white racism was their own experience.

The civil rights movement was to bring about equality, not exchange one racial pecking order for another or throw out the melting pot for the "salad bowl". Therefore every form and source of racism needs to be addressed, the issue of illegal immigration resolved, we need to reclaim our schools for the purpose of education rather than a fount of political and racial agenda, and we - regardless of race or ancestral origin, need to become one people as Americans.

[wetibbe]

Allan Wall Archive Email a Friend...
Printer Friendly Version...

September 23, 2003

Memo From Mexico, By Allan Wall
Mexico Has No Intention Of Decreasing Emigration
Could mass Mexican immigration to the United States be only a transitional phenomenon until Mexico gets its economy in order?

A hypothetical question, of course, since Mexico is a long way from getting its economic house in order.

But this is the answer: don’t count on a decrease in emigration from Mexico any time. The Mexican government has no intention of decreasing it. In fact, it’s working hard to increase emigration.

According to a document issued in November of 2001 by CONAPO, the Mexican National Population Council, even with a decrease in the birth rate and an improved Mexican economy, emigration to the U.S. will not diminish for at least the next 30 years! CONAPO called this emigration “inevitable.” Of course what CONAPO really means by "inevitable" is that it doesn't want it stopped.

The Mexican central bank recently reported that income from remittances from Mexican migrants in the U.S. now tops that of every other sector other than petroleum. Migration, in other words, earns more for Mexico than tourism, more than manufacturing, more than mining, more than agriculture, more than direct foreign investment in Mexico.

In just the first 6 months of 2003, recorded earnings from remittances totaled $6.3 billion (Petroleum – over $8 billion, direct foreign investment – $5.2 billion, Tourism – $4.9 billion). [Mexican Central Bank: Money Sent Home By Migrants Tops Foreign Investment, Tourism by Mark Stevenson, Associated Press, August 29th, 2003]

Mexico has great economic potential. It’s a tourist bonanza with some of the world’s finest beaches, colonial architecture, pre-Hispanic archaeology, and more. Mexico has mineral wealth – for example, it’s the world’s number one in silver reserves - a large industrial sector, a highly-educated upper class and a small but growing high-tech industry. Mexican agriculture is blessed with a wide variety of ecosystems and long growing seasons.

Yet, except for petroleum, not one of these sources of wealth production can surpass the value of remittances from migrants in the U.S.!

This is a stunning indictment. How could a modern nation-state allow itself to get into such a predicament?

This incredible failure should be a first-class embarrassment for Mexico’s ruling class. Instead, it's being utilized for political gain. The power of migrant remittances in the economy is yet another built-in disincentive to reform Mexico’s economy.

Where does remittance money go? It goes to buy groceries, consumer goods and into home improvement. In some cases it encourages its recipients not to take up productive work in Mexico. Very little of remittance funds are channeled into savings or productive investment in Mexico. Once again, no incentive for emigration reduction.

Indeed, Mexico is losing its attraction for foreign investment due in part to its government’s ongoing failure to enact reform in the fiscal and energy sectors [México pierde su atractiva, Romina Róman, Universal, September 11th, 2003]. Why should it, with that emigration safety valve?

You can't blame Vicente Fox for the economic and political errors of the 71 years before he took office. On the other hand, his election provided a window of opportunity which his administration has failed to exploit.

Fox defenders blame the Mexican Congress, which does deserve its share of the blame. However, there are elements in the PRI – the former ruling party – open to energy reform. Why can't Fox build a coalition with this faction - as Ronald Reagan did with southern Democrats in the 1980's? The Fox administration has simply not shown the necessary political skills for such coalition-building.

Instead, Fox's obsession with emigration has diverted time and political capital which could have been spent more constructively in substantial reforms.

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who recently declared that Mexico would give the U.S. nothing in exchange for a migratory accord, laid out the goals of Mexican foreign policy in a recent Reforma article. Generally, these goals are what you would expect given the globalist principles outlined in Vicente Fox’s Madrid speech. But of special interest to the U.S. National Question is one item that Foreign Minister Derbez describes thusly:

“Through our network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States regardless of their legal or migratory status…We seek with our northern neighbor the negotiation of a total migratory package which includes (a) the regularization of undocumented [a.k.a. illegal] Mexicans resident in that country, (b) border security, (c)an increase in the number of visas for temporary workers and (d) regional economic development.

“Besides seeking a total migratory package defined above, with the goal of improving living conditions of our fellow Mexicans, we have issued in the past year 1, 130,000 matriculas consulares. [They are] accepted in 280 banking institutions and in 32 states of that country [the U.S.] The [U.S.] Department of the Treasury announced yesterday that it permits the use of the matricula by commercial banking. This will doubtless increase its acceptance, to the benefit of all Mexicans.

“In April we established the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, whose Consultative Council is composed of 100 consultants, elected directly by the Mexican Communities, which institutionalizes the relationship between Mexico and the communities abroad.” [Estrategias de la Nueva Política Exterior de México, Luis Ernesto Derbez, Reforma, September 19th, 2003]

Notice that, as usual, the Mexican foreign ministry is closely monitoring the matricula consular situation, pushing for a migratory accord, and utilizing Mexican consulates as operational bases for the continuing colonization of the United States.

Americans need to understand that Mexico’s leaders, who head its white minority government, have no intention whatsoever of reducing emigration. Why should they? Emigration keeps them in power. It removes a portion of Mexico’s poor, reducing demographic pressure on the government. And, as recent Mexican administrations have learned, it gives Mexico an opportunity to exert influence over U.S. immigration policy, which enables the cycle to continue.

In Mexico’s fractious political world, “defending the immigrants” is one issue which draws support across the political spectrum. All political parties and centers of influence support the continued promotion of emigration and the concomitant subversion of American law and sovereignty.

Cutting off emigration would do Mexico a gigantic favor. It would finally force the ruling elite to break the addiction to its emigration safety valve.

Still, we can’t expect the Mexican government to defend U.S. sovereignty. That’s the job of American leaders.

If our leaders won’t defend our sovereignty, shouldn’t we replace them with leaders who do?

American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers can contact Allan Wall at allan39@prodigy.net.mx.

[wetibbe]

[QUOTE=Twoller;11952]No, that's ridiculous. In Zimbabwe and South Africa and the rest of Africa too, even the Muslim colonized territories, Africans are the natives and have always outnumbered the colonists. Always. The historic, cultural, economic and political momentum has always been and will forever be in their hands. Their relatively recent struggles with colonizers and their real imperialist sponsors (with the exception of the Dutch South Africans) are of no long term consequence, but only if they can seize the initiative outside of colonial influence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


Kill the Gringo and Latinize America
June 5th, 2004 ·

Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, is a busy man.

Gutierrez was recently in Mexico City at the invitation of the Mexican government to participate in the binational Reconquista jamboree reported in my last column.

The very next day (April 30th, 2004), he was in Kansas City speaking at something called the “Latino Civil Rights Summit.

There he boasted that: We are the future of America. Unlike any prior generation, we now have the critical mass. We’re going to Latinize this country.
In a puff piece on the conference, Lewis W. Diuguid of the Kansas City Star reported that

“Gutierrez said people from Mexico, Central and South America are not immigrating to the United States. They are simply migrating because this land had been theirs…Hispanics should never put up with others telling them to go back where they came from” [Hispanics will help build future of U.S., April 18th, 2004]
That argument, based on absurd historical claims, completely invalidates the existence of the U.S.A.

Gutierrez also discussed Hispanic demographics. He told the audience that half of the Hispanic population is under the age of 21—and that for every Latino who dies, 5 white people die!

Gutierrez has been saying this sort of thing for some time. Speaking in California in 1995, he said:

“The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot—we will not—and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.”[listen here]

The same themes as Kansas City—a claim to U.S. territory, denial that the U.S. is a legitimate nation-state, exultation over Hispanic demographic growth.

If a white English-speaking American expresses displeasure over the prediction that his ethnic group (if present trends continue) is destined to lose its majority status, he will be called a “racist.”

But Hispanic activists publicly gloat over the increase of their ethnic group. Why isn’t that racist?

Who is Jose Angel Gutierrez ? He’s technically an American citizen, born in Crystal City, Texas in 1944—an example of the great National Question truth that, just because the cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits.

He is activist and lawyer, has served as county judge in Texas, and is an author who has penned such classics as A Chicano Manual On How To Handle Gringos. Since his youth, he has been active in the Chicano movement, and was one of the founders of MAYO, the Mexican American Youth Organization.

Texas Democratic Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez made some interesting comments about MAYO, entered in the Congressional Record, April 3rd, 1969:

“MAYO styles itself the embodiment of good and the Anglo-American as the incarnation of evil. That is not merely ridiculous, it is drawing fire from the deepest wellsprings of hate. The San Antonio leader of MAYO, Jose Angel Gutierrez, may think himself something of a hero, but he is, in fact, only a benighted soul if he believes that in the espousal of hatred he will find love. He is simply deluded if he believes that the wearing of fatigues . . . makes his followers revolutionaries . . . One cannot fan the flames of bigotry one moment and expect them to disappear the next.” (Nativist and Racist Movements in the U.S. and their Aftermath, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, Henry A. Rhodes)

Back then, Gutierrez said

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

Later, Gutierrez told The San Antonio Express and News (April 11th, 1969) that the term “Gringo” referred to a bigoted and racist individual or institution. And “kill” just meant the elimination of the political, economic and social foundation of “the Gringo.”

Oh, well—that’s OK then!

Bottom line – Gutierrez wants gringos out of Texas.

Here are excerpts from an interview in 2000:

Q: “If the main goal (of the old Chicano movement) then was to reclaim Aztlan and control all the institutions of civil society, what is the main goal now?”

GUTIERREZ’ answer: “I think it is still the same thing. You hear the Hispanic Republicans talk about the same thing. … this idea has even been co-opted by the Republicans. ….The Hispanic Democrats and Mexican-American Democrats and Tejano Democrats, synonymous in Texas, they are doing the same thing….. ”

Q: “How are Mexican immigrants of today different from Mexican immigrants of decades ago?”

GUTIERREZ:” They are different in one salient aspect…they are keeping their Mexicanness. ..The Mexicanos that are coming today, even though they are political refugees and migrants returning to their homeland, are keeping their Mexicanness … They are recreating Mexico here. I think they are doing it because of the sheer numbers. …”
continued>>>

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-in...erica_515.html

[ilbegone]

Mexico is implementing the plan CONAPO to inject 25 to 35 million Mexicans into the USA in the next 30 years.

CONAPO is a department of the Mexican government, Consejo National de Poblacion - National Population Council.

El Consejo Nacional de Población, por mandato de la Ley de Población, tiene la misión de regular los fenómenos que afectan a la población en cuanto a su volumen, estructura, dinámica y distribución en el territorio nacional, con el fin de lograr que ésta participe justa y equitativamente de los beneficios del desarrollo económico y social.

And more at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/index.php?o...d=1&Itemid=217

As I read it, CONAPO has a mission by law to compare social phenomena which affects the whole population (of Mexico), the structure and dynamics of the population and population distribution within Mexico, with the goal of everyone equally enjoying the benefits of economic and social advancement.

I found the CONAPO Adobe document concerning Mexican national statisics and Governmental goals for the period of 2008 - 2012. PROGRAMA NACIONAL DE POBLACION at http://www.conapo.gob.mx/pnp/PNP_2008_2012.pdf

It's about 100 pages, extremely wordy and repetitive, and to completely comprehend it I would have to print it out and study it. However, skimming through it, it seems concerned with about every aspect of Mexican society: population; education; public health; women's rights; reproductive rights; sexually transmitted diseases; employee rights; lots of commentary and opinion concerning migration within, from, to, and through Mexico with all sorts of charts and maps of Mexico and America; Civic participation; the usual harangue concerning "human rights" and allegations of mistreatment of Mexican citizens in America; the social benefits and social costs of immigration to America, including family disruption and loss of domestic labor; and a goal of legalizing the flow of Mexicans into America.

It could be a Spanish language Boxer / Feinstein / Reid / Baca committee document or United Nations report from what superficial reading I gave it.

I didn't readily see an overt plan described to "inject" tens of millions of Mexicans into America, although it may be an unspoken, presumptuous forgone conclusion. The Mexican government has approved and abetted mass exodus for years as a social pressure release valve and defacto national welfare program, and some in their government see it as a method of territorial expansion by population transfer.

However, none of this is breaking news.