Another kind of enemy
While the boys at
National Review move with baby steps toward defending the American nation from the Third-World invasion, the anarcho-nihilist-libertarians at
LewRockwell.com are rejoicing in the destruction of America by that same invasion. This past April Rockwell published an
article by one Ryan McMaken in which the author advocates and accepts, with heavy doses
Schadenfreud directed against Anglo-Americans, the Mexican
reconquista of American West and the Hispanic conquest of all of North America.
* * *
VFR reader Stephen T. eviscerates Ryan McMaken’s article.
He writes:
Ryan McMaken of lewrockwell.com writes: “If Anglo civilization possessed any trace of its 19th century self instead of its current old, decadent, and lazy version, Anglos would be filling the Americas with its progeny, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted that it one day would.”
No they wouldn’t—they’d be killing Mexican invaders and removing them out of the Southwest back into Mexico. Just like they did in the 19th century.
Persons of McMaken’s persuasion scorn today’s “lazy” Americans for not stopping illegal Mexican immigration, yet it always eventually becomes clear that they themselves don’t want it to be stopped. How is it clear? Because the measures they condemn Americans for not taking are inevitably weak and ineffective and wouldn’t work anyway—while glaringly absent is any criticism of us for not pursuing the kind of measures which *would* be (and once were) effective.
If we pale in comparison to the 19th century Anglos we’re supposed to believe McMaken endorses, it’s not because we aren’t “filling the land with progeny” as he says they did—it’s because we aren’t dispatching an army of 60,000 all the way to Mexico City, seizing nearly half of Mexico’s total territory, and killing 30,000 Mexicans along the way. Oddly, he doesn’t criticize our lack of resolve in doing anything resembling THAT today, because that’s precisely how the 19th century Americans he mentions successfully dealt with Mexico’s reconquista intentions toward the Republic of Texas. For some reason, I don’t think McMaken wants to remind us of that but prefers us to think that these less-decadent Americans were actually inclined to rely on the force of progeny to match bambino-for-bambino the skyrocketing birth rate of the Mestizo pueblo cultures. (And if we had any REAL guts today, by God, we would, too!)
If Ryan McMaken wants us to adopt the *real* measures Americans of the 19th century employed to deal with marauding, territorial Mexicans—if he REALLY does—then let’s roll. But I have a feeling that if we really did, he would be the first to cry foul.
p.s. Texas remained vastly underpopulated by Anglos (per sq. mile) for at least a couple of generations *after* the military forcibly ran the Mexicans back to Mexico. So it would have been a l-o-n-g wait for progeny to save the day, anyhow.
Bruce B. writes:
My first impulse is to smash my computer screen !!!
I used to read his site but stopped when I kept seeing hard-core leftists published for anti-war purposes. He will publish anyone who supports any general position he takes particularly if it supports his hatred of government. I had been considering drafting a series of questions to you on your views of the paleos (libs and overlapping cons, neo-confeds), aside from your expressed opinions on their recent excesses and obnoxiousness, addressing the validity of their philosophy in general. I had planned to offer a defense for the more reasonable ones. But I don’t know where they stand anymore. I can’t defend them. I have no problem with the advocacy of federalism or particularism, neo-confederacy, even the notion that the constitution is fundamentally flawed and the articles of confederation was better.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 10, 2006 02:45 PM | Send