A point that we’ve made here several times in the past is that changes in demographics mean changes in the culture – massive changes. The steep decline began to really take off following the Immigration Act of 1965 and other egalitarian laws passed around that time. The Immigration Act, known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished the national origins quota system that had framed American immigration policy since the 1920s. This was heavily promoted by Ted Kennedy who made it his personal crusade. The result of this legislation was immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and doubled again between 1970 and 1990. The most dramatic effect was to shift immigration from Europe to Asia and Central and South America. Closely related to this massive change in the legislated makeup of America, illegal immigration began to be treated as just another social program; illegal immigrants began to be seen as victims rather than criminals.
A country is made up of, and defined by, the people who live there – not by geographic borders and laws and systems of government. When the makeup of the people change, the country changes. While the main topic here is national origins, the makeup of a country also includes the prevailing beliefs (or lack thereof) of the population. America has undergone radical changes in the last 40 – 50 years. This is not the same country that it once was – and the change appears to be a deliberate effort to destroy the Occidental culture that America – and The South – was founded on. The Marxist position is that diversity strengthens and improves and enriches a culture – a position that is a treasonous lie. Diversity is the dilution of every culture that is included; mixing cultures, like an invading parasite, destroys the host culture.
The New York Times has created a map that shows the population breakdown by race, comparing census data from 2000 and 2010. Take a look at it and see what is happening to your county and state.
Dear Sirs,
The parents of yours truly, immigrants from the Netherlands East Indies, were invited by the government of these United States, because of the critical shortage of educators in the 1960’s. Dutch, and later English, were the languages of our household. Culturally, we were Western Europeans. Never, have we asked for, nor received, any governmental charity or ethnically-based preferential treatment. Further, both my brother, my only sibling, as well as yours truly, were in the Service.
We have come to realize, in spite of the pervasive forced egalitarianism around us, that our traditional Western European culture, with all of its faults, is the most progressive and humane, by far. The Confederate Colonel Project reinforces and advances our common culture.
Thank you.
A New Jersey Copperhead
The “Dutch, and later English” brings to mind the experience of my mother. Both of her parents came here from Latvia. Latvia is a small country with Russia to the east, Estonia and Finland to the north, Norway and Sweden to the west, and Lithuania to the south. When she first started school here, she did not speak English because she simply was not exposed to it even though she was born here. She spoke only Latvian (also known as Lettish) because that is what her parents spoke at home. The other children in school made fun of her and she came home crying. My grandparents made a rule on that day that only English would be spoken in their home from that moment on.
Contrast that to the demands by some that signs and government services be bi-lingual. Granted, English is not an easy language to master. It is, however, a near-universal language, so there is no excuse for not being exposed to it enough to quickly learn to be functionally literate in the language.
My grandmother had a strong accent all of her life, but she spoke only English in their home from the day my mother came home from school until the day she died. She was, along with your parents, among the last wave of immigrants who came to this country wanting to become Americans and adopt the native culture rather than insisting that the culture change to meet their demands.
Dear Mr. McGehee,
The mother of yours truly, taught English, the English spoken and written in England, before immigrating to these United States. Yours truly, was born in the British Crown Colony of Victoria, by the way, and learned and spoke Dutch, English and Cantonese there. To this day, yours truly, prefers the Oxford English Dictionary, because it is English English, and generally, pre-“Reconstruction” Southern English.
You can claim a proud maternal heritage as well, for Latvia successfully resisted Russian and Soviet domination, for decades, in spite of the deliberate neglect of her struggle, by the egalitarian-dominated academia and media, and the realpolitik of the then “Free World”.
Thank you.
A New Jersey Copperhead
Dear Sirs,
There are two presently unanswerable questions. To begin with, a substantial minority of recent immigrants from Latin America, though not the majority, are good Protestant Christians. Further, most seem to realize, that at least a working knowledge of the English language, is essential for advancement, and that convictions for criminality, can only hurt their opportunities (undocumentation, being a civil, rather than a criminal offence). Therefore, the first question is, will these immigrants and their descendants, be absorbed into the established cultural mainstream, keeping in mind, fortunately, the general ineffectiveness of multiculturalism? Secondly, can our fears be unfounded, remembering that the Germans, and later, the Irish, and still later, the Italian, Polish, Jewish and other Central and Eastern Europeans, were quite unwelcome here, “Wop” standing for “without papers”, for example?
Finally, perhaps we should also remember, that the Latin Americans here, are mostly descended from Native Americans, and Spanish, a Western European people, and that many Native Americans, as well as a few(?) Hispanics, distinguished themselves in the War for Southern Independence (and, in later wars of these United States).
Thank you.
A New Jersey Copperhead
I have always been puzzled by the term that is so often used “strength through diversity”. Isn’t it just the same as those who were trying to build the tower of babel while speaking with different tongues? The egalatarian post on here seems to come into play.
“Diversity”, as the cultural Marxists use the term, is strictly a one-way street. What they will not admit to, but is in inseparable from the “Strength through Diversity” slogan, is that they are saying that other races must be “diverse” (i.e., must have the assistance of Whites) in order to have “strength”. Those of other races should be very insulted at that – instead, they claim to be insulted by just the sight of the Confederate flag. I just don’t understand the logic in that. They should be up in arms at the whole “diversity” scam that the liberal left has attached to them. Do they not understand what the “diversity” scam says about them? what it is saying to their children? how it tears down any sense of independence? Apparently the lure of mandated special privileges and status outweighs the pride associated with independence and self-reliance.
Here is a quote from a “Letter to the editor” that encapsulates it quite well:
Leftist liberals love to repeat the slogan, “Diversity is our strength.” Does that mean to them that companies, schools, and governments that are 100 percent white are weak? That sure sounds anti-white to me.
Read more: http://citizensvoice.com/opinion/letters/leftist-liberals-wrong-to-say-diversity-is-our-strength-1.1178530#ixzz1TE9J8rvY