SHE SCRATCHED THE SURFACE,
BUT I'LL DIG MUCH DEEPER
"Noise, numbers and repetition cannot turn a lie into
the truth." -- Frank Peretti
Let me see if I can de-activate the landmine which
sits in the way of all discussion of the illegal-invasion issue.
I refer, of course, to the reflexive accusation that anyone
who objects to the swarms of illegal aliens flooding our
country MUST be a "racist." Guess what? I would be
EVERY BIT as upset and alarmed by a blond-haired,
blue-eyed Anglo forcibly breaking into my house at night
as I would be by a Hispanic doing the same thing. And
there are some very NON-white American commentators
who feel the same way I do, such as the African-American
Thomas Sowell and the Asian-American Michelle Malkin.
So, now can we have a real discussion?
Courtesy of the 3 April edition of "Human Events," I
got to see a news photo of one of the recent Mexican mob
marches, in which the marchers demanded the "right" to
have their enchilada and eat it too--that is, to enjoy all
privileges of United States citizens while at the same time
despising the United States and giving all their loyalty to
Mexico. At the front of the crowd was a girl who might
have been attractive if her mouth hadn't been opened
wide enough to swallow a smuggler's truck. She was
holding a sign which expressed a degree of truth;
but, as we shall see, partial truth can be dangerously
misleading. Her sign only scratched the surface of the
The sign said: "If you think I'm 'illegal' because I'm
a Mexican, learn the true history, because I'm in my
HOMELAND." The march of which this girl was a part
was occurring in California; and going by all the history
I have learned, it is precisely in California more than
anyplace else that Hispanics have a valid grievance
over the way the territory changed hands. Frankly,
the United States DID just march in and seize California
by shameless naked force; and I'm told that Kit Carson
murdered some Spaniards who opposed this.
But other geographical dishes on the protestors' table
are less nutritious to their case. Want some true history
besides just the part which serves one side? The Texas
Revolution happened, not because of a premeditated
takeover by Anglos, but because the Mexican government
was not respecting the rights of residents of Texas. That's
why there were MEXICAN residents of Texas who sided
WITH Sam Houston. But I suppose those Mexicans don't
count--just as modern Mexican-Americans who are loyal
to the United States are scorned by the Aztlan activists.
(Note also that, in this era before our Civil War, there was
much less of a sense of centralized national identity in the
United States--thus, less reason why the Anglo-Americans
who settled in Texas would have felt any need to attach that
land to the United States.)
Later came the Mexican War, which ended up transferring
a lot more territory to Anglo control, and in which we have
long been seen as the bad guys. Since the United States
(unlike most other countries EVER) is capable of admitting
faults, I was willing for a long time simply to accept that
verdict against my country, without further examination.
But just a couple of years ago, I learned for the first time
something that America-bashers don't want you to realize:
the fact that it was MEXICO which declared war, not our
side. What's more, after Mexico was thoroughly beaten and
lying helpless before us, there was discussion in Washington
of us taking over that whole country permanently--but we
quickly dropped the idea, and left Mexico independent.
So, Mexican civilization is not quite so purely innocent as
the marchers want us to believe. This is not to say that the
United States is purely innocent either, as I have already
conceded. But our faults already get enough, and more than
enough, and more than too much reproach, while other
nationalities get away with denying the FACT that every
injustice ever done in America has also been done elsewhere
--and frequently worse. Furthermore, it's worth noting that
the Hispanic supremacists, like other groups which get
intoxicated on the sense of entitlement, have overreached
their legitimate complaints. Around the same time as that
girl and her friends marched in Pasadena, California, a
similar mass rally brought its Mexican flags and mob noise
to Atlanta, Georgia.
If Georgia was ever a possession of Mexico or Spain
called Jorge-a, I have somehow failed to read that part of
history. And even if Georgia ever was under Hispanic rule,
I can absolutely assure you that MARYLAND, where I
live, NEVER was. Yet Maryland is also seeing mass
colonization by Hispanics who refuse to assimilate to
United States culture--including members of the vicious
MS-13 criminal gang.
Notice that I said "United States culture." Regardless
of what politically-correct writers or teachers may have
told you, there is such a thing as the United States culture.
It has room for the contributions of all races and civilizations,
but it also has its own characteristic center, consisting in
such elements as the love of home and family and a belief
in individual responsibility. Those who place the landmines
of false accusations of racism want you to imagine that
preserving America's core values MEANS denying people
from abroad all opportunity to keep their diverse heritage.
(Thus, fanatics for bilingual education pretend to believe
that wanting them TO know English is the same as saying
that they MUST NOT know Spanish. This is a lie, and
they know it.) It does not mean any such thing; but it does
mean that there has to be SOME unifying set of principles,
or there won't BE a country.
This brings us to a crucial point which race-card-playing
victimology specialists have obscured. When raising the
question of whether the United States as we know it should
be allowed to go on existing, it is not enough only to ask
if there were injustices connected with its founding and
growth. Of course there were. How many nations can you
identify which DON'T have injustices in their history? But
we must also ask: what does this country have to OFFER?
And what, in contrast, is offered by the Mexican culture
which is so eager to take over?
When Hernan Cortez invaded Mexico, he did not have
enough manpower with him to defeat the whole Aztec
Empire. He needed reinforcements; and he got them
from among the native tribes who were sick and tired of
Aztec priests using them for daily human sacrifices. Cortez
was an outside invader--but he had something to offer.
The new regime he offered could not be, was not, and in
all the time since then has not been, as bad as what native
people suffered under the murderous Aztecs. We see,
therefore, that prior claim of habitation is not the ONLY
consideration in deciding what culture or society deserves
to run a place.
Mexico is morally better than the Aztec Empire was.
Almost everyone and everything outside of Hitler's Reich
and Stalin's USSR is morally better than the Aztec Empire
was. But does this prove that Mexican culture offers people
a better way of life than United States culture does?
I have noted above that the United States is exceptional
for its willingness to admit its faults and remedy them. Yes,
we had slavery, but then we abolished it (and those much-
detested Bible-thumping Christians were at the head of
the movement to abolish slavery). Yes, we conquered the
indigenous peoples; but the descendants of the conquered
natives now find an attentive and respectful audience for
their books and lectures among white Americans. And
persons of every race and ancestry now can rise to the
top of our society--as witness the black woman who is
our Secretary of State.
Now, what about Mexico? During the early 20th
century, Mexico conducted a campaign against religious
freedom, actually killing Catholic priests just for being
Catholic priests. This true history didn't make it onto
the signboard of that girl in Pasadena, but it was the
inspiration for Graham Greene's novel "THE POWER
AND THE GLORY." More recently, the Mexican
government has persecuted Native Americans on its
territory. And plenty of Mexican-Americans, the ones
who appreciate what they have here, will tell you that
it is the firm tradition of Mexican police officers always
to give preference to those who bribe them. Not only
that, but numerous Mexican soldiers have sold
themselves as mercenaries to drug-dealing gangs.
If none of the preceding disturbs you, then how about
one sin which even the most politically-correct mind can
at least sometimes recognize as a sin: hypocrisy? Even
as Vicente Fox loudly insists that Mexicans have a
"right" to enter the United States on their own terms
and take what they want...his government ARRESTS
AND PUNISHES Central Americans who cross MEXICO'S
southern border without permission. Since pre-Columbian
civilizations did not have the identical borders of today's
Latin American countries, the Central Americans have
EXACTLY the same justification for entering Mexico as
Fox claims Mexicans have to enter the United States;
but Fox conveniently manages to forget this "true
history." In other words, Vicente Fox continually does
himself the very same thing which he calls us racist
bigots for doing.
Speaking of bigotry: do you recall Cruz Bustamante,
who ran against Arnold Schwarzenegger for the
governorship of California? In his youth, Bustamante
belonged to a Hispanic supremacist organization whose
motto was: "Everything for The [Hispanic] Race, nothing
for those outside The Race." And yet we're supposed to
believe that all the problems arise only from racism on
the part of Anglos?
If Mexican culture is so good that it deserves to be
utterly dominant, why aren't millions of Anglos trying
to get into Mexico? Maybe it's because they know that
the United States culture already allows you to enjoy all
that's good in Mexican and other cultures--whereas too
strong a dose of a Third World culture would cause us to
LOSE what's good in OUR culture.
Antonio Banderas--not exactly an Anglo supremacist,
I'd say --recently released his second "Zorro" movie.
Since it portrays the transition of California to United
States authority, I would not have blamed Banderas if he
had shown Zorro as resenting the Anglo takeover--maybe
even kicking Kit Carson's rear. But he didn't. I've never
heard Banderas detailing his opinions on the immigration
issue; but at least he showed by this movie his recognition
that the United States, AS the United States and not as
Mexico, has something good to offer the human race.
The good America offers is vulnerable to destruction,
as the fabled goose that laid golden eggs was vulnerable
to being killed. Those who demand a "right" to come in
on their own terms and feed at our trough WITHOUT
giving any loyalty to the United States--and the con-
game of dual citizenship is just a way of disguising the
refusal to give loyalty--threaten to ruin the same way
of life which created the benefits they demand.
If Hispano-fascists found a way to kill off every Anglo
in the United States, and also to kill off everyone of any
other race who lived by the core values of this country,
until there was no one left but Aztlan-activist Chicanos
from Hawaii to Maine, what would they gain by it? For
awhile, there would be a leftover infrastructure for them
to plunder, as barbarians have always plundered. But
since they have chosen to live by a self-serving spoiled-
brat sense of entitlement rather than by responsibility
and integrity, they would not be able to keep it running.
Thus they would sink into the rule of the strong and
corrupt over the weak--just like Mexico. Killing the
goose that laid the golden eggs would simply enlarge
the Third World.
I would rather that this did not happen. I would
rather that people of all races be able to enjoy the God-
ordained freedoms which the United States Constitution
recognizes, and which most other governmental systems
do not. But the survival of those freedoms depends on
people giving loyalty and respect to the civilization which
upholds them. I'm all for immigrants who come with a
desire to be loyal members of our society; by making
their diverse contributions WITHIN the framework
of our core culture, they strengthen us. What I'm
against is those who despise our laws yet still demand
our blessings and our welfare funds.
I guess this makes me a racist.
Maybe I'd better look that word up again; I didn't
seem to recall "racist" meaning someone who believes
in the rule of law...
Yours for Jesus and America,
Joseph Richard Ravitts