Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Texico, Arabia

More than 40 percent of Mexican adults say they would move to the U.S. if they could, and 1 in 5 say they would do so illegally if necessary, according to surveys released yesterday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Surveys of 1,200 Mexican adults in February and 1,200 in May, conducted in their homes, show that Mexicans' rising education levels have not weakened the desire to live and work in this country.

More than a third of Mexican college graduates say they would come to the U.S. if they could, and more than 1 in 8 would do so even if they had to enter the country illegally, according to the surveys, the first of their kind.

"Contrary to what people might expect, the inclination to migrate isn't contained among Mexicans who are poor or poorly educated or with limited economic prospects," says Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "They're distributed across the whole breadth of Mexican society."

Mexicans' willingness to come is driven by a desire to improve their economic status and join friends and family already there, Suro says.

Despite improvements in the Mexican economy, "people with college degrees believe they have greater economic opportunities by migration to the U.S. - even illegally - than they would staying at home," Suro says. Mexicans are coming from richer, urban areas as well as poor, rural regions, he says.

More than half of Mexicans say they would be inclined to come if the U.S. established a temporary worker program.

We're left with the burning question: If Mexicans want to move to the United States because of its obvious beneifts, then why shouldn't Americans, rather than have Mexicans come to America, take America to Mexicans so they can all have a share in it?

And why stop there? If America is good enough for Americans and Mexicans, why not take it everywhere? Indeed, why not take America to Sweden? Why not take it to any place a man can carve ot a home for himself, just like the Swedes did in Minnesota, just like the Mexicans did in Arizona?

We have argued many times on these pages that nation is a myth begun with the treaty of Westphalia, 1648; that nation is invalid on moral grounds; and that in practice it is nonsense to pretend that there are such things as natural boundaries that cannot be violated by the mass movement people resettling even against the will and wishes of the current residents.

We vbase our arguments on the "Melian Dialogue" of Thucyidides, ie. that the stronger will take as they please, and simple prudence dictates the best terms one can get in surrendering rather than in dying in a futile attemp to resist. We argue that William Walker, slave-trade advocate of Tennessee, moving to lands in Central America and conquering and imposing the manifest destiny of America, is a model for future expansion of American manifest destiny. We have argued that the meme of culture is developed and led by intellectuals, and that most people will follow the norms of culture uncritically, regardless of what it is. We have argued that the current state of culture and politics is as it has been for roughly 5,000 years of the Agricultural Revolution, fascist, and that it is the duty of the West to spread the revolutions of Modernity, of the Industrial, French, and American Revolutions across the face of the Earth regardless of the resistence from fascist privilege it meets.

If Mexicans want to live in America, let them: Take Mexico and make it America. Then let them have it. Let all of us have it. We will be one free people every where. Texas in Chiapas. Turn the tables by turning the mind to the unthinkable.


John Sobieski said...

Dag, I'm not up to taking on the Mexican population. We have enough problems. Build an Israeli fence and bring it under control.

I think the Prince of Wales is a closet Muslim too. It's really disgusting. He is truly a disgrace to the Royal family.

Pedestrian Infidel
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog

dag said...

I'm not actually suggesting invasion of Mexico. My point, rather, was to think the unthinkable, to stretch the fabric of the normal till we see a whole new pattern of reality emerging from the process.

No, none of us needs a lesson in mistrust of Islam, but many do require a head-shaking when it comes to our set-view of reality vis Islam. I argue for agression. Mexico was a great example of what can be done. I write of invading Sweden, by the way, in the same vein. In case the Swedes were nervous.

Joshua said...

Prince Charles, a closet Muslim convert? I've heard that rumor before, but I doubt it. If he were, wouldn't Camilla Parker-Bowles be wearing a burqa or something?

dag said...

I've left out too many details in this piece originally to stay out of it now, as is my general policy.

To explain why I write that Prince Charles is a closet Muslim one needs look back to his ex-wifes' boyfriend, Dodi al-Faud, (as I recall,) to see the influence of a strong Muslim personality on the weak-willed Charles.

The Muslim multi-millionaire, fitting in nicely on a social level with the royal family, also has the benefit of being a credible romanitic figure, looking to Arabophilia of T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) for the prime example of the English going native, as it were, and therefrom seeing Charles, product of the Old Boys Club of "B" Average Students, (Beaten, Bullied, and Buggared, to see the forms of philobarbarism sticking out helter-skelter

In short, there is, speculatively, perhaps maliciously on my part, a tendency to look at Charles with an eye to the past: I see the arablophilia that drove men such as John Glub Pasha to Trans Jordan to form the Arab Legion lying in the Romantic tradition of the British upperclasses. I suggest, with no evidence to make my claim credible,that Charles and members of the Foreign Office of Britain, are still living in the phantasy world of High Romance, the pseudo-philosophical tradition of Wordsworth.

I worte that Charles is a closet Muslim, not meaning he is a literal practicing Muslim, but that he is a Human shadow of a Romantic Hero, identifying as such with the idealized desert Bedu.

My point was that one might well imagine, and would not be surprised in fact, to find that Charles has a whole "Arab costume" and a tent to set up in his bedroom in a castle in the Scottish Highlands. I'm suggesting that Charles depth is of the level of comic books regarding his interest and knowledge of Islam.

Having made that point, I argue that his position means there will be a privileging of Islam in Britain. A word from the Prince, no matter how ill-informed, goes far at a social gathering among the movers and shakers of the Sceptred Isle.

One further point, one that hasn't yet but will no doubt arise eventually, concerns Romance as fascism, something we here have barely mentioned but that is central to our thesis of Left fascism being rooted in 18th and 19th century Romantic movements: We use the illustration above, William Blake, "Elohim Creates Adam," (a coincidence either hilarious or profound, given the timing of our mounting it,) for the obvious reasons of its aesthetic appeal, of its dramatic presentation of our thesis, and also at the risk of seeming contradictory: Blake is the first great Romantic artist/poet/thinker in Britain.

While we celebrate here Francis Bacon we mounted Blake's illustration to give a sense of our commitment to Humanity over reason, reason over passion. Romance, as we will develope in our arguments over the coming months,is a manifest form of fascism, a reaction to the Enlightenment, and Blake was at the vanguard of the Romantic Movement. He was, however, not a fascist-minded man, but first and foremost, a man deeply committed to Huamnity. We do not condemn all romance as fascistic, nor all fascistic tendencies as evil.

In the same way, we don't condemn Charles as a Muslim, but we suggest he's caught in a phantasy of romance regarding a sentimentalisation of Islam that has definite and concrete reprecussions throughout the nation and the kingdom.

If we look at some of the gross overstatements in previous posts, there is ample evidence of hyperbole meant not for the sake of logical argument but for the sake of illustration. The post immediately above, for example, hardly advocates to the critic that America focus its attentions on the invasion of Mexico. The point is to focus our minds on the posiblities we might otherwise miss if we do not think in terms of the unthinkable.

This blog sets out more or less, historical documents, ranging from Thucydides "Melian Dialogue" to "The Marschall Plan" and any number of other historical documents, direct and verifiable quotations from historically significant authors and thinkers that support our thesis that Left dhimmitude is a form of fascism. Along side that we alos include vicious attacks on divinity students who cross the line from chat among friends to serious offense, however unintended, by publishing apologetics for murder.

My mates and I generally stay out of the comments section here, giving nearly complete freedom to commentors to make of it what they will, not wishing to interfere with the free flow of debate. Much of that debate still comes through private channals, but we would prefer to remain on the main page and let readers write as they wish to each other. In the case of this post, we obviously failed to make our point clear enough to the general reader so that we feel this bit of explanation is warranted.

In short, no, let's not invade Mexico. Let's think about thinking. Let's re-examine our set thoughts and see if we are right or simply following the crowd.

Is Charles a Muslim? Only at most in the most superficial fashion.

Would it make C. Parker-Bowles easier to look at were she draped in a burqa? Well....