Dorothy A. Seese
March 10, 2007
Are we all on the same page when it comes to "racism?" No. Sometimes it is used to imply that one race thinks they are superior to others. Another dictionary definition is discrimination against people of a certain race or races. But in today’s world, it means just about anything a court, a group, an action committee, or any other faction wants it to mean in order to denigrate the other party (the one doing the offending, which by the amount of space devoted to it in media, is a full-time occupation of most European-heritage Americans who aren’t even thinking about it). What is even more confusing is that when "racist" is an epithet hurled at someone because they are allegedly anti-Islamic, then "Islam" becomes a race rather than a religion. The same is true of people of Mexican origin, although Mexican is a nationality, not a religion and not a race.
If this sounds somewhat confusing, that is because it is. Special interest groups have made sure it’s confusing.
This isn’t the first time I’ve said that I’ve never liked a race of people in my life. First, I’ve never met a whole race of people. Second, I’ve disliked as many people of the misnamed "white" race as I have of any other, and probably more because I’ve met more "white" people. However, that statement contains a flaw, because I’ve never met anyone who is "white" compared to a sheet of white paper or a can of white paint. I’ve met people of light skin who are of European heritage. But I’ve also met people who are Mexican who are lighter than some hyphenated Euro-Americans of say, Greek or Romanian ethnicity.
Now, if certain people of Mexican descent and probably nationality come and take over 40 acres of property that I own under the laws of our land, is it "racist" to dislike that act and take action against it? Let’s test it not by just the issue, but by another, more modern standard: would I be just as angry if the people who came and grabbed off 40 acres of grazing land to which I own title are Finnish, is that "racist?" If you answer yes to the first and no to the second proposition, you have a big inconsistency and furthermore, a ridiculous answer. Neither you, whoever you are, nor I, are going to like a person or a group of people who come nabbing 40 acres. It just happens to be a way to defeat my objection to yell "racist" if the people belong to one group as opposed to another. It diverts attention away from the real issue, which is the nabbing of 40 acres of my land, to a supposed feeling I have against the nabbers because they have a different ethnic background and are perhaps of a different color. It shifts the crime from them (land-nabbing) to me (racism).
Isn’t that a clever way to becloud the issue and shift the crime from the perpetrator to the victim? Of course. That’s why it is being used in multiple nations, in numerous cases, for countless reasons, in increasing incidents, all over the Western world. Legal issues such as immigration according to the laws of the land have been made subservient to the supposed attitude of the landowners and citizens toward certain "races" of people, such races being in fact nationalities, religions or various skin colors.
Justice peeks from behind that supposed blindfold.
The word "racism" is a ploy being used to effect the redistribution of peoples around the globe. Once people settle in another land in sufficient numbers to have a league of their own for defending their supposed rights above others, they have a hold on that land, its political flavors and its cultural climate. Yet any suggestion that the immigrant peoples be moved back to their homeland is defeated, met with profuse apologies for such racist conduct, and the citizens who are (take your pick) Dutch, British, Belgian, French, Spanish, Italian, or other European nationality, are fined, reprimanded or have to resign their position and take cover elsewhere.
The United States of America is importing people of other races, ethnicities and colors (other than light tan) so that the formerly European, and largely Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Germanic, heritage and homogeneous cultural background of "America" doesn’t mean the same thing as it did thirty or forty years ago. There is a cultural dilution occurring, of which the open borders are a large part. And it isn’t by accident.
Cultural redistribution will result in the erasure of borders so that this conglomerate of people, now all called American or some hyphenation of it (which is absurd and technically incorrect) will be a geographic region rather than a nationality with distinct laws. The laws of the land are, or will be, superseded by the higher law of the Globalist government, administered by the United Nations or some international court.
And there went the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, and all the other protections that American citizens over forty years of age recall, even if somewhat vaguely.
This has been a rather cursory explanation of the ploy of "racism" to achieve cultural dilution rather than equity before a court of law or other tribunal. The fact that it exists should be obvious to anyone who is capable of observation.
What I will not do is tag this as being "right" or "wrong" for one reason, and one only: The founders of the United States warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and traditional "Americans" (European heritage, light skin darked in tanning parlors) have been too lazy and taken too much for granted about their land. They have trusted politicians which is ignorance gone to seed. They’ve let their comfort zones dictate their attitudes about standing up for their country, so if it’s lost (and it is) to the multiculturalism agenda of the Global Governance crowd, they have no one to blame but themselves. Hundreds of internet writers and bloggers have warned of what was coming years ago, and to no avail.
Notice also that Asia is not mentioned in this article, and China is (at last glance) in Asia. Yet we have millions of Asians coming into this country very, very quietly, while all the noise comes from the other corner of the house where the argument is over someone’s lettuce patch or grape vines.
America as it was is preserved in the films of the 1930’s through the 1970’s, when the agenda began to surface. And an agenda it is, otherwise we’d still be living under American law and heritage. At least we’ve gotten rid of one obsolete notion, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
© 2007 Dorothy A. Seese
On The Web: http://www.newswithviews.com/Seese/dorothy48.htm