Mexican Trucks to Roll Across the U.S.
Timothy Birdnow
Muchos Gracias to El Federalissimo Patriot:
"The United States and Mexico signed another agreement Wednesday allowing Mexican trucks access to American highways. The original agreement -- NAFTA -- provided for the flow of goods across the border. Generally speaking, U.S. farms and businesses supported the effort, while unions, particularly the Teamsters, opposed it. There are also concerns over immigration, drug trafficking and the safety of the trucks and their drivers.
The Bush administration instituted a pilot program allowing for certification for Mexican trucks, but Congress defunded it in 2009. Mexico responded with tariffs on about 100 U.S. products, costing the U.S. some $2 billion in exports. Wednesday's agreement means the program will be reinstated and about half of the tariffs will be removed immediately with the rest to follow when the trucks actually start rolling."
End
What do we care about an embargo by Mexico? They are only cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces, after all. Maybe we should retaliate by embargoing their citizens from violating our sovereign borders.
This is just another paving stone on the road to the Unidos Norte Americanos. The gambit is simple; tangle our nations together so thoroughly we cannot extricate ourselves, then we have a fait-accompli North American Union. It's how a coal and steel consortium in Europe turned into a Frankenstonian State that is swallowing the ancient cultures and traditions of Europe and draining that once-great continent of the will to survive (against the barbarians coming from the Islamic world). The E.U. was nothing but a trade federation - at first.
Mexico, Canada, and the United States are three very different countries with very different cultures and experiences, and they cannot be melded together.
Mexico is not just latin in character but also has much in the way of her ancient native tradition - Mayan, Aztec, and other aboriginal peoples blended with an overlayment of Spanish influence. Despite being actually wealthier than America in terms of natural resources she has traditionally been poorer because of political instability and a more communal nature. Communal natures generally mean more socializing and less working, and Mexico has been notorious for it's laid-back nature and siesta culture. That is not to say that Mexicans are lazy, but that their priorities are a bit different. (Let's face it; it's too hot to be busting your tail down there.) Mexicans make excellent workers here, but why? Because here there is a culture conducive to working hard; you get to keep what you earn. The ambitious Mexicans are all living here in the States.
And politically Mexico has always been unstable, prefering experimentation with faddish political constructs and admiring strongmen rather than valuing liberty as a first principle. As a result Mexico had been chaotic through the 19th century, and has been largely despotic since the revolution of 1924, when the socialists took power. Mexico is a socialist country. It has reaped the fruits thereof, becoming horribly impoverished and crime-ridden. The peoples of Mexico, too, hold a different view of the status of the citizenry, believing in a natural ruling class that makes decisions for them. This is, of course, a dream of every politician everywhere in the world, and notions of a North American Union containing Mexico is not off-putting to the ruling class here in the U.S.
Texas rebelled against Mexico for the very reasons cited above. The settlers of Texas - the Texicans - hated the corruption, hated the imposition of despotic law under Santa Ana (who dissolved the Constitution they had settled under), hated the communal social values that disincentivised them. They wanted good government, accountability, freedom to pursue their interests unmolested by government, freedom to worship as they pleased. The deal presented to them by Mexico for settling Texas turned out to be a bait-and-switch, so they switched themselves. Texas has always had a strong Latin influence, but that influence was melded into an Anglo framework with traditional Yankee values.
What is coming will not be Texas, but more Mexican and Canadian in nature.
Canada is the other joker in the deck here. Canada is not really one country but two, a nation half Anglo and half French. The balancing act required to keep Canada from collapsing has been most difficult, and Canada's entire culture is about not offending as a result. Politeness is wonderful to a point, but it is far too easy to surrender core values in the effort to avoid offense, and Canada has drifted into socialism as a result. The Canadians would rather keep everyone smiling than fight for a principle, and so their nation may be a pleasant place to live but it will never be a leader. True leadership requires a strong backbone, and wishing to not offend guarantees a rubber spine.
And that is precisely what a North American Union would be; a rubber spine. Holding it together will require an amalgamation of the three nations, and the best of each will be lost in the process. What will remain will be the knock-kneed and the sheepish. It will be a bland smoothie and not a Martini.
I am not in any way claiming America is without fault. I could spend a great deal of time delineating the problems with this nation. I am saying that we have our own unique culture, and that culture is exceptional in many ways. The United States led the way for the world towards the notions of liberty and republicanism that force at least lip-service from all world leaders and all nations. Before the U.S. concepts of personal rights were fairly non-existent. Now they are world values.
But without the U.S. to champion those values...
Those who support unification do so with the ultimate goal of wiping away nations and creating "citizens of the world". They know they cannot get that without an ever-decreasing belief in the uniqueness of every nation, and so they seek to create artificial constructs that will weaken patriotic viewpoints and make people feel less a part of a meta-tribe and more a part of Mankind as a mystical entity. They know that what the E.U. is is an empire, a collection of nations ruled form a central location, but they hope to transcend the old nations by mixing them together. Well, this has never worked; the Assyrians tried it, the Babylonians tried it, Alexander tried it with Hellenization of the old Persian empire he had conquered. The Romans tried it. The Spanish, Portuguese, British, and French empires all tried it with their colonial empires, and failed. In the end people cannot identify with someone on the other side of the world with a differnt language and culture. Or not on the other side of the world - just look at the Balkans. Some of the worst hatreds occur between people in close proximity. How about Sudan?
The Book of Genesis spoke of this human desire to create a one-world system of things in the story of the Tower of Babel; the king Nimrod knew he wasn't going to ascend to heaven on that tower, but wanted it as a symbol of the new world order he was creating. He wanted Man to be alike "let us bake bricks" and interchangeable. He wanted a collective. At his moment of triumph it all fell apart.
Now Babel may or may not be a true story, but it doesn't matter; what matters is that the ancient Hebrews understood the stupidity of doing precisely what the Leftist elites are trying to do right now. They understood that there was a reason for human uniqueness, for nations to be different. They knew that a collectivization of all mankind was folly. Until the Parousia there will be no lying down of lions and lambs.
But that doesn't stop the liberal from trying; they believe in the perfectability of the human condition, and have absolute faith in the ability to realigne political power to achieve an earthly paradise. They think that this can be accomplished by destroying everything from the old social order - languages, cultures, traditions, religions, beliefs. To do that one must have an ingathering of power, a centralization that makes the older things obsolete. Common currency, common language, substitutions of, say, environmentalism or scientism for religion, belief in the progress of humanity and the oneness of Man rather than in the individual, the family, the community. Much like a poorly healed broken bone is rebroken and reset, so too they think they can break the old bones of our civilization and reset them into the collectivist paradise.
And getting those Mexican trucks on U.S. roads is the start of the entaglement. It is a snare, a trap. Trucks now, and Mexican bureaucrats later. And the end goal is a socialist system that governs North America and that has reduced the U.S. to a toothless housecat. A toothless America means a mighty international community, at least that is what they think.
We need an administration that understands what is being attempted here, and actively thwarts it. We are the United States, a sovereign nation with an unique culture and heritage, and we have a right, nay, a duty to remain so. We have been a force for good in this world, and we owe not just our own children but the entire world to remain who and what we are. uniqueness matters. We have a duty to keep it.
Muchos Gracias to El Federalissimo Patriot:
"The United States and Mexico signed another agreement Wednesday allowing Mexican trucks access to American highways. The original agreement -- NAFTA -- provided for the flow of goods across the border. Generally speaking, U.S. farms and businesses supported the effort, while unions, particularly the Teamsters, opposed it. There are also concerns over immigration, drug trafficking and the safety of the trucks and their drivers.
The Bush administration instituted a pilot program allowing for certification for Mexican trucks, but Congress defunded it in 2009. Mexico responded with tariffs on about 100 U.S. products, costing the U.S. some $2 billion in exports. Wednesday's agreement means the program will be reinstated and about half of the tariffs will be removed immediately with the rest to follow when the trucks actually start rolling."
End
What do we care about an embargo by Mexico? They are only cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces, after all. Maybe we should retaliate by embargoing their citizens from violating our sovereign borders.
This is just another paving stone on the road to the Unidos Norte Americanos. The gambit is simple; tangle our nations together so thoroughly we cannot extricate ourselves, then we have a fait-accompli North American Union. It's how a coal and steel consortium in Europe turned into a Frankenstonian State that is swallowing the ancient cultures and traditions of Europe and draining that once-great continent of the will to survive (against the barbarians coming from the Islamic world). The E.U. was nothing but a trade federation - at first.
Mexico, Canada, and the United States are three very different countries with very different cultures and experiences, and they cannot be melded together.
Mexico is not just latin in character but also has much in the way of her ancient native tradition - Mayan, Aztec, and other aboriginal peoples blended with an overlayment of Spanish influence. Despite being actually wealthier than America in terms of natural resources she has traditionally been poorer because of political instability and a more communal nature. Communal natures generally mean more socializing and less working, and Mexico has been notorious for it's laid-back nature and siesta culture. That is not to say that Mexicans are lazy, but that their priorities are a bit different. (Let's face it; it's too hot to be busting your tail down there.) Mexicans make excellent workers here, but why? Because here there is a culture conducive to working hard; you get to keep what you earn. The ambitious Mexicans are all living here in the States.
And politically Mexico has always been unstable, prefering experimentation with faddish political constructs and admiring strongmen rather than valuing liberty as a first principle. As a result Mexico had been chaotic through the 19th century, and has been largely despotic since the revolution of 1924, when the socialists took power. Mexico is a socialist country. It has reaped the fruits thereof, becoming horribly impoverished and crime-ridden. The peoples of Mexico, too, hold a different view of the status of the citizenry, believing in a natural ruling class that makes decisions for them. This is, of course, a dream of every politician everywhere in the world, and notions of a North American Union containing Mexico is not off-putting to the ruling class here in the U.S.
Texas rebelled against Mexico for the very reasons cited above. The settlers of Texas - the Texicans - hated the corruption, hated the imposition of despotic law under Santa Ana (who dissolved the Constitution they had settled under), hated the communal social values that disincentivised them. They wanted good government, accountability, freedom to pursue their interests unmolested by government, freedom to worship as they pleased. The deal presented to them by Mexico for settling Texas turned out to be a bait-and-switch, so they switched themselves. Texas has always had a strong Latin influence, but that influence was melded into an Anglo framework with traditional Yankee values.
What is coming will not be Texas, but more Mexican and Canadian in nature.
Canada is the other joker in the deck here. Canada is not really one country but two, a nation half Anglo and half French. The balancing act required to keep Canada from collapsing has been most difficult, and Canada's entire culture is about not offending as a result. Politeness is wonderful to a point, but it is far too easy to surrender core values in the effort to avoid offense, and Canada has drifted into socialism as a result. The Canadians would rather keep everyone smiling than fight for a principle, and so their nation may be a pleasant place to live but it will never be a leader. True leadership requires a strong backbone, and wishing to not offend guarantees a rubber spine.
And that is precisely what a North American Union would be; a rubber spine. Holding it together will require an amalgamation of the three nations, and the best of each will be lost in the process. What will remain will be the knock-kneed and the sheepish. It will be a bland smoothie and not a Martini.
I am not in any way claiming America is without fault. I could spend a great deal of time delineating the problems with this nation. I am saying that we have our own unique culture, and that culture is exceptional in many ways. The United States led the way for the world towards the notions of liberty and republicanism that force at least lip-service from all world leaders and all nations. Before the U.S. concepts of personal rights were fairly non-existent. Now they are world values.
But without the U.S. to champion those values...
Those who support unification do so with the ultimate goal of wiping away nations and creating "citizens of the world". They know they cannot get that without an ever-decreasing belief in the uniqueness of every nation, and so they seek to create artificial constructs that will weaken patriotic viewpoints and make people feel less a part of a meta-tribe and more a part of Mankind as a mystical entity. They know that what the E.U. is is an empire, a collection of nations ruled form a central location, but they hope to transcend the old nations by mixing them together. Well, this has never worked; the Assyrians tried it, the Babylonians tried it, Alexander tried it with Hellenization of the old Persian empire he had conquered. The Romans tried it. The Spanish, Portuguese, British, and French empires all tried it with their colonial empires, and failed. In the end people cannot identify with someone on the other side of the world with a differnt language and culture. Or not on the other side of the world - just look at the Balkans. Some of the worst hatreds occur between people in close proximity. How about Sudan?
The Book of Genesis spoke of this human desire to create a one-world system of things in the story of the Tower of Babel; the king Nimrod knew he wasn't going to ascend to heaven on that tower, but wanted it as a symbol of the new world order he was creating. He wanted Man to be alike "let us bake bricks" and interchangeable. He wanted a collective. At his moment of triumph it all fell apart.
Now Babel may or may not be a true story, but it doesn't matter; what matters is that the ancient Hebrews understood the stupidity of doing precisely what the Leftist elites are trying to do right now. They understood that there was a reason for human uniqueness, for nations to be different. They knew that a collectivization of all mankind was folly. Until the Parousia there will be no lying down of lions and lambs.
But that doesn't stop the liberal from trying; they believe in the perfectability of the human condition, and have absolute faith in the ability to realigne political power to achieve an earthly paradise. They think that this can be accomplished by destroying everything from the old social order - languages, cultures, traditions, religions, beliefs. To do that one must have an ingathering of power, a centralization that makes the older things obsolete. Common currency, common language, substitutions of, say, environmentalism or scientism for religion, belief in the progress of humanity and the oneness of Man rather than in the individual, the family, the community. Much like a poorly healed broken bone is rebroken and reset, so too they think they can break the old bones of our civilization and reset them into the collectivist paradise.
And getting those Mexican trucks on U.S. roads is the start of the entaglement. It is a snare, a trap. Trucks now, and Mexican bureaucrats later. And the end goal is a socialist system that governs North America and that has reduced the U.S. to a toothless housecat. A toothless America means a mighty international community, at least that is what they think.
We need an administration that understands what is being attempted here, and actively thwarts it. We are the United States, a sovereign nation with an unique culture and heritage, and we have a right, nay, a duty to remain so. We have been a force for good in this world, and we owe not just our own children but the entire world to remain who and what we are. uniqueness matters. We have a duty to keep it.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 7:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home