Small Town Veteran: Rurik's thoughts on "What Bush fails to see at the border"

Please support Soldiers' Angels and Project Valour-IT

« Rurik's response to "Creeping Amnesty"
Main
Russ Vaughn: Higher Education »

2006.04.08

Rurik's thoughts on "What Bush fails to see at the border"

Thursday night I linked to Ronald F. Maxwell's What Bush fails to see at the border guest column in The Washington Times. If you haven't read it yet now would be an excellent time. Historian and author George "Rurik" Mellinger mailed me these thoughts on the matter a few hours ago:

The Year After – What Happens If the Border Fails

I guess I disagree with Ronald F. Maxwell on GWB’s legacy. Bush’s Legacy will not be who won or lost the war in Iraq, or who saved or lost the American Southwest. It is much bigger than that.

People are beginning to consider the possibility that we may lose the Southwest, and a few bloggers even seem to accept it as a regrettable inevitability that America will survive without its southwestern quadrant. But nobody seems interested in exploring exactly what this means. So once again I will glance under the rock nobody else dares to raise.

When the sarcasm switch is in the on position, I’m inclined to say: “Good riddance. We’ll be rid of Los Angles, San Francisco, and Gomorrah and their loathsome influence in one fell swoop. Rid of the loony left and easily ten to fifteen million of our resident beaners. Sure all our parents will have to move back home to Pennsylvania and we’ll have to take care of them, and we’ll lose the West Coast wine fields. But at least all our daytime soap operas and porn will be done in Spanish for the Cancun market. Big deal!"

More serious reflection leads to other thoughts. First of all, just how much territory are we considering? No its not just San Diego and Phoenix. And it probably will not happen peacefully. States at risk are California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Nevada as a start. Probably Oregon and Oklahoma as well. My guess is that a rump portion of Northeast Texas might hold out as an embattled frontier. Maybe not. There will be serious encroachments on the southern Kansas border, which is merely a line on a map, and eventually Kansas might be endangered as well.

And this is not going to happen gently. A lot of Americans will fight. Not at the ballot box or in the op ed columns, but in the streets and gullies. Perhaps some Chicano hotheads will take it into their heads to start shooting the Minute Men border watchers or killing the other Anglos to help encourage them to move. Or maybe some Anglos will lose patience with seeing their homes despoiled and families and neighbors threatened, and they will fire the first shots. Either way, there will be serious violence, and the native Anglos will not go quietly. Then the administration in Washington chooses to say out of it, and to let the citizenry stand alone. Or in a fit of political correctness gone berserk, even to side with the “poor persecuted migras” against the racist Anglos. And there will be ethnic cleansing. In some areas, “progressive” Anglos may be able cut their deal and remain, at least for a while, and at a cost. Many others will be killed or will flee back to territory still under American control. I expect the conflict will begin in Arizona and Los Angeles, but spread rapidly. In other regions, including states such as Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, and even such distant places as Ohio, Mexicans will riot in support of their “brothers”, and Anglos will become violent too. Anglos will begin retaliation against local Mexicans for the atrocities reported against their own, and will seek to eliminate the threat of local Mexicans before they can act. This is the way an ethnic war develops and spreads. And as border clash becomes war, and then ethnic war, the full nastiness will emerge. In ordinary political war, the target is the hostile army. But in an ethnic war, the target is also, or especially, the little bitty future warriors, still toddling, and the baby factories producing them. On both sides. Before the dust has settled they will be doing it to us and we to them. I know this sounds brutal and shocking. It is meant to, because the reality will be even more brutal and shocking. Of course, if the defenders choose not to resist or retaliate, then the slaughter can be less and one-sided. Though this is a harsh description, it is derived from recent experience in the Middle East, the Balkans, and in various tribal regions of Africa and Asia. The unlikliness of a peaceful or gentle solution is made worse by the fact that the Mexicans have already taken to villainizing and depersonalizing the gringos, both on account of race and culture, and also on account of Marxian class resentment.

What of the other races? Though there is a long history of bad relations between Blacks and Whites, in the army I discovered that contrary to leftist rhetoric, Mexicans and Blacks tended to hate each other at least as much as they hated Whitey. Later this observation was reconfirmed when living in Texas. It remains a mystery with whom the Blacks will side. But the Mexicans, currently in a militant racist stage, are very unlikely to consider Blacks to qualify as part of la Raza. For the same reason, the various Asian peoples are likely to be just as unwelcome, and will be treated as “honorary Anglos”, and will react accordingly. American Indians might be accepted as “honorary mestizos” or rejected because they have no Spanish blood. My guess is, that different Indian tribes will come down on different sides.

We must also consider the tragic fate awaiting the millions of Mexican legal immigrants, and those of American birth, but Mexican heritage, including many long and thoroughly assimilated. They will find themselves with torn loyalties, and often mistrusted by both sides. My guess is that those who “look” or “sound” Mexican will be treated “as if Mexican”, regardless where their hearts may lie. Just as the “progressive” Anglos seeking to affiliate with an adoptive Chicano identity are likely to learn a bitter, but short lesson.

So the break-up is likely to be very bloody and bitter. Most of the surviving Anglos and Others will flee with a few possessions to the east and north to start over. And once the ethnic cleansing and re-sorting has been completed, the two peoples will glare at each other across the new borders, while readying for a next round.

But what of the successor states and their legacy? Of course massive political and economic rearrangement will be necessary, and that will cause the next round of chaos.

The executives of the international corporations based in California and elsewhere in the southwest will escape, as will many of their technical experts. Apple, and Sun, and Intel will be able to reestablish themselves elsewhere, since their real wealth is intellectual and not their buildings. And for that same reason, the new Chicano owners will not be able to exploit their prizes. Likewise for a considerable portion of the agricultural industry. The owners may not be capable of doing their own field labor, but the field laborers do not have the education to know the subtle requirements of fertilizers, pesticides, and other advanced knowledge which has made modern agriculture. The migras may know how to prune and pick grapes, but it is unlikely the field laborers know how to turn those grapes into premium wines. Perhaps Mexico’s educated elites may trek northward to take over and exploit the spoils of conquest. And perhaps the sons of uneducated field workers may learn, but it will take generations to recover. If it ever does, considering the example of Mexico itself.

Politically there will further need for realignment. Once they have taken over this formerly rich land, it is questionable whether the Chicano activists will decide to reunite with Mexico as they have pledged. They may decide to give themselves new jobs as heads of state of a new and independent government, and independent North Mexico, alongside old Mexico. This could lead to wars and banditry as Mexican battles Mexican over how they despoil the new prize. Considering the rebellions, civil wars, and banditry of the late nineteenth Century, the result is likely to be almost as bad as the preceding Anglo War.

The United Sates will also need major realignment. The country will nave been reduced from 50 states to only 42 states, perhaps 43 if a northeastern part of Texas holds out. This will mean the elimination of 16 Senators, and a massive redistricting and reallocation of the 435 Representatives on account of the loss and redistribution of population. And this is likely to lead to major dissention amongst the remaining states. New England and the Upper Atlantic states will have lost less and suffered least, and increased relatively in economic and political power. Their expected attempt to claim greater power for their political agendas will be resisted by the new border states, the South and Midwest, previously at odds with the New Englanders, and now inclined to blame them for the poor governance which led to the recent catastrophe. With the authority of the national government and our mandarin class discredited, other states might well choose secession. With the pacific coast no longer American, Hawaii might well find it no longer has much in common with the USA, and choose to go its own way as a modern, independent, Pacific Ocean country, falling back on its native Hawaiian mythology and tradition. Alaska, exposed, and isolated, and no longer certain of continental protection might well secede and seek to join the Canadian commonwealth. Alternatively, either China or Russia might take advantage of American collapse to seize Alaska as its own. As America continues to disintegrate, we might expect to see several separate new countries emerge. The South might return to romantic nationalism and resurrect a reborn Confederate States, perhaps even seizing the city of Washington to be its capitol, and including, this time Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware. The remaining Midwestern states might form their own independent country, with a capitol in Chicago. And New England and the Upper Atlantic States might form another nation. Ohio and New Jersey could become battleground regions before being absorbed by one realm or another.

Of course, this will cause further dislocation and disruption of business and trade. And manufacturing and transportation would also be disrupted. The Midwestania would find international trade difficult as an almost land-locked country. Quickly the economies of all concerned would be ruined, and investors beggared.

With American wealth diminished, and American armies shrunken and fragmented, The US Government would cease to take a leading role in international affairs. All troops would be withdrawn form overseas deployments, and foreign commitments ended. South Korea would make some sort of arrangement with the North. Israel would be left to fend on its own, and the Middle East would return to what it always has been. Of course there would be wars. And Islamic immigrants would continue to infiltrate Western Europe, and their countries, certain in the knowledge that there was no longer any rescue by the Yankees would submit to dhimmification all the more rapidly. Russia, India, and China will each attempt to expand where possible, and the small countries of Central Europe trapped between Russia and Eurabia will have a tragic choice. In South America ambitious military leaders will mount their white horses and seek to establish their own empires. And Africa bereft of aide will sink into plague and starvation.

But as the globe descends into Dark Ages II, our enlightened leaders will be secure in the confidence that they demonstrated their own superior multicultural sensitivity to other cultures and were “better than that”.

I will not see it. I will be among the relatively early casualties, hopefully surrounded by scattered brass casings and several equally dead illegals.

And that will be the real legacy of George Bush if he fails, the collapse of the entire of Western Civilization. Or shall he be its savior?

Wake up, George. Wake up, Congress.

-Rurik

George, I'm viewing what you wrote as a worst-case scenario that no one really expects to see happen, but still as an eye-opening look at what could happen if our national government doesn't get it's act together, and soon. It's past time to get serious about border control before the blood, innocent and otherwise, starts to flow.

Posted by Bill Faith on April 8, 2006 at 03:20 AM in Rurik | Permalink

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rurik's thoughts on "What Bush fails to see at the border":

Comments

Note: I hate to have to do it but I'm turning on comment and trackback moderation. If you post a legitimate trackback or comment I'll do my best not to be too slow about approving it. If the only reason you're here is to advertise your porn, music, or penis enhancement site you can kiss my sweet ass.

Man Bill....I read both of "Ruriks" articles...what a depressing fucking way to start a Saturday...this BTW is the very first time I've ever used profanity in any comment I've ever made or posted...just trying to emphasize my point I guess...think I'll go back to bed....

Posted by: Cookie | Apr 8, 2006 10:47:06 AM

Well, George knows who I am, but for everybody else I think I need to give a little background. I am a naturalized American, originally from the former Soviet Union. I also happen to be Jewish, although this particular fact is irrelevant to the problem discussed in this article. (It is relevant to the current conflict, however, since, as a Jew, I tend to take seriously when people proclaim that they want to to kill me and my family, but I digress). George, you describe a scary scenario, to certain extent similar to "Payers for the Assassin" by Robert Ferigno (http://www.prayersfortheassassin.com/). I think the problem is much deeper than people realize. First, let us clarify some terminology. I personally resent when people marching and waving other country's flags are called "immigrants" to this country. That is because I am myself a naturalized American, i. e. an immigrant. In my view, immigrants are supposed to learn the language of a new country, which is English in the case of USA, assimilate and become part of the new country. Those people waving Mexican flags and, as they say in Russian, pumping their right (kachat' prava), are not immigrants. They are unassimilated migrants at best, and foreign invaders at worst, their legal status notwithstanding. Thus, we come to the core of the problem as I see it. The problem, in my opinion, is not "illegal immigration", as it is commonly called. The problem is unassimilated migration. The legal status of those migrants is absolutely irrelevant. I bet the majority of those people participating in so-called pro-immigrant demonstrations were in fact legal residents or citizens, many of them perhaps born and raised in this country. If you were illegal, would you risk attracting attention to yourself by going to such demonstration? Yet they cannot be called "Americans". As a country, we failed to assimilate certain segment of newcomers. We did it by allowing the Left to declare them a protected minority and pander to them. Why do we keep hearing that if you speak Spanish, you'll get a better job? Better job doing what? Selling tacos in San Isidro? Every time I go to a polling place, there are ballots available in Spanish. Don't you have to speak English in order to cast an informed vote? I am always tempted to demand a ballot in Russian. There are 2 reasons why I don't do that: 1st is that I usually don't have time for that and 2nd is that had I ever demanded a ballot in Russian, I would probably get it. And that is really sad. And by the way, they do have ballots in Russian in Brighton Beach, which I resent just as much as the Spanish ballots. I can understand older people not being able to learn English. But people in their 20s and 30s? My wife, as a nurse, had patients who were disappointed, to say the least, when she could not speak Spanish with them. And they were themselves, or had family members who were young enough and have been in this country long enough to learn the language. Yet, they never did. The Left made it even worse. They managed to brainwash the younger generation, whose parents came to this country to seek better life for their children, into hating this country. The leftist teachers distorted history, and now these young people do not see themselves as Americans, but identify with some other group that was supposedly wronged by America. Yet they were often born and raised in this country. To further illustrate the irrelevance of the legal status to this much deeper problem, who would you prefer: one of those kids waving Mexican flags and dumping on this country, or someone who sneaked across the border at the age of, let's say, 17, and a year later, out of appreciation for America, using fake ID, enlisted into the Marine Corps and put his life on the line for this country? I would definitely prefer such an "illegal" Marine. In fact, I would give him US Citizenship. This is just a hypothetical, but I think it illustrates the point. And no, I am not excusing the illegal crossing of the border, I am just saying that it is irrelevant to the issue of loyalty and assimilation, which is much more important in the time of war. So, now we have a problem. There is a segment of the population that is not loyal, and often openly hostile to this country. You can call them "5th column". How can we solve it? First of all, the bleeding has to be stopped. The border has to be secured. It does not necessarily mean a wall, but most definitely means some sort of border troops, similar to what the Soviets had. National Guard can play this role. There was never a wall around the Soviet Union. But there was a ploughed strip of land all around, where the footsteps were always visible, and there were border military patrols. The border was secure. By the way, as a side note, the Russians have now illegal migration problem on the Chinese border. This is not really new: back in the 60s and 70s the Chinese Government would send civilians across the border. The border dispute there is probably about 150 years old and it did at times escalated into an open border warfare, as I am sure you know. My dad once on a business trip ran into a guy who used to be a helicopter pilot for the Soviet Air Force. He told my dad that they were taken to hospitals treating Soviet soldiers mutilated by the Chinese and then given assignments to strafe those Chinese attempting to cross the border and destroy border villages. Back then it worked to stop the Chinese infiltration. But I don't think they would do it now, so they do have a problem. But back to our problem. It is possible to secure the border. Then the immigration process has to be streamlined. Ideally, the whole INS, or whatever it is called now, should be replaced, but this is just wishful thinking. Any kind of guest worker program or work visas should be eliminated and replaced with just Green Cards. So, for example, if some employer is willing to sponsor someone to come and work in this country, that person should get a Green Card instead of H1B Visa. There should be strings attached: if that person does not state his or her desire to immigrate and become an American, the Green Card should not be given, and that person should not be allowed to come to this country. Why? Because the temporary condition for that person that prevents assimilation should be eliminated. After 5 years, that person should be allowed and reminded to apply for Citizenship. A year should be given for that. Then another reminder should be sent, stating that if the Citizenship application is not filled up by the end of another year, that person will be deported and not allowed to come back ever, or for at least 10 years. If that person is caught in the country illegally, the prison sentence should be extremely stiff, like 10 years. You see, my idea is essentially that America should be for Americans, both old and new, native-born and naturalized. Dual Citizenships could be allowed, but only with friendly countries. The alliances come and go, so some friendly countries might become hostile. Should that happen, those holding dual citizenship with those formerly friendly countries should be specifically asked at that time where their loyalties lie. And if they choose that other country, they should be sent there. So, if this is ever implemented, we will never have people who live here, but who will by definition never assimilate. The only people living in the country would be either loyal Americans or those who are waiting to become loyal Americans. So, what do we do with the people that are now illegally in the country? Well, after the border is secure, and it is actually easier to come to this country legally, than illegally, those who are already here can be given an amnesty. Why? Because the only alternative to it is to round them up, men, women and children, including the kids who were born in this country, and through them out. Besides this being a logistic nightmare, I don't think any of us are going to like what we see, if this is done. Thus, anything other than a complete legalization will still leave an unassimilated chunk of population. Any other idea, like requiring people to go to a country of origin and apply for Green Cards will not work: they are already here, they do not have a lot of money, and anything they would have to do to go back would cause tremendous disruption to their lives. Besides, even if we give them a promise that they will automatically get Green Cards in their country of origin, still they would not feel that they have any guarantees. So, they would just stay, and the problem will never be solved. And that is just because we don't want to reward their law-breaking of entering the country illegally. Do we really want to keep a permanent 5th column in the country just for that? The goal should be not just an orderly immigration, but also a thorough assimilation of immigrants, the way it was done 100 years ago. So, what's left? The criminal background check. That is a joke. You can only check criminal backgrounds of those who come from friendly Western countries, and there are not many of those. (Mexico is not a friendly Western country. It might not be hostile, but it is also not Western.) Instead, immigrants committing crimes should be designated as "foreign criminals", somewhat similar to spies. Now, that of course should apply only to premeditated crimes, not DUIs. They should be given extremely stiff sentences, like 20 years, and then deported. Perhaps, this should even include naturalized citizens. And citizens involved in islamo-fascist terrorism should be charged with treason. The punishment for treason during wartime is death. Thus, here is my solution to the current immigration problem. We can call it "America for Americans". It does stop immigration, but demands that every single immigrant assimilates and becomes a loyal American. What do you think? Did I solve "unassimilated migration" problem? Eric.

Posted by: Eric | Apr 15, 2006 10:44:22 PM

Oops, I meant to say that my plan DOES NOT stop immigration, but demands that every single immigrant assimilates and becomes a loyal American. Eric.

Posted by: Eric | Apr 16, 2006 11:11:48 AM

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives