Even liberals can be people

Posted by john rackell on June 22, 2006, 07:58 PM | #

Britain will have to do likewise, even with its comparatively negligible half million visitors-for-life. Sending them all back home became a logistical impossibility long ago. When you let a law slide, it evaporates. You can’t shove the undocumented genie back into the bottle.

more like having to go in a bottle in your car because you skipped the last rest stop on the highway and there’s no where else to go. It’s embarrassing precisely when you hit the rim of the bottle. That’s the real analogy Lionel should make when she mentions bottles.

Look, the bottle’s full up and about to go over the top with more illegals pissing in. That’s what’s causing the acute embarrassment to the elites, not any concern over the rule of law. They’ll just decant the bottle at their earliest convenience and start all over again down the same old road.

Keep the bottle full - that’s what’s getting their attention.

Posted by john on June 23, 2006, 01:43 AM | #

I’d agree that liberals can be people, but they are freaks - not fully human,  detaching themselves from the part of humanity they come from,  devoid of compassion and remorseless.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2006, 04:52 AM | #

Here is an American female journalist,  Michelle Wucker (ethnicity unclear), who is much more typical.

She spices her pro-immigrant free trade argument with the usual exordia of bien pensant porn:-

Global economic and demographic changes, coupled with a changing geopolitical order, are as destabilising to the United States today as they were a century ago. Now as then, immigrants make an easy target to blame for increasing economic inequality, social and political insecurity, and the dissipation of common dreams. In this volatile, media-fuelled mix, history and culture have leapt out of the pages of elementary-school textbooks into an emotional maelstrom.

But the stakes are even higher today than they were in the early 20th century, now that the growth of the knowledge economy has given a clear advantage to those who can negotiate across cultural boundaries. If the United States repeats the mistakes of the earlier era and turns its back on the world once again, the country would lose the advantages that have come with its welcoming of all the world’s peoples.

The solution is not to emulate past closure, but to open the windows of the mind in order to create immigration policies that benefit America, immigrants to her shores, and the world.

The idiot (or shill, depending, as I say, on her ethnicity) sees those poor huddled masses from down Mexico way - and everywhere else, in fact - as an “easy target to blame”, even as they confer upon something called America mystical “advantages”.

Americans, meaning white Americans since they are the only ones Jews worry about, are urged to put away those backward-looking “common dreams” and open their minds blah blah and not turn their backs on the peoples of the blah and be welcoming of all the world’s blah blah blah.

Absolute garbage.  Give me Ms Shriver any day.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 05:03 AM | #

GW-I love when you speak the un-embellished truth,with a profanity thrown in for good measure!Makes you seem almost human-just joking-you are the BEST moderator on any web site I’ve visited.Keep on trucking,and Semper Fi !

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 05:32 AM | #

As i have said previously,in 1954,we managed to ship four million illegal Mexicans back home in a appropiately named “Operation Wetback”,under Eisenhower,and with a much smaller staff of immigration personell.A lousy[and I use the word definivitely]20 Million today should be a piece of cake.All it takes is will and commitment.—Backbone would also help! Until employers are heavily PROSECUTED,fined and jailed,nothing will change.We are on a slippery slope,and are not even aware of the obvious consequences.Christ,have we ALL turned into ELOI?

Posted by john on June 23, 2006, 07:11 AM | #

She has German and French ancestors, and a reasonably good understanding of U.S. cultural and immigration history. I think she’s locked into a viewpoint of extreme enviromentailism (Boasism), which has restricted her ability to think clearly about immigraton, shown by
her fantasising about mexicans being good for the economy.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on June 23, 2006, 07:28 AM | #

Gosh, how unlike The Guardian to publish this.
A paper that is usually to the left of The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and the NY Times on this particular issue!

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2006, 09:22 AM | #

Nick, I am not, in fact, human.  I am English.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 09:38 AM | #

Damn GW-nor am I-I’m a former US Marine! Semper Fi !

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 10:11 AM | #

GW-You English bastard,represent all that is good and relevant in American social mores.I f not for your kindred,we would have never acquired the courage to be who we are[but sadly,maybe for not much longer] America will ALWAYS hold their English roots dear,regardless of ethnic background or religion. Anyway,I perfer English to “humans”,given the assortment of sub-cons,Bantus,Mestizos,ragheads,and other assorted turd-world refuse invading the White world.

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 23, 2006, 12:06 PM | #

Nick - where were you stationed during your marine days?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 23, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

Steve-Boot camp Parris IslandÇamp leJuene-Great Lakes NTC [Electronics School] SanDiego Radar School Force Recon[all over the place] training,Okinawa[Camp Hague] and Nam-plus a little side trip onthe way home in Gitmo-thanks JFK.How I ás an ET got to be Recon is a story most wouldn’t believe-but I never shot less than a 238 on the range-grew up in post WWII Maine,and put meat on the table for most of our neighbors.Overall,the defining period of my life.Semper Fi,and thanks for asking. NST

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 23, 2006, 02:25 PM | #

Sounds like a good life to me.

Posted by Laban on June 23, 2006, 03:42 PM | #

Shriver is quite a rare thing - a liberal feminist who’s quite clear-eyed. She wrote a superb Guardian piece a while back on the fact that educated Western women tend not to have children. It’s the demography, stupid, as Mark Steyn said.

GW covered it here.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1505/

I covered it here

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2005/10/were-not-having-kids.html

This Sunday Times item is also interesting

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1650559,00.html

and GW, take a look at this on Third World population

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000991.php

Afghanistan: 12,000,000 (1939); 29,929,000 (2005)

Brazil: 44,460,000 (1943); 186,113,000 (2005)

Chad: 1,433,000 (1931); 9,826,000 (2005)

China: 457,835,000 (1936); 1,306,000,000 (2005)

Colombia: 9,523,000 (1942); 42,954,000 (2005)

Congo (ex-Zaire): 10,384,000 (1942); 60,085,000 (2005)

Ethiopia: 12,100,000 (1945); 73,053,000 (2005)

Honduras: 1,106,000 (1940); 6,975,000 (2005)

India - includes today’s India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka: 388,998,000 (1941); 1,407,000,000 (2005)

Iran: 15,055,000 (1935); 68,018,000 (2005)

South Africa: 10,709,000 (1942); 44,344,000 (2005)

These levels of increase are, of course, simply staggering. They are greater, both in absolute numbers and almost certainly in percentage terms, than anything known before in a relatively short period in human history. They have occurred despite losses in wars and civil wars, such as have occurred in India -Pakistan, the Congo, Ethiopia, and Iran-Iraq, among other places, despite totalitarian mass murders as in Communist China, despite immigration abroad, and despite losses through AIDS and other illnesses. In just over sixty years, Brazil’s population has increased by 318 per cent; Colombia’s by 352 per cent, and Ethiopia’s by 503 per cent - and so on, with, in general, the most impoverished of these nations showing the most unbelievable increases.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 23, 2006, 04:55 PM | #

Laban,

I’d forgotten Ms Shriver was the writer of that piece last September.  Thanks for the reminder.  She’s certainly an unusual woman.

I found the thread that followed her article yesterday quite interesting, too.  The general tenor, of course, was anti-Shriver.  But I felt there was a marked lack of vigour and originality about the comments.  There was no evidential basis to which those guys referred, no powerful restatement of principle.  Really nothing.  It left me with the clear impression that the left is dessicating.  Ideologically, it has only been corrupted by the power it has enjoyed, and will not be able to defend itself against a well-founded strike from the right.

Those population numbers speak eloquently of the absolute necessity of regaining control of our borders and our politics.  The human reservoir of the Third World is truly bottomless, and there is no future for us unless we can overcome our decadence sufficiently to care for ourselves again.

Posted by john rackell on June 23, 2006, 05:29 PM | #

This statement is buried knee deep in Lionel’s liberalism. It’s almost too funny to read.

Furthermore, foreigners ploughing into Mexico are subject to the same fierce local resentment that brought outraged Mexicans out on America’s streets in April.

Regarding Lionel “cultural imperialist again the male namespace” Shriver extolling creativity, but raising children is probably the most creative act any of us who aren’t hobnobbing journalists will ever get to make - (I mean before Blogs and all that).

Children are our precious mark on the world - proof that we existed in the present because we left something in the future - much more than some crappy book by hers truly that no Moslem Briton and their descendants will ever read.

Posted by Andrew on June 23, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

The sudden change in her attitude might be because she has been Mugged by reality, meaning; the Yo Bros and the Muzzies wanted their way we her, and there was far too many to consent to sex, or she was robbed and confronted by the new supreme beings. Ether way, reality has a unique way of expressing it self. Liberalism is a disease of the mind ,or best described as a Schizophrenic phenomena and a bit of Autism.
You can learn how to be Ideological schizophrenic challanged intellect ( Liberal)!  well what else can you call it, normal?