Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mexico. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mexico. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, July 22, 2013

If the U.S. were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage


There are many strange elements in the current debate over illegal immigration
writes Victor Davis Hanson (gracias por instapundit),
but none stranger than the mostly ignored role of Mexico.

  … Is elemental hunger forcing millions of Mexicans to flee north, as it may have in the past?

Not necessarily. According to a recent United Nations study, an estimated 70 percent of Mexico's citizens are overweight and suffer from the same problems of diet, health concerns and lack of exercise shared by other more affluent Western societies.

Mexico is a severe critic of U.S. immigration policy, often damning Americans as ruthlessly insensitive for trying to close our border. It has gone so far as to join lawsuits against individual American states to force relaxation of our border enforcement. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon sharply criticized the United States for trying to "criminalize migration."

Is Mexico, then, a model of immigration tolerance?

Far from it.

Until 2011, when it passed reforms, Mexico had among the most draconian immigration laws in the world. Guatemala has criticized Mexico for initiating construction of a fence along its southern border.

Mexico has zero tolerance for illegal immigrants who seek to work inside Mexico, happen to break Mexican law or go on public assistance -- or any citizens who aid them.

In Mexico, legal immigration is aimed at privileging lawful arrivals with skill sets that aid the Mexican economy and, according to the country's immigration law, who have the "necessary funds for their sustenance" -- while denying entry to those who are not healthy or would upset the "equilibrium of the national demographics." Translated, that idea of demographic equilibrium apparently means that Mexico tries to withhold citizen status from those who do not look like Mexicans or have little skills to make money.

If the United States were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage.

 … In truth, many thousands of Mexicans flee northward not necessarily because there are no jobs, or because they are starving at home. America offers them far more upward mobility and social justice than does their own homeland. And for all the immigration rhetoric about race and class, millions of Mexicans vote with their feet to enjoy the far greater cultural tolerance found in the U.S.

Indigenous people make up a large part of the most recent wave of Mexican arrivals. Those who leave provinces like Oaxaca or Chiapas apparently find the English-speaking, multiracial U.S. a fairer place than the hierarchical and often racially stratified society of Mexico.

People should be a nation's greatest resource. Fairly or not, Mexico has long been seen to view its own citizens in rather cynical terms as a valuable export commodity, akin to oil or food. When they are young and healthy, Mexican expatriates are expected to scrimp, save and support their poorer relatives back in Mexico. When these Mexican expats are ill and aged, then the U.S should pick up the tab for their care.
Related: "Undocumented Worker" — The Left's Preferred Expression for "Illegal Alien" Is False and Misleading 

No, Senator Rubio (and No, Liberals): There Is Not a Single "Undocumented Worker" in the United States (or On This Planet)

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

What Nobody Tells You About the Alamo and the Texas Revolution of the 1830s


Between Bryan Preston, Stephen Green, and Mark Tapscott, along with Mark Pulliam, Instapundit has had a field day — and rightly so — defending the Alamo against woke history.
The Texas State Historical Association’s chief historian wants us to forget the Alamo and view its defenders — and their supporters now — as racists. Walter Buenger, Ph.D. and TSHA chief historian, recently slammed the Alamo as an insignificant battle then and a monument to white supremacy now. The facts don’t support that at all.


Indeed. As it happens, I should like to add my voice by reprinting here my answer to a question on Quora (What is the most little known fact about the Battle of the Alamo?). 

Actualización: Bienvenidos, lectores de Instapundit.

Here goes:

The problem with the Left, international as well as American, is that they obsess so much over every sin, real or alleged, of the United States, going berserk over American/Western guilt, that they leave other nations — and their citizens — totally unscathed from the minutest amount of criticism, all the while ignoring basic historical facts. 

In the leftist telling, for instance (as well as that of La Raza), Mexico is seen as the sacred territory of the Mexican people, the target of the greedy eyes of los gringos who were allegedly nothing but despicable traitors to their country (Mexico), while single-minded Mexicans living in perfect peace are seen as the blameless victims of the Texans (and the imperialistic Anglo-Americans) wishing to introduce slavery to their region. 

That simplistic picture is leaving out a whole lot of information. 

La revolución started in 1835, but not in Texas alone, and — can you answer this question — following what event? There is this little overlooked detail of a Mexican leader overthrowing the constitution (yes, that would be the… very document outlawing slavery) and becoming a de facto dictator. 

Why is that important? Because what do you think happened after news of the revolt reached Mexico City? Did Antonio López de Santa Anna gather his legions and march north — while patriotic Mexicans throughout the country cheered or gleefully joined the army as it marched northward to put down la revolución

No, el padre de la patria did not march north, on the (self-declared) Republic of Texas. He marched North-West, towards… the (self-declared) Republic of Zacatecas — where his army put down the first, the very first (!), of the revolts that broke out throughout Mexico upon his seizing of power. Like the Alamo and Goliad later on, the city of Zacatecas became a bloodbath. 

In fact, like its neighbor up North, Mexico has always been a federation of constituent states (the United Mexican States is the federation’s official name) — and in the 1830s, there were 19 to 20 estados in los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (just like there were 24 to 26 states in the neighboring United States of America at the time; FYI, 180 years later, there are 31 estados in Mexico while there are 50 states in the USA). 

In 1835, there was not a revolt only in Tejas, but in as many as 11 (!) of Mexico’s estados (some striving for a return to la Constitución of 1824, others striving for full-out independence), i.e., more than half of them. 

After the plunder of Zacatecas, Santa Anna indeed marched northward — putting down more or less small revolts all along his path to Tejas. One reason for his relatively easy victories was… the lack of weapons in the hands of the citizenry. (In 1834, the civic militia had been — conveniently — disarmed by… guess which Mexican leader; si, señoras y señores, t’is none other than Santa Anna prior to his coup d'état…) 

All the attempted revolts failed, except one: those of the Yanqui English-speakers in the future Lone Star state. (Gracias, Second Amendment.) 

Within three or four years of the Battle of San Jacinto, where the Texans prevailed, at least two more secession movements would break out within the Spanish-speaking parts of Mexico: the (self-declared) Republic of the Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatán (the latter of which actually managed to survive as an independent nation for seven years or so). 

South of the river, three other estados bordering (the by-then independent nation of) Texas — Coahuila, Nueva León, and Tamaulipas — tried to follow the neighboring Republic of Texas in seceding from Mexico in order to establish an independent country, but the revolutionaries in la República del Río Grande were put down by the Mexican Army as well. 

To conclude: 

These are the problems with the leftists’ facile criticism of the Texas revolution, or that of their equivalents in La Raza — based on their obsession with race, racism, and slavery in addition to other sins (albeit only when and if they are American): 

First, as we have seen, revolts had broken out throughout the country, all by Spanish-speakers with no relation to slavery wishing either to secede outright from Mexico or return the nation/the federation to democratic/republican rule. (That’s a whole lot of “traitors” to a dictatorial régime that “only” wished to, uh… stamp out democracy (!) just as much as if not more than among the Gringos up North, killing (fellow?) Mexicans to prevent them from creating independent patrias.) 

Second, as far as the 1824 constitution’s abolition of slavery is concerned — which is supposed to demonstrate the superior morals of the Mexican people and government — to what extent did it really benefit the Mexican people? It should remind you of the Tsar’s abolition of serfdom in 1863: to what degree were Mexico’s peones, like Russia’s serfs, really free, other than on paper, and how had their conditions really been improved after their countries’ respective flamboyant declarations? 

Third, the praise bestowed on Mexico for outlawing slavery turns out to be moot in view of the fact that the whole reason why Texans — along with their fellow Mexican citizens in a dozen other states — revolted, it was because a dictator had seized power in the first place, overthrowing the celebrated constitution banning slavery in the process. 

Overthrown by Santa Anna, who turns out to be the fellow who declared: 

A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are …/… a despotism is a proper government for them …/…

Related: Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"

Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Ghastly — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?

Update: Again, when voiced by leftists, the whole affair becomes "The Mexicans showed how generous they were and look at the scandalous way in which those perfectly civic gentlemen were repaid by the ungrateful Anglo-American ruffians who settled in Texas" (i.e., by the treacherous (former) inhabitants of the racist USA).

Those leftists — American or foreign — never bother to ask why the Mexicans would invite foreigners to settle in (part of) their country in the first place. The answer is provided in an Instapundit post linking to a similar No Pasarán historical article as this one, but on Indians (What Nobody Tells You About Indians and Other Native Americans), where one

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "Comanches" by Fehrenbach, just finished it for a second time and have to say it seems to be the definitive volume on the subject.

• For 200 years the Spanish (and to a lesser extent the French) tried missions offering gifts and Christianity for the Amerindians--an utter failure. They invited Americans to migrate into Texas to act as a buffer to the yearly raids into Mexico.

• Thousands of Texans were murdered and tortured in unspeakable ways for amusement. The Comanches were savage and the Texans returned the favor but most Texas Rangers, stated at some point that they regretted what they did.

It occurred to me that the savage treatment of enemies by the Amerindians had no parallel in written history. Genghis' Khan's men for example would commit mass murder but wouldn't stick around for several days to enjoy the screams of someone staked face down on an anthill. The Amerindians were stone age savages and their ways of treating whites and red captives was, after 30,000 years, stone age norms of behavior unchanged and unchangeable.

Of course, this quotation is not meant to "return the compliment" i,e., to counter "No, the Mexican were the treacherous ones" (because in the minds of leftists, it always boils down to finding guilt and to vilify, to demonize, and to punish).

Everybody involved— the Mexicans, the Anglo-Americans — were perfectly open about and aware of Texas's status as a buffer zone with Comancheria and the dangers involved in settling there.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

It So Happens That Every Illegal Alien in America Already Does Have Papers

Everybody has the right to papers!
thundered one outraged Democrat among legions, as they castigate Arizona's (supposedly) undemocratic law demanding that illegal aliens show documentation. (Except of course, one is tempted to ask what the big deal is when, if liberals had their way, nobody actually would need papers anywhere when they show up to cast a vote in an election…)

Well, it so happens that every illegal alien in the United States is documented; every illegal alien in the United States does have papers.

Mexican papers.

(Well, sometimes, they have Honduran papers, or Guatemalan papers, or Belizean papers, or Filipino papers, or some other papers, but let's keep using Mexico as an illustrative example…)

If a foreigner, say an American, were to head to Mexico, for however short (a vacation) or however long a period (to work there) — and whether he entered the country legally or not (!) — he still, guess what, has papers. He has his American papers! Offhand, he has his driver's license, various IDs, and/or his passport…

True, a number of the Mexican and Central American illegals, many of them paupers, may not physically have papers in their pockets to produce, as is the case with many of their respective countrymen, but still, offhand, the "undocumented" immigrants retain as many (or as few) papers, and rights, as any other citizen of their own country before they emigrated, legally or otherwise.

Everybody has the right to papers, but everybody does not have the right to American papers!

What is there to be outraged about here? The equivalent is true for Americans, and for other Westerners — for instance the Yanqui Gringo mentioned above, who does not have the right (or an automatic right) to Mexican papers. Just as I, a foreigner living in Paris, do not have right — certainly, not an automatic right — to French papers and do not have the right to vote in French elections (it is not a right I would want — no offense intended — and I would never castigate the French for failing to give it to me or to any other foreigner)…

If I had the time, we could enter a discussion regarding the difference between natural rights (which every individual on Earth has) and civic rights (or citizen rights, which depend on the country you are — legally — living in, whatever part of the globe that country is located in), but I don't, so I will just suggest you read the books of Harry Jaffa

To return to Mexico, nothing in Mexican law presupposes that our American expatriate be given, say, a job (or that he have the freedom to choose any job he wants) in Mexico or that, say, he vote in Mexican elections. Indeed, reports on Mexico's own problem with illegal aliens (Central Americans that cross over that nation's Southern border) point out to quite a few problems in that country (the one allegedly martyred by white American racists), far worse than anything in the United States, with Amnesty International calling "the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis".

Indeed, as JammieWearingFool puts it (gracias por el Professor Reynolds),
No wonder they're all moving to the Nazi-like, fascistic, police-state of Arizona.
Now, if any Mexicans, say the citizens of the estado de Chihuahua, want American papers, there is a simple solution: I suggest that they ask that the state be annexed by the United States. (Don't be so quick to issue a snort. I'm sure quite a few Mexicans would be more than willing to see that happen…)

Update: Referring to el Presidente de México, Rich Galen points out the double standards:
Felipe Calderón is whining about the way we are treating immigrants in the U.S. because they may be asked to produce documents proving they are here legally, while immigrants in his very own country are being kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered by the tens of thousands.
Update: Don Miguel adds as follows:
How about this: my father was born and grew up in Mexico. About 10 to 15 years ago Mexico passed a law allowing children of expatriates born in other countries to apply for citizenship. I was interested in this because it would then allow me to buy beachfront property in Mexico (foreigners cannot directly buy property within a few km of the beach or border legally). So I went to the closest consulate with my father's birth certificate and they told me basically to get lost since my father was considered by them to be a "gringo." Regardless of what the law said I wasn’t the “right” type of person for them. So even though I technically met the requirements of the law, there’s no way they would process my application.
That comment leads Pat Patterson to write:
I had heard some stories like the one Don Miguel related and to be honest thought they were either old wive's tales or simple misunderstandings.

Until one of my neighbors thought it would be a good idea for his children to have dual citizenship but was turned away at the consulate in Santa Ana for 'technical reasons' even though he had only recently become an American citizen. His delay oddly enough was because he had been an officer in the Mexican Air Force and the investigation took longer because the Mexican government wouldn't release his service record for years. It seems that the rule of thumb is that college educated American citizens of Mexican origin will either not be approved or delayed while working class Americans of Mexican origin will be approved asap.
Update: Mark Steyn:
…the coastal frothers denouncing Arizona as the Third Reich or, at best, apartheid South Africa, seem entirely relaxed about the ludicrous and embarrassing sight [in Quincy, Illinois,] of peaceful protesters being menaced by camp storm troopers from either a dinner-theater space opera or uniforms night at Mr. Newsom's re-election campaign.
Update: Ann Coulter:
The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse recently compared the Arizona law to Hitler's policies toward the Jews. You remember how Jews were constantly sneaking across the border into Nazi Germany?

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

No, Senator Rubio (and No, Liberals): There Is Not a Single "Undocumented Worker" in the United States (or On This Planet)

At this dangerous point for our republic, I am certainly not going to attack Marco Rubio, a senator I admire as much as anybody, but I still want to point out that for a party (the Democrats) whose only "arguments" include demonizing conservatives and covering them with ad hominems (reactionary, hateful, racist, etc, etc, etc), Republicans need to go Gingrich-style and punch back — twice as hard, as Instapundit would say.

Indeed, the Florida senator is going too soft on the Democrats when he talks about
the reality that there are 11 million human beings in this country today that are undocumented. That's not something that anybody is happy about, that is not something that anybody wanted to see happen. But it is what has happened (1:24)
On the contrary: Having poor illegals, along with an unsurmountable voter base, is exactly what key members of the far left are happy about and exactly what they have been wanting for decades.

Now Marco Rubio may know this, and may only be playing for a Spanish audience (bravo on repeating everything en Español), but just for the record, I want to point out that even the fact of calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is turning them into poor honest well-meaning defenseless victims and thus falling into the Democrat (the victimitis party's) playbook.

The Democrats win by being allowed to set the very premises.

The way for the Republicans to start winning is to start challenging those premises — when (and if) they are wrong, misleading, and, of course, deliberate deceptions.

As I have written before,
it so happens that every illegal alien in the United States is documented; every illegal alien in the United States does have papers.

Mexican papers.

(Well, sometimes, they have Honduran papers, or Guatemalan papers, or Belizean papers, or Filipino papers, or some other papers, but let's keep using Mexico as an illustrative example…)

If a foreigner, say an American, were to head to Mexico, for however short (a vacation) or however long a period (to work there) — and whether he entered the country legally or not (!) — he still, guess what, has papers. He has his American papers! Offhand, he has his driver's license, various IDs, and/or his passport…

True, a number of the Mexican and Central American illegals, many of them paupers, may not physically have papers in their pockets to produce, as is the case with many of their respective countrymen, but still, offhand, the "undocumented" immigrants retain as many (or as few) papers, and rights, as any other citizen of their own country before they emigrated, legally or otherwise.

Everybody has the right to papers, but everybody does not have the right to American papers!

What is there to be outraged about here? The equivalent is true for Americans, and for other Westerners — for instance the Yanqui Gringo mentioned above, who does not have the right (or an automatic right) to Mexican papers. Just as I, a foreigner living in Paris, do not have right — certainly, not an automatic right — to French papers and do not have the right to vote in French elections (it is not a right I would want — no offense intended — and I would never castigate the French for failing to give it to me or to any other foreigner)…

If I had the time, we could enter a discussion regarding the difference between natural rights (which every individual on Earth has) and civic rights (or citizen rights, which depend on the country you are — legally — living in, whatever part of the globe that country is located in), but I don't, so I will just suggest you read the books of Harry Jaffa

To return to Mexico, nothing in Mexican law presupposes that our American expatriate be given, say, a job (or that he have the freedom to choose any job he wants) in Mexico or that, say, he vote in Mexican elections. Indeed, reports on Mexico's own problem with illegal aliens (Central Americans that cross over that nation's Southern border) point out to quite a few problems in that country (the one allegedly martyred by white American racists), far worse than anything in the United States, with Amnesty International calling "the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis".

Indeed, as JammieWearingFool puts it (gracias por el Professor Reynolds),
No wonder they're all moving to the Nazi-like, fascistic, police-state of Arizona.
Now, if any Mexicans, say the citizens of the estado de Chihuahua, want American papers, there is a simple solution: I suggest that they ask that the state be annexed by the United States. (Don't be so quick to issue a snort. I'm sure quite a few Mexicans would be more than willing to see that happen…)

Update: Referring to el Presidente de México, Rich Galen points out the double standards:
Felipe Calderón is whining about the way we are treating immigrants in the U.S. because they may be asked to produce documents proving they are here legally, while immigrants in his very own country are being kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered by the tens of thousands.
Update: Don Miguel adds as follows:
How about this: my father was born and grew up in Mexico. About 10 to 15 years ago Mexico passed a law allowing children of expatriates born in other countries to apply for citizenship. I was interested in this because it would then allow me to buy beachfront property in Mexico (foreigners cannot directly buy property within a few km of the beach or border legally). So I went to the closest consulate with my father's birth certificate and they told me basically to get lost since my father was considered by them to be a "gringo." Regardless of what the law said I wasn’t the “right” type of person for them. So even though I technically met the requirements of the law, there’s no way they would process my application.
That comment leads Pat Patterson to write:
I had heard some stories like the one Don Miguel related and to be honest thought they were either old wive's tales or simple misunderstandings.

Until one of my neighbors thought it would be a good idea for his children to have dual citizenship but was turned away at the consulate in Santa Ana for 'technical reasons' even though he had only recently become an American citizen. His delay oddly enough was because he had been an officer in the Mexican Air Force and the investigation took longer because the Mexican government wouldn't release his service record for years. It seems that the rule of thumb is that college educated American citizens of Mexican origin will either not be approved or delayed while working class Americans of Mexican origin will be approved asap.
Update: Mark Steyn:
…the coastal frothers denouncing Arizona as the Third Reich or, at best, apartheid South Africa, seem entirely relaxed about the ludicrous and embarrassing sight [in Quincy, Illinois,] of peaceful protesters being menaced by camp storm troopers from either a dinner-theater space opera or uniforms night at Mr. Newsom's re-election campaign.
Update: Ann Coulter:
The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse recently compared the Arizona law to Hitler's policies toward the Jews. You remember how Jews were constantly sneaking across the border into Nazi Germany?

Monday, July 28, 2014

While prattling incessantly about other countries’ “sensible gun laws”, strangely liberals never mention Switzerland, Israel, or Mexico, the neighbor which has some of the strictest laws in the world


Marine reservist Andrew Tahmooressi [was] imprisoned under Mexico’s gun laws which are some of the strictest in the world
writes Benny Huang.
It is essentially illegal for a civilian to possess a gun outside of his home. According to the website of the US consulate, an American who enters Mexico in possession of a firearm can receive thirty years in prison.
I wouldn’t mention this if it weren’t for liberals’ incessant prattling about other countries’ “sensible gun laws.” They like to compare gun death statistics from the United States to Japan, Australia, or some other country that severely restricts gun ownership and then draw the facile conclusion that the decisive factor is our laws. Let’s just ignore that pesky Second Amendment and there will never be another murderous rampage, or so goes the argument.
Yet Mexico, our southern neighbor, is never their shining example. Peculiar. With such a great case study in the benefits of gun control so close to home, why do they always reach to distant Japan to make their case?

Probably because northern Mexico is a warzone where lawmen are routinely gunned down and people have a strange habit of being separated from their heads. The cartels still pack heat but ordinary Mexicans do not because they want to stay on the right side of the law.

It would be just as easy to select two counterexamples to demonstrate that gun rights result in safer societies. Gun ownership is a right enshrined in law in Switzerland and a responsibility in Israel. Both have well-armed populaces and lower rates of gun deaths than the US or Mexico. See how easy it is to cherrypick an example to illustrate a point?

 … There’s no doubt that there’s something seriously out of whack about a society that produces two or three spree-shootings a year. We’ve had so many now I’m losing track. Who will even remember the DC Navy Yard shooter in a few years? How about the guy who shot up the Sikh temple? These days we only remember the biggees—Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora. 
It wasn’t always this way. Something changed and it wasn’t our laws or our “access” to firearms. The second amendment has been the law of the land since 1791. Firearms have been with us since the Renaissance. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons were both invented in the nineteenth century.

At the risk of sounding corny, I must positively assert that the change has been within us. We’re suffering from a profound sickness of the soul. That’s the cause of our troubles, not the inanimate objects that people use to act out their violent fantasies.

Liberals tend to get nervous whenever anyone starts talking about spiritual illness. It all sounds very preachy to them and they worry that someone might use the next spree-shooting as an excuse to censor music lyrics or video games, something I completely oppose.

 … Liberals will call it scapegoating if I cast blame upon the cultural changes that have swept our country since the mid-1960s, but I must. A few of the lessons that we’ve learned since that time are that it’s all about me, if it feels good do it, and screw the man. God was declared dead on the cover of Time magazine and anyone who warned of eternal consequences was a square. Could those attitudes be responsible for the mayhem unleashed upon our nation? I say yes.

 … Like the multiplying brooms of Goethe’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” the effects of the empty, nihilistic culture just keep propagating with no end in sight. Conservatives keep thwacking away at those multiplying brooms, getting more and more fatigued with each passing year. No one can deny we’re losing ground.

Guns aren’t our problem. It’s the vacuousness that pervades our lives. In generations past our societal immune system would have had some kind of resistance to many of the pathologies that infect us, but no longer. So we pass laws that we think will treat the symptoms and often don’t even do that. We can expect more of the same results in years to come.

Friday, April 11, 2025

"Undocumented Worker": The Left's Preferred Expression for "Illegal Alien" Is False and Misleading


"Everybody has the right to papers!" thunders one outraged Democrat after another, as the usual Locofocos and Drama Queens castigate (allegedly) undemocratic laws demanding that illegal aliens show documentation. (Except of course, one is tempted to ask what the big deal is when, if liberals had their way, nobody actually would need papers anywhere when they show up to cast a vote in an election…)

Well — as I have been writing on this blog for the past 15 years — it so happens that every illegal alien in the United States is documented; every illegal alien in the United States does have papers.

Mexican papers.

(Well, sometimes, they have Honduran papers, or Guatemalan papers, or Venezuelan papers, or Filipino papers, or Kazakh papers, or Chinese papers, or some other papers, but let's keep using Mexico as an illustrative example…)
 
• "Undocumented Worker": The Left's Preferred Expression for "Illegal Alien" Is False and Misleading
It So Happens That Every Illegal Alien in America Already Does Have Papers 


If a foreigner, say an American, were to head to Mexico, for however short (a vacation) or however long a period (to work there) — and whether he entered the country legally or not (!) — he still, guess what, he still has papers. He has his American papers! Offhand, he has his driver's license, various IDs, and/or his passport…
 
True, a number of the Mexican and Central American illegals, many of them paupers, may not physically have papers in their pockets to produce, as is the case with many of their respective countrymen, but still, offhand, the "undocumented" immigrants retain as many (or as few) papers, and rights, as any other citizen of their own country before they emigrated, legally or otherwise.

Everybody has the right to papers, but not everybody has the right to American papers!

What is there to be outraged about here? The equivalent is true for Americans, and for other Westerners — for instance the Yanqui Gringo mentioned above, who does not have the right (or an automatic right) to Mexican papers. Just as I, a foreigner living in Paris, do not have right — certainly, not an automatic right — to French papers and do not have the right to vote in French elections (it is not a right I would want — no offense intended — and I would never castigate the French for failing to give it to me or to any other foreigner)… 
 
Time out for French translation: Oui, ce qui est écrit ici vaut aussi pour la France et pour le reste de l'Europe : traiter les illégaux de "sans papiers" est trompeur — puisque tout le monde a effectivement des papiers. Si, si, ils ont des papiers, des papiers algériens ou sénégalais ou autres. En quoi ces migrants ont-ils un droit incontestable d'obtenir des papiers français ou suédois?! Pas plus, à moins que je ne me trompe, qu'un Français ou un Suédois arrivant en Algérie ou au Sénégal n'a un droit incontestable d'obtenir des papiers algériens ou sénégalais.

If I had the time, we could enter a discussion regarding the difference between natural rights (which every individual on Earth has) and civic rights (or citizen rights, which depend on the country you are — legally — living in, whatever part of the globe that country is located in), but I don't, so I will just suggest you read the books of Harry Jaffa

To return to Mexico, nothing in Mexican law presupposes that our American expatriate be given, say, a job (or that he have the freedom to choose any job he wants) in Mexico or that, say, he vote in Mexican elections. Indeed, reports on Mexico's own problem with illegal aliens (Central Americans that cross over that nation's Southern border) point out to quite a few problems in that country (the one allegedly martyred by white American racists), far worse than anything in the United States, with Amnesty International calling "the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis".

Indeed, as JammieWearingFool puts it (gracias por el Professor Reynolds),
No wonder they're all moving to the Nazi-like, fascistic, police-state of Arizona.
Now, if any Mexicans, say the citizens of the estado de Chihuahua, want American papers, there is a simple solution: I suggest that they ask that the state be annexed by the United States. (Don't be so quick to issue a snort. I'm sure quite a few Mexicans would be more than willing to see that happen…)

 
Our ol' chum, Damian Bennett, points out that
What is most annoying about lefty 'journos' is they are shamelessly stupid. Not incidentally stupid, not I-was-born-this-way stupid, not one-off stupid, not oopsie stupid but doggèdly deliberate doublethink donkey stupid.

There is no red-pilling them. They will go to their graves stupid.
In that perspective — that of the left's Locofocos and its Drama QueensDamian Bennett goes on to point to a lengthy list of articles about illegal immigrants, focusing on Venezuela's ultra-violent Tren de Aragua gang members.
A leaked security briefing details the dangers of a transnational criminal cartel operating inside the USA

The thrust of the article seems plausible given the facts of the case, and DJT certainly thinks so...


...but I think the wrong culprit has been fingered. Connect the mazey dots below:

Trump tablesets...
...the 'resistance' has long readied its pan-policy response...
...and on and on and on and now bears its violent fruit...
...all this followed by the Democrats poker tell of projecting elsewhere what they themselves are about:
Why indeed. Yet:
So much more of this but enough to paint the picture of a Democrat party that is primed and prepared for, and openly prompts violence. But who to carry out the violence against the Trump administration and electorate? Not the cosplay Antifa soy boys and low-T bullies. [Pause to ponder.] 

Hhmmm, an ultra-violent criminal organization with strategically seeded beachheads across America fits the bill. 

So back to your article, it is not Venezuela invading America, that's not credible. How would two-left-hands Venezuela manage an invasion? Venezuela is only the broker for Tren de Aragua's business expansion. (I add in passing that Tren de Aragua is more organized, disciplined, operationally capable, and financially tenable than the Maduro government.) What is credible is Venezuela providing a sleeper paramilitary force that is deep-state funded on the American side, to be activated in extremis. What the deep state wants is to destroy Trump47 and his supporters not the lucrative real estate and commercial opportunities of America.

Sunday, January 19, 2025

VDH: Trump and 'The Art' of the 'Troll'


The Daily Signal interviews Victor Davis Hanson on Trump and 'The Art' of the 'Troll' 

In this edition of The Daily Signal’s “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Hanson delves into former President Donald Trump's negotiation techniques, which critics call “trolling.” 

Hanson discusses how Trump's strategies, as described in 'The Art of the Deal,' play out in various geopolitical scenarios: renaming the Gulf of Mexico, purchasing Greenland, renegotiating the Panama Canal Treaty, and making Canada a state: 

“In the case of renaming the Gulf of Mexico, the Mexican president showed a map recently of the southwest of the United States being part of Mexico. That was her counter. That's kind of a bad troll, because they rely on $63 billion of remittances.” 

The discussion emphasizes Trump's approach of making extreme demands to gain an upper hand and highlights the irony in how he uses left-wing arguments against their proponents. Tune in to understand the intricate dynamics of Trump's methods and their implications on international relations. 

00:00 Introduction to Trump's Trolling Tactics
00:50
Analyzing Trump's Negotiation Strategy
02:07
Case Study: Canada and Trade Imbalance
02:58
Case Study: Greenland and Strategic Interests
03:49
Case Study: Renaming the Gulf of Mexico
04:36
Case Study: Panama Canal and Chinese Influence
05:32
Irony in Trump's Tactics
08:05
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
#panama #inauguration #trump #canada #greenland #california #biden #dailysignal #victordavishanson The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories, like this one, without the support of our viewers: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Further Gore-yness from a sore loser in Mexico

Headlines:

Mexican conservative wins tight battle
...but...
Leftist calls supporters onto streets in Mexican crisis
...and... the BBC refuses to concede that there is no story here:
Mexico candidate vows vote fight

Mexico's centre-left presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has said he will challenge the outcome of Sunday's presidential election.
Suddenly and much to the surprise of the actual center left in Mexico (that didn’t seem to care for this brick-chucker,) he has now been pronounced a harmless, warm and fuzzy “center left” kind of guy by the hit-and-run "international media."

Others still can never be satisfied by even a marginal reporting of actual facts. These punks thinks BBC Mundo, with it's puny theoretical market share based on 10 stations carrying them part of the day, has influenced the vote in favor of Calderon.

Saturday, March 14, 2026

Last Stands: How I Take Notes When Reading a Book (1)

Granted, nobody asked me, but below I will give you an example of the way that I take notes when perusing a book, notes which I used in a post two months ago (Michael Walsh: "war may be hell but it is often necessary").

While looking through a book, I write down the page where there is information that, for a vast variety of reasons, I think is important and should be remembered. Following that, I divide the page in five sub-sections to quickly figure out later on in which part is the section I want to quote (t, tm, m, mb, b for top, top middle, middle, middle bottom, bottom, while n means note; originally I used c for center (i.e., middle), but that little squiggle proved sometimes hard to decipher later). 

Afterwards, I turn on my computer and open one of two Bookmarks documents (why two? see below), and then I go back to the book, find the page, and write down the quote, which is sometimes only a word or two and sometimes a couple of paragraphs or longer. If I added an exclamation mark in my notes, it is to remember to make the text bold. (There are often typos, as I am a writer, not a typist.)

Shortly after starting this, maybe 25-30 years ago or so, I also write down every chapter heading, tabbed and in bold, in order to better remember the context and also because the page numbers may not square with various editions of the book. 

It is strictly personal, and often I write down things so they can be quoted later — among other places, in this blog. I do not need to back to the book. I carry it with me in my laptop computer. I do not need to type the quote. I have done so already, months or years ago.

While reading Richard Harris's Pompeii — a novel I adored and couldn't put down and highly recommend — I only made one single note, because I found the information quite astounding. 

Pompeii

by Robert Harris

110  A stink of urine from the laundry opposite, with pots left on the pavement for passers-by to piss in (nothing cleaned clothes as well as human piss).

I usually do not use this method while reading novels — something I do less and less in any case — but I also had half a dozen notes for Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire (by the choice of quotation marks, you can see that it is a British edition of the novel — also highly recommended).

Gates of Fire

by Steven Pressfield

342  'Why is it in war you can't fall asleep when you want to and can't stay awake when you have to?'

352  The youth snapped to, blinking like a boy awaking from a nightmare

379  In that initial instant of salvation, however temporary all knew it must be, a flush of supreme joy had flooded over the allied camp Simultaneously a second wave of emotion coursed through the camp.  This was of piety.

388  The stink of blood and death rose with such palpable horror that the asses of the supply train bawled all night and could not be quietened

441  The earth where the deer had taken shelter was dry, crushed and matted where the herd had lain, flank-to-flank Ball Player assumed a stance to urinate.  'Don't,' Alexandros nudged him.  'Or the deer will never use this nest again.'  'What's that to you?'  'Piss down the slope, ' Dienekes commanded.

455-456  discipline

493  'I am sorry for them,' he avowed, indicating the valiant foemen who stood so proximitaly across.  'What wouldn't they give, the noblest among them, to stand with here with us now?'

524  names of authors.

Some of the books, like Paul Johnson's or Antony Beevor's, have 20 pages of notes or more. A three-year-old post (Stalin's Death at 70: Some Mind-Boggling Revelations About Stalin, World War II, and a Century of Russian History) was heavily influenced by my notes from Beevor's The Second World War while two previous posts from two or three years ago were almost entirely based on excerpts from Johnson's Modern Times (A History of the World from the 1920s to the 1990s) (1. "Hitler remained to the end a socialist" (the Führer "was totally irreligious and" wanted to hang the Pope in St Peter's Square) and 2. In Spain in 1937 and 1938, many thousands of Leftists of all descriptions, were executed or tortured to death in Communist prisons (one who escaped was George Orwell)). 

How many books am I now "carrying" around with me on my laptop? Well, let me put it this way: years ago, my Bookmarks document got so long that it crashed and — to my great distress — became impossible to open, and I had to contact the publisher of the app (RagTime) for them to open it, sort it out, and divide it into two parts. Bookmarks 1 is now 539 pages long, while Bookmarks 2 is 1142 pages long. 

In the main example of this post, from Michael Walsh's Last Stands (Why Men Fight When All Is Lost), there are far more notes than in the two novels mentioned above — five full pages — but I didn't make any notes for chapters I and V — not because they were of no interest, but simply because it was a personal decision (there may be typos — their homnes p 224, Constantibnople p 338 — see pages 97, 290, 298, and 299 for text in bold). See page 334 for another piece of information that, although far from illogical, astounded me.

Last Stands

Why Men Fight When All Is Lost

by Michael Walsh


Introduction  To Die For

"Go Tell the Spartans"

The battle of Thermopylae (480 B.C.)

II  "Varus, Give Me Back My Legions"

Cannae (216 B.C. and the Teutoburg Forest (9 A.D.)

58  "It was an inflexible maxim of Roman discipline that, a good soldier should dread his officers far more than the enemy" 

74  Today's West has precesiely the same problem.  We seek to bury our past for having the effrontery for not living up tke moral standars of the present — but what else do we inter with it?

III  "We Have It in Our Power to Die Honorably as Free Men"

Masada 73/74 A.D.) and Warsaw (1943)

95 n23  The term Nazi — an abbreviation of Natiionalsozialisten — was largely a term invented by the party's opponents, both a cognate to the term Sozi (a shortening of Sozialdemokrat — and a colloquial play on the Christian name Ignaz, a Bavarianism best translated as "bumpkin."  The National Socialists rarely referred to themselves as "Nazis."  The prromiscuous use of the word today is ahistorical and inaccurate.

97 n26  Although the National Socialists would occasionally pay some lip service to "God," they viewed Christians as little better than Jews, viewing the followers of the Jew Jesus as a very large and successful sect of Judaism.  Many pastors and priests died in the death camps.

IV  "We Have Come to Rue Your Prowess, Roland!"

The Battle of Ronceveaux Pass and La Chanson de Roland (778/1115)

112 n8  Although the Reconquista was not completed until 1492, it was well underway by the ninth century, when the most significant remaining Muslim stronghold was centered on the modern city of Saragossa near the Ebro river, which at the time of Hannibal had been the border between the Carthaginians and the Romans.  The Ebro was also a crucial battleground during the Spanish Civil War of the twentieth century.  The myth of a prolonged and beneficent Muslim "golden age" in Spain is exactly that

118   the main character was transformed from Roland, the warrior knight, into Orlando, the Latin lover

122  our notions of "right" and "left" (which are derived from the anti-clerical French Revolution) become increasingly meaningless

"Look at Me, I Am Still Alive"

The Battle of Hastings (1066)

VI  "I Must Perform Some Action Worthy of a Man"

The Last Stand of the Swiss Guard

144 n4  The homosexual, youth-molesting scandals of the contemporary Catholic Church are an inverted echo of this period, and may well result in a smilar schism, this time between observant Catholics who reject the "reforms" of Vatican II and the currenct curia.  Sedevacantism looms.

144-146  Luther was an avid heterosexual and fully enjoyed the perquisites of married love

In other words, Protestantism — in Germany, Switzerland, Englandm and elsewhere — was founded upon sexual freedom, if not to say license

Sooen enough, Switzerland, lake the rest of Europe, was split into Catholic and Protestand denominations.  The division would fester for nearly a century until it broke open into murderous hostility with the Thirty Years' War

As Western Rome fell, the power of the popes swelled

Prior to the end of the Western Empire, in 452, Leo I had ridden out to meet Attila the Hun

150-151  nothing approached the destruction visited upon the city [Rome] in 1527 — perhaps the least-remembered but most consequential event of the Renaissance.  It was, in its way, as consequential as the Sack of Constatinople by the Crusaders in 1204

In fact, this Sack of Rome brought an abrupt end to the Italian Renaissance, to the world of Michaelangelo and da Vinci and Julius II that had existed just a few decades before.  Rome's barbarian chickens had come home to roost at last, destroying the remnants of a two-thousand-year-old civilization in their baleful wake

VII  "Toady We Bring Dignity Upon Our Names"

The Siege of Szigetvár (1566)

163  the Hapsburg royal seat of Vienna the ultimate prize — the overland gateway into the heart of Christendom and thus a trophy of enormous symbolic importance to the Muslims, who had conquered the Eastern Roman Empire's capital of Constantinople little more than a century earlier

in 1529, Suleiman had laid siege to Vienna itself, lasting two weeks before ending in failure and withdrawal

168  Tiime and again in The Siege of Sziget, [Miklós Zrínyi (1620-1664)] remarks upon the faithlessbess of the Turks abd on the dire conequences that befell those Christians who tursted them.  Let one example, among many, suffice:

Foolish is he who believes the Turk's Oath, Especially if he entrusts his life to the Turks. A Turk considers it a sin to hold to his word, Especially if it is given to a Christian.

171 n  The number of Western women abducted into Muslim harems by the North African Barbary pirates between 1530 and 1780 is estimated at one million

176-177  How different it was back then!  It is hard for modern people to grasp the noise of war.  The guns on both sides, manned both by the Christians and the Muslim Janissaries, were (as guns are today) startingly loud, especially in an age in which there was no mand-made ambient noise to inure the ear.  The clang of metal on metal, the thump of spears and arrows into shields, and, above all, the screams of wounded and the dying, which lingered on long after the guns had beeen silenced, formed the aural backdrop to the warfare of this period

178-179  Having failed the previous year to take the Crusader island of Malta by the sea, Suleiman had no choice but to proceed overland and to sack the capital of the Hapsburgs and thus not only complete his conquest of the Christian outpost of Hungary but also open up all of Europe to the Crescent

n  During the Cold War, it was interesting and sobering to note that Vienna, in "neutral" Austria, lay considerably to the East of Soviet-occupied Prague — a wedge into the heart of the Soviet empire

VIII  "These Aren't Men, They Are Devils"

The Alamo (1836) and Camarón (1862)

185-186  What a difference between the British and Spanish/Portuguese approaches to colonization:  the British sent settlers, the Iberians sent caudillos.  It was a cultural mind-set that resolnates to this day.  Whereas the the British were determined to make the world England," the Spanish … were content to defeat the natives and thus do Western civilization a signal service by destroying the Aztec Empire in what is now Mexico.  And yet the Spanish never followed up on their victory in Mexico or the rest of Latin America.  To this day, the political class of most of South America is, or has been, largely white descendants of the Spanish arictocracy, with administrative and ethnic bona fides that keep the largely mestizo and/or former slave/mulatto populations in subordination.  If there is any "racism" in America, look to the south of the border for its origins.

The fact is that the Spanish model — the imposition of colonial governorship by Spaniards eager to return to the mother country after their tour of duty in the America, and an exploitation of the peoples and the natural resources of the colonies — was the worst possible model for  the Americas.

187  The loss of Texas rankled the newly independent Mexican government, but in many ways it had only itself to blame.  As noted, the Spanish colonized but did not settle.  Instead, they sailed across the Atlantic for plunder and booty to be spent on advancement back in the mother country.  Like the huge area known as Alta (Upper, as opposed to Baja, or Lower) California, Texas itself, for all its vast territorym was sparsely populated by whites, and Mexico needed more people in order to secure control of the lands contested by the Comanche Indians, who freely raided Mexican outposts.  The Mexican government, therefore, not only turned a blind eye to the influx of American settlers moving into the northern territories but also encouraged them at times  

196-197  Mexico was in the throes of a prolonged political crisis as well, brought on by its defeat in the war, which left it open to interference from its old colonoial master, Spain, and the French Bourbons under the emperor Maximilain.  The interplay and the rivalry between Spain and France regarding Mexico is largely forgotten today, but Napoleon, during his Peninsular War, deposed the Spanish monarchy and in 1808 installed his elder brother Joseph as the Iberian ruler for five years

The Spanish Bourbons were restored in 1813 and deposed again in 1868

203  The Alamo changed both Mexican and American history.  The Mexxicans would soon enough have cause to regret they had martyred the men at the Alamo, for vengenance was surely on the moinds of many American soldiers and sailors during the Mexcian War a decade later, when they blockaded the country on both coasts and then marched from Veracruz to Mexico City and forced a humliating peace and loss of considerable territory on Mexico el Norte

IX  "Lick 'Em Tomorrow, Though"

Grant at Shiloh (1862)

206 n1  Grant wrote in his Personal Memoirs, "It was a case of Southern dash against Northern pluck and endurance."

208  The tactical alliance of Grant and Foote is one of the most crucial of the war, and oft unsung

From his early days as a quartermaster during the Mexican War, Grant understood the importance of not only men but also materiel

"Big Village"

Custer at the Little Bighorn (1876)

222  Critics attribute his actionss to vainglory or buffoonery or a lack of military knowledge, yet in fact Custer was one of the finest tactical commanders of the Civil War, the darling of both the media and of his superior officer, Gen. Philip Sheridan, who wielded Custer as the instrument of his wrath upon the South.  Custer was many things, but an incompetent glory hound was not one of them

224  We have vivid accounts of the unpredictable brutality of the Indians fom survivors such as Lavina Eastlick; awakened on the morning of August 20, 1862, by a neighbor announcing that the Indians were killing the settlers in their [Minnesota] homnes at Lake Shetek, she, her husband, and their five sons fled.  Only Lavina and one of her children survived, as even the "friendly" Indians working the land turned on them.

"I could not find my children. … During the day I heard the children crying most of the time; sometimes I heard them screaming and crying. … No one can imagine my feelings.  I wished I could die.  I thought then, and I think now, that they were torturing the children.  It was a great punishment to hear tbe children crying and moaning under the cruel tortures of the Indians"

n4  Mrs. [Eastlick's story is anthologized in Captured by the Indians:  Fifteen First-hand Accounts, 1750-1870 (Dover Books, 1961).  Those who view the Indian wars as one-sided will have their illusions quickly disabused.  At the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer brought with him several souts, most of them Crows

227  In fact, many of the North American Indians sides with the wasichus — the white man.  As in Mexico and Central and South America, the dominant tribes were often cordially loathed by the native peoples they conquered

n9  Although the Sioux claimed the Black Hills and surrounding areas for themselves, in reality they had wrested them from other tribes; the Crows were among the dispossessed and therefore were natural enemies of the Lakota

XI  "Tell Everyone I Died Facing the Enemy"

Rorke's Drift (1879) and Khartoum (1885)

258  Confident as his well-trained trooops marched into Zululand, Chelmsford had split his force of some 2,500 — the same tactical mistake Custer had made at the Little Bighorn, and for much the same reason:  he thought the Africans would flee, and wanted to trap them

264  fire in three-rank volleys n 16 A legacy of the three-tiered Roman maniples, with troops from the rear constantly moving forward to spell the men at the front

265  their war cry:  Usutu!

268  the British had become ever more concerned about African slavery, which had been abolished throughout the empire in 1833 but which was still flourishing in Arab-controlled areas* where Islam met sub-Saharan black Africa

*n23  In the wake of their conquest of Roman Egypt, Muslim Arabs had attempted to subdue Christian Nubia — southern Egypt and the Sudan — but failed; however, under the term of truce, the Nubians were required to trade slaves for needed foodstuffs.  By the early sixteenth century, the Ottomans had conquered Nubia.  Henceforth, blacks were routinely captured and sold into slavery

284  Omdurman

The defeat was so decisive that there would be no further jihad for more than a hundred years, until on September 11, 2001, when the walls of the World Trade Center collapsed and the long, 1,400-year civilizational struggle between recrudescent Islam and the West commenced in earnest once again

XII  "Not One Step Back"

The Battle of Pavlov's House: Stalingrad, 1942

289  Socialism has long appealed to the Germans.  In Germania,  the historian Tacitus noted the Germans' relative (compared to the Romans, at least) lack of a hierarchy and their sense of community; practically from the beginning, it seems, the Germans have been fond of societies, brotherhoods, Gesellschaften.  Another charactereistic, as might call it today, is their enviromentalism:  Germans are the original tree-huggers

Hitler  a leftist appeal to a working class that might otherwise have been susceptible to Communism

290 n7  For a time, the Soviets even considered joining Germany, Italy, and their erstwhile enemy, Japan, as a member of the Axis!!!

291  The Russians were taken completely unawares.  Stalin had refused to believe intelligence reports that his ally was about to double-cross him, in part because he believed that Germany had learned a lesson from World War I — not to engage in a two-front war — and the two countries had become major trading partners

295 In preparation for the battle, Stalin had issued Order No. 227, which established the fighting principle of "Not One Step Back."  Further, the Soviet dictator refused to allow any of the 400,000 or so civilians to leave, on the theory that his soldiers would fight harder defending their countrymen instead of empty buildings.  Under this directive, penal battalions composed of soldiers who had been court-martialed were sent immediately to front lines, and uuits were created in the rear with orders to shoot all deserters and cowards

The Soviets had held Moscow, and, so far, Leningrad was surviving one of the bitterest sieges in history, but Stalin understood — as Hitler came to — that Stalingrad would be the most important of the three German objectives.  It would be, of necessity, the Soviets' last stand

298  the propaganda value of Stalingrad was one of the foremost considerations during the conduct of the battle itself, on both sides.  Two stubborn socialist dictators dug in their heels

the Third Reich, the successor to Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire and the Wilhelmine Empire of Otto von Bismarck  the moral destruction of the most civilized country in Europe (whose sophistication had always just barely concealed the barbarism beneath)

n  The more reversals the Germans suffered near the end of the war, the faster the Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, Russian prisoners of war, and gypsies were murdered

299  91,000 Germans were taken prisoner, and only 5,000 were repatriated after the war

the Soviet commander, Marshal Vasily … Chuikov was in Berlin during the final surrender on May 1, 1945.  The chief of the German General Staff, Hans Krebs, crossed the lines to greet his Soviet counterpart with typical German arrogance but socialist solidarity:  "Today is the first of May, a great holiday for our two nations," he said.  At the end of the war, Krebs was still boasting of the ideological ties that bound the National Socialist German Workers Party with Soviet Communism:  the rights of the working class.

Chuikov responded:  "We have a great holiday today.  How things are with you over there it is less easy to say."

Epilogue  "Iron Mike"

The Chosin Reservoir, 1950

304-306  war may be hell but it is often necessary.  This may be regrettable, but unless one is a member of a suicide cult, it does neither an individual nor a nation any good to deny.  In our iconoclastioc era, in which a segment of the American population thinnks it is somehow cathartic to tear down statues of great men of the past because they lacked the foresight  to see how their actions and attitudes might play out hundreds or even thousands of years in the future, there can be no disagreement with transitory orthodoxy.  The animated warriors of the "social justice" movement are quite brave when confronting inanimate objects; one wonders how far this bravado would extend to an existential threat.  Let's hope we never have to find out, although one suspects they would suddenly discover the joys of conscientious objection, or a "Higher loyalty" to nonviolence over their preferred goal of international, borderless brotherhood. 

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, signed in Paris in 1928, its signatories to renounce war  Eleven years later, World War II borke out, bound the treaty nugatory and resulting in the disappearance of several of the signatories

Contemporary pacifists and feminists will argue that war is the result of "toxic masculinity," and that in a female-dominated world disputes will be amicably settled by tribal councils of conciliation and jawboning.  Why, then, are contemporarty feminists so adamant about women in the military?  Why do they insist, against all historical and empirical evidence, that women are the equals of men in every respect, including physical strength and and the nature of their enotions?  Their ideal, the now-obsolete United Nations, is a monument on the East River to the naïveté of Kellogg-Briand.  What has the UN brought us?  Wars that drag on forever with "peacekeepers" in blue helmets there to referee, a bloated bureaucracy occupying valuable Manhattan real estate, and outbreaks of rape and exploitation in various hot zones around the world.  Winston Churchill never said anything stupider than "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" — rich coming from a man who also said (of his experience on the North-West Frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan), "Nothing on life is so exhilarating than to be shot at without result."

Santayana's oft-quoted aphorism, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it," is in a way supererogatory; the past will recur whether we remember it or not.  Remembering it and learning from it, however, at least gives us a fighting chance.

319  The safest and best thing is to do your job.  If you do, you might get killed, but if you don't, you will get killed.  The surprising truth is, most men are not killed in battle.  In any enumeration of casualties, the number of wounded and missing outnumber deaths on the field.  One's chances of survigin any given battle are actually relatively good; disease, or a wound that might otherwise have been attende to and thus rendered nonfatal, is usually the Grim Reaper

320  Few civilans understand how loud war is.  The shell-shocked veterans of the Somme were not reacting to the carnage so much as to the ear-splitting noise produced by the big guns and personal firearms.  It is literally deafening, which is why shooters on a gun range are forced to wear ear protection during target practice.

322  In the freezing conditions, the Marines stacked the dead bodies of the Chinese to use them as both breastworks and windbreaks.  Many of the Chinese had essentially frozen alive, the only sign of life being their moving eyeballs  The Marines shot them.  They relieved the dead of any    usable clothing and unspent ammunition

323 n  In general, and despite what you see in the movies, Marine officers don't use four-letter words

Extracts

Polybius, The Histories, Vol. 6:

334  [the head of the javelin] is a span long hammered out to such a fine edge that it is necessarily bent by the first impact, and the enemy is unable to return it.  If this were not so, the missile would be available for both sides

Urban II at Clermont:

338-339  From the confines of  Jerusalem and the city of Constantibnople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequenltly been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of these Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.  They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanliness.  They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font.  When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bid it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostate upon the ground

The kingdom of the Greeks 

But if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me."  [Matthhew 10:37]

340  That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey," was given by God          into the possession of the children of Israel.  Jerusalem is the navel of the world