Saturday, August 25, 2007

A tale of North America

Let us say for example that some fascist dictator down south decides to make war. He sweeps up from S. America and invades Central America all the way up to Mexico.

The Mexicans are proud and fight off this tyrant vigorously for a time, but in the end they ask for U.S support.

The U.S invades Mexico, heads south and pushes the tyrant all the way back to his homeland, where eventually he is defeated by a combination of freedom fighters from within, and armies fro sympathetic nations around.

In the aftermath Mexico has a great deal of turmoil re-establishing it's own government, and in the opts for joining with the U.S. in something of a North American Union, in which the U.S. has some controlling interest in the Mexican state.

Let's say for the next 90 years or so many U.S. citizens immigrate to Mexico, just as many Mexicans immigrate northward. Let us even go so far as to say that the U.S government creates a sponsorship program whereby U.S. citizens willing to immigrate south and start anew life in helping to rebuild Mexico are given great incentives.

So after 90 years, lets say, you have about 40% of the population of Mexico as Anglo-Saxon whites who have made this their home. The new generations of whites have never known any other home. In fact, by now even their grandparents who came here have passed on.

Let's say that the new generations of ethnically Hispanic Mexicans don't remember the war. The society they have rebuilt is far removed from any trace of the former period of captivity, except for a hand full of war memorials.

Let's say that many of the younger generation start persecuting the Anglo-Saxons (AS) who live here, because they don't feel it is right for all those people to live in their land. Let's say that the persecution also instigates back-lash fro the AS crowd who feel they've plenty of right to live there as they've lived there their whole lives.

Let's say the government now steps in: but far from stepping in so as to diffuse the situation, on the contrary makes it deliberately hard for English speakers to conduct business, and starts taking steps (which it says are in the interest of the AS crowd) to ban English in public, and so on. Business signs must be in Spanish, all business and legal documents must be in Spanish, and so on.

Lets say they also decide to remove all war memorials to U.S. soldiers who died liberating their country: why, because it shows "U.S. Aggression".

Let's say that the U.S gov protests against this move by Mexico, but that the Mexicans basically say "screw you" to the U.S. gov. We are an independent state and you cannot boss us around.

Well, leaving aside the politics for a moment between U.S. and Mexico in this scenario, let us discuss "right and wrong" - that is to say morals.

How can it possibly be "right" what the Mexicans are doing in my pretend scenario here?

And yet, I am not speaking of U.S. and Mexico here, but rather of Russia and the Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The above is precisely what has happened in the Baltic countries, and yet for some reason (I believe only because they are brainwashed by the official U.S. news media that casts everything it can in an anti-Russian slant).. for some reason my friends try to convince me that the U.S is the one who is morally wrong in the example I've provided here. Well, that is to say, they consider Russian to be in the wrong.

You see how the tables are turned when we are talking about the U.S. instead of Russia?

Clearly, it is the Baltic governments who are morally in the wrong by encouraging anti-Russian racism in their laws, and police crackdowns.