“Unarmed Invaders”

While reading the Payton Gendron’s manifesto, I came upon an important point, and made a mental note to come back to it later:

The danger of the invader


If you were to kill sixty armed invaders having shown the will and the intent to bring harm to your nation and people, you would be hailed a hero, given your nation’s highest civilian honors, paraded before the media and the adoring public. But kill sixty unarmed invaders having shown the will and the intent to bring harm to your nation and people, and you will be considered a monster, dragged through the streets, ridiculed, attacked, your character assassinated in every way it can be and finally tried in court and imprisoned for the rest of your life.


But here’s the real kicker, the unarmed invader is far more dangerous to our people than the armed invader. We can fight the armed invader, we know how, we have the ability, we have the soldiers and arms to do so. But the unarmed invader, we have no real idea on how to deal with them, we are unable to attack them or fend them off in any meaningful way.


Both would seek to destroy our nation, both would seek to displace and replace our people, both would seek to destroy our culture and nationhood. But only one has the ability and only one has shown to be effective at doing so.


THE UNARMED INVADER IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE ARMED

I’m certain that Dendron didn’t come up with this himself, but that’s where I found it, so I’m citing him. My detractors will shriek, “He’s giving CREDIT to a mass murderer!!” and that’s why those detractors are mental midgets; they can only learn from “approved” sources, and they’re incapable of judging concepts based upon their merits alone.

It’s a good point, but it needs some refinement. In a recent Amren podcast, Mr. Taylor speaks (at the very beginning) of a young white mother who was deliberately run down by a black career criminal. The victim had voted for the same district attorney (George Gascon) who had failed to adequately punish this criminal for his past offense. She is now planning on leaving California for another state – where she’ll probably contribute to its demise through her voting habits. I commented:

Regarding the lefty victim of the hit-and-run who moved away, this perfectly illustrates the fact that voting is an act of violence, indirectly of course. Every time a vote is cast, it gives the powers-that-be permission to enforce the law (or refrain from doing so) at the point of a gun. It’s similar to hiring a hit man. I’m not saying we shouldn’t vote, only that we should view it for what it is: An act that gives others the ability to commit violence on our behalf – or, as in this case, to ALLOW violence on our behalf.

This is why allowing leftists to move to red states, and alter the politics of those states, is tantamount to allowing an invasion. It must be stopped.

In a democracy, or even a democratic republic, there is no such thing as “unarmed invaders.” Even though, in theory, illegal aliens don’t vote, we all know that, in practice, they DO sometimes vote – and they’re even encouraged to do so in some municipalities. Even if they don’t vote, their birthright children will. Therefore, all aliens are (in practical terms) armed. The possibility that they’ll vote renders them armed and dangerous – because they have the power to subvert armed agents of the government to harm the rest of us.

It’s common for leftists to consider things they can’t see right in front of them as “nonexistent.” For example, if you see a leftist complaining about heavy traffic, and you point out that it’s a result of non-white immigration, he’ll retort by pointing out that most of the other motorists are WHITE, and that therefore, it can’t be because of non-white immigration. He won’t recognize the fact that those excess white motorists are here because they FLED areas whose quality of life had deteriorated due to non-white immigration (IE. Mexicans in California and Somalis on Minnesota). Overcrowding, crime and corruption motivate whites to move away from some areas, and congregate in others. Hence, Portland, Oregon now has severe traffic problems. Most of those who move here are white, but the source of the problem is non-white immigration; whites are DECREASING in number.

Another example is the War on White-Supremacy by the Woke Elites. Whenever there’s an actual incident of whites acting badly toward non-whites, their reaction is the same: “White-supremacy bad. Must crush white-supremacy!” It never occurs to them to go deeper, to learn why some white people rebel in violent ways. Their grasp is one-dimensional and simplistic, even childish.

In the same way, since leftists don’t actually SEE the chain of events that lead to the deterioration of our civilization, due to a growing non-white (big-government) voting block, they’re oblivious to the connection. It doesn’t register in their minds.

This entry was posted in immigration/ Hispanics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to “Unarmed Invaders”

  1. Lon Spector says:

    This isn’t the first time it’s happened. “There is nothing new under the Sun.”
    In ancient Rome, the “white” race was gradually replaced by darker colored
    “servants” who outbred them. They came from the east. (Present day Iraq.)
    The politicans of the time disapproved and made note of it, but were
    powerless to stop it. The replacement was steady and gradual.
    The darker skinned people brought their cultural beliefs along with them,
    and remain to this day. The original whites moved to the north of Italy.
    Race change was common through out the world. India and Egypt were two
    other examples.
    The writing is on the wall for the West. Ultimately, there’s no where to flee.
    It’s a shame however, because as dark skinned Dinesh D’souza notes in one of his
    books “If America falls it will not have lasted a fraction of the time other ancient
    empires existed.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *