I remember learning that in history often when someone sets out to have one outcome, they wind up having the exact opposite outcome of what they intended. Take Hitler with his thousand year Reich, instead, he nearly destroyed Germany in a little over a decade and now any white person (let alone German) who stands up for the right of white people to simply exist is vilified as a Nazi. His intended goal was destroyed. You could also argue that Israel would never have become a country without what he did.
Now take George Soros. Soros wrote, “Who would have thought sixty years ago, when Karl Popper wrote ‘Open Society and its enemies’, that the United States itself could pose a threat to open society.” Of course, the logical thing to do for Soros if the United States is the enemy of his “Open Society Foundation” is to take the United States down. That seems to be what he’s aiming to do and he’s doing it through demographic replacement.
In the above cartoons, the cartoonists make the case that to have an “open society” full of tolerance, you must be intolerant. The problem is who is being intolerant? The geniuses who came up with the an “open society” are themselves some of the most intolerant people towards anyone who would dare disagree with them.
Incidentally, in this last cartoon above, they rely on three lies in one frame. By having Trump say, “Mexicans are rapists”, they leave the impression that Trump said all Mexicans are rapists, which he did not say, patently false. Nor did he say all “Muslims are terrorists”, he was simply trying to extend a program that Obama himself had implemented. Finally, Trump did not call white supremacists “very fine people”. Even the far left fact checkers over at Snopes have finally got around to admitting that was a lie. Finally, in the cartoon’s final frame, we see angry protestors full of hate yelling “Impeach, impeach, impeach”. Hardly a group full of “love not hate”. How can they be so blind to their own hypocrisy?
In fact, just like Hitler destroying Germany, George Soros’s “Open Society Foundation” is busy murdering democracy (I include republics within that), thus, destroying the very openness he claims to champion.
A few years back, a friend invited me to a sort of town hall meeting. The local town was seeking to close down a road and turn it into a bike path. Worse for my friend’s house was along the road and they intended to put a public parking lot right in front of his house. The excuse for doing this was to allow more low income people access to the public park on the other side of the road. No one asked the birds and the ducks who liked the edge of the river what they thought. My friend was upset, he didn’t want a public parking lot in front of his house, nor for the road to be closed. I was there to back him up.
One of the underlings of the town supervisor came over to talk to my friend about it after the meeting wrapped up. She had a big smile on her face and I had the impression that (in her mind) she was going to convince him of the rightness of their ways. She failed. Within under a minute or two, the smile was wiped from her face and she realized that she had come up against a very angry constituent who had a very legitimate gripe about having a parking lot put in front of his house. Who would want that? She seemed to be running away from him after that, almost in horror. (They did close down the road and turn it into a bike path, but my friend succeeded in keeping the parking lot from being put in front of his house).
That’s the problem with an open society. In free for all of conversations, feelings will become heated. Your ideas might not prove to be the best. The one who wins the argument might not actually be right. Hopefully, that will become evident down the road and it will wake people up. In the short term, it’s very messy. There are no clear cut cases of good and bad, but various shades of gray.
“In the name of tolerance, we must be intolerant”. This brings me to a point about Antifa, the supposed anti-fascists. There’s just not enough real Nazis left in this world. So, they obey Godwin’s Law; “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”. “Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.” Ironically, the person who came up with the law, Mike Godwin, has said it’s OK to call Trump a Nazi. Trump, the man who let his blonde daughter marry a Jew is a Nazi? The man who has appeared at the Wailing Wall in a skull cap, a Nazi? The guy who pals around with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Nazi?
However, from a tactical standpoint, being able to radicalize your opposition as much as possible serves a purpose. The far left seeks to demonize the right as all a bunch of fascists and the right is using the term communist more and more for the left. Now, there are Nazis on the right, and groups like Antifa are full of anarchists and communists, but the vast majority of people are more centrist than that.
In an online discussion a few years ago, someone was claiming that the left wants to reduce their enemies on the right to nothing but Nazis. They are unintentionally giving rise to an increase in antisemitism. Or, is it possibly intentional on some level? They want to be able to vilify the right as a bunch of fascists in order to isolate and diminish the right. They should be careful that this doesn’t backfire. When the only people standing up for white people are Nazis, then you will get a sort of legitimizing of Nazis in a lot of people’s minds. According to GAB AI, only 10.1% of the world’s population is of white European ancestry, a true minority. Yet, all the world seems to want to live in those countries that were once majority white.
In the meantime, I’ve been trying to publish my second book, “What Bridge Do You Work At? Or, Taco Soup for the illegal alien’s soul”. (Yes, there’s some intentional bad grammar in there and the book title might have to change). I wanted to use a different publisher this time, so, I tried one self-publisher who claimed to be the largest self publisher in the United States. They refused to publish my book using my real name! They are so afraid of a lawsuit that they insisted I come up with a pen name, something I refused to do. I didn’t want the book to appear to be nothing but fiction, I want people to know what it was really like being in the Border Patrol and being forced to let people into the country.
I shopped around frantically for another publisher. I looked into one publisher who would have been probably willing to do it. The publisher was friends with some people I know. HOWEVER, the publisher also published the speeches of Joseph Goebbels! I decided I couldn’t go with them for two reasons. The first is that I’m trying to convince centrists to be more anti-immigration and that immigration truly leads to the death of nations. This particular publisher is only popular among right wingers who are already convinced that immigration is a problem. It would be unlikely that my book would find its way in front of centrists. The second reason is that even if I was able to get the book in front of a more moderate audience, I’m sure that liberals would not address the arguments I make in the book against immigration, but they would simply use guilt by association: “He’s using a publisher that has published Goebbels’ speeches! How can you possibly give him any credence?!”, they would say.
I don’t think that should necessarily negate a good well reasoned argument, but guilt by association has been used against conservatives all the time. By chance, thanks to my reading several books by other Border Patrol Agents, I found a publisher that another Border Patrol Agent previously used, and they seem willing to go through my book. It is supposedly being edited now. We shall see how it comes out, pray for the best!
20 year veteran of the U.S. Border Patrol. Author of "East into the Sunset: Memories of patrolling in the Rio Grande Valley at the turn of the century".
Master's Degree in Justice, Law and Society from American University.
Grew up partly in Europe.
