Dear Limey Assholes...


The Brits evidently didn't get the message at Yorktown in 1781 to keep their long pointy noses out of American politics:
The British flagship financial magazine The Economist, considered one of the preeminent voices of the global financial, business and political elite, has waded boldly into U.S. politics, publicly calling for a Trump ouster from the race for Republican nominee with a cover story blasting the GOP front-runner. 
In an email to subscribers, Economist editor-in chief Zanny Minton Beddoes writes that Donald Trump “is dangerously close to winning the Republican nomination for the presidency.” 

Beddoes goes on to say that “Mr Trump is unfit to lead one of the world’s great political parties, let alone America. Republicans should tell him ‘You’re fired’ and rally behind
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the candidate with the best chance of beating him.” 
The cover story, titled “Time to Fire Him” enumerates a list of reasons why the British mag feels that Trump is “unfit to lead a great political party.” 
Constructing a scenario where Trump beats Hillary Clinton in a general election, the Economist calls a Trump victory “an appalling prospect.” [Only for the whiny public-school-educated jackasses who think themselves superior to Americans in every way and work at The Economist.]
“The things Mr Trump has said in this campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political parties, let alone America,” the piece continues. “Mr Trump has prospered by inciting hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying.” 
“He must be stopped,” the writers demand. 
They warn that Americans are becoming “desensitized” to Trump’s “outbursts.”
I have to admit that, when I saw the actual magazine at Whole Foods the other day, I promptly gave it the finger, so disgusted was I by The Economist's transparent, and futile, attempts to sway the American electorate. Then I realised after the fact that people around me probably thought I agree with this nonsense, which I categorically do not.

Unfortunately, I was on private property at the time and simple decorum and respect for that concept forbids me from doing what should have been done, which was to pick up every last copy of that stupid rag and throw it onto the nearest bonfire.

There is precisely one acceptable response to the Economist's delusions of political relevance: F.O.A.D.

The same applies to anyone outside of the US, who is not American of origin, attempting to tell Americans what is best for them. That includes His Holiness, the Pope himself.

It is one thing to disagree with America's choice of politicians, or to take issue with American cultural norms, or to argue that Americans can be, and are, misguided by their politicians. It is a different matter entirely for those who presume themselves to be superior to Americans in terms of political judgement, knowledge, and "virtue", to be telling Americans how to vote, while sitting safely outside American shores and without ever having to actually see what Americans are dealing with on a daily basis.

(Before anyone asks, yes, I am a foreigner. Yes, I often take potshots at Americans, and their political preferences. Yes, I make no attempt to hide my deep dislike of both lying weasels like the Hilldebeast, and cuckservatives like Marco Rubio. The major difference is that I do not pretend to be morally superior to Americans, and I actually live here, so what Americans vote on affects me as well.)

There are many things to dislike about Donald Trump. I regard him with cautious optimism, at best. He is not anyone's idea of a true conservative; honestly, I haven't got the first clue what he is.

I think Vox Day probably put together the best summary of what Donald Trump is, and of his considerable faults as a candidate- and why he is the only candidate that will actually make the slightest damned bit of difference to the future of the now virtually dead American experiment:
Trump is no more a socialist than the self-styled "Houston Mafia" that surrounded Bush the Elder were; he doesn't have any more ideological bones in his body than did Bush '41 or Bush '43. Sarah talks about Trump's connections to the Clintons, but what she doesn't grasp is that the entire corporate-political elite is connected. Bill Clinton is closer to the Bush family than he is to Trump; in fact, it's entirely possible that Trump's connection to both Clintons is through the Bush family. 
Is Trump going to govern like Obama? Or like the Bushes? Perhaps in many ways, but unlike the other Republican candidates, that is unlikely in regards to the only issue that matters at the moment: immigration. Trump is the only one talking about a wall, talking about stopping Muslim immigration, and even talking about deportations. And that, I strongly suspect, is the real fear of Trump opponents like Sarah. It's not that they think he will govern like Obama on immigration and the American national interest, but they fear that he won't. 
That is why Trump is the only candidate who is worth supporting in 2016, despite being a member of the corporate-political elite, because he is an unpredictable rogue member of it and the only one that might - MIGHT - make a positive difference in the near future in the American national interest. Of course, he also may well not, but we already know beyond any shadow of a doubt that none of the other candidates are worth a damn. 
He isn't an ideal candidate, he probably isn't even a good candidate, and he certainly isn't a trustworthy candidate, but nevertheless, at this point, he is the only possible candidate.
Furthermore, it may come as something of a terrible shock to most cuckservatives, "moderates", and liberals that there is, in fact, support for Mr. Trump from some of the very people that would be hurt the most by his proposals.

As I have stated repeatedly, I am a foreigner working here in the US, on an H-1B working visa, at a bank. I came here to get a Master's degree in a quantitative discipline. I ended up finding a job and have been here in the US for nearly 10 years now. I get paid... well, let's just say pretty darn well for what I do- not least because I am quite simply the best at what I do. (Note what I said: I am the best at what I do. Not at what other people do.) I am currently in the long, long line for a corporate-sponsored green card.

You would think, then, that someone like me would be screaming at Americans to vote for some establishment shill like Marco Roboto, or (God help us all) the Hilldebeast.

And you would be utterly wrong.

I say to you now that The Economist needs to be told exactly which orifice to stick its collective head into, and that Donald Trump is the only one running for President right now whose platform makes even the slightest amount of sense.

I agree with Mr. Trump's positions on a very great many subjects. He is right to argue that invasion by immigration is the only subject really worth talking about right now.

He is right to argue that it is morally, politically, and economically unacceptable for foreigners like me to come to this country and take American jobs overseas.

He is right to argue that there is a real and serious Muslim problem in the US, and that it needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later if America wants to be safe from Islam.

He is right to argue that securing the borders is an absolute priority of the American government- its first and most important priority, really. He is right to argue in favour of a wall built directly on the Mexican border to stop the flood of law-breaking invaders who swarm through the southern states.

How is it that someone like me, who would probably be on a Marco Roboto campaign poster if it weren't for my strong dislike of career politicians, could sound like a campaign spokesman for Donald Trump?

It is very simple: I love this country.

I love what it represents. I am immensely grateful to it and its people for giving me the opportunity to come and live here.

And because I love America, and the ideals that America was built upon, I would see its greatness restored.

The only politician whose platform provides even the slightest amount of hope for that possibility, is Donald Trump's.

I am not American. I do not pretend to be American. I do not speak, act, or live like my American friends do- yet, even so, I have precisely zero interest in recreating the old country here in America for myself. I left that country when I was five, and I have no desire to return. If I wanted to live there, I would LIVE THERE, not here, and I have no patience whatsoever for my fellow foreign nationals who come here to America and then try to recreate what they left behind.

I have been told, to my face, by native-born-and-bred Americans for whom I have profound respect and admiration, that I am more American than many of the people born here.

As far as I am concerned, there is no higher compliment.

But such compliments do not change the fact that, as a foreigner, I am here as a guest. And that is how it should and must be. As a guest, I am bound to obey American laws and observe American customs and social norms. I may grouse about this, I may gently send up such things, but my obligations to this country remain nonetheless.

If Americans elect a President who says that I must go, then so be it. I will leave. I won't be happy to do so, as I rather like it here- but I have never forgotten that I am a guest here, and that my presence here is tolerated only as long as I earn my right to stay.

These obligations are things that the global elites, such as those who write at and edit The Economist, would like to conveniently overlook. They seem to think that cultures are easily manipulated; that cultural differences can be erased with the stroke of a pen; that the process of assimilation, which observably took centuries and millennia in the past, can happen magically the moment foreigners set foot on American soil.

This is utter nonsense. I am observably different from any native-born American; my values and ideals and upbringing clearly set me apart- and I have been here for nearly 10 years and regard the American founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as basically Holy Writ.

If someone like me cannot be considered "American" simply because of my presence on the soil, what reason is there to believe that Miguel and Rosa from Guatemala or Mexico are going to magically become Americans simply because they snuck in through a porous Arizonan border?

Finally, for all of The Economist's venomous bile-spewing about Donald Trump- and make no mistake, Mr. Trump is very very far from being a perfect, or even a good, candidate- they would do well to understand one crucial fact:

The hold that elites like them have on Western culture is being destroyed.

They don't like to acknowledge this fact. They don't want to believe it. But it is happening nonetheless.

Their hold on the media, the education system, and therefore the culture, is still extremely strong. But, as Western culture continues its seemingly unstoppable descent into madness and self-destruction, more and more of us are waking up to this fact. And we see that the self-serving madness of the elites can only end in self-immolation.

We want no part of this. We will fight that outcome, at all cost- at any cost. And we have found an emissary to bear that message- one who is, ironically, very clearly a product of the very same system that he now claims to fight.

Politics is downstream of the culture. And for all of Donald Trump's manifest and many, many flaws, he has done something that no other candidate, on either side of the political divide, has been able to do: he has completely and irreversibly changed the culture.

The editors of The Economist see this. And they are very, very afraid.

They should be.

So, with all due respect, my Limey friends, SHUT THE F*CK UP and butt out. Your sorry attempts to take down The Donald are laughable, and they have rightly met with scorn and mockery throughout the country.

Comments

  1. One has only to observe the ongoing situation in London to realize exactly why Englishmen really do not belong in American politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely. I was there a year ago when I watched a large horde of Muslims marching down the Mall and through Westminster loudly respecting the host culture by yelling and screaming about how much they love their "prophet", while white Brits and tourists were standing around looking flabbergasted.

      It's about damned time that the Brits start respecting them back, by telling them to GTFO. And I'm given to understand that things have simply gotten worse in London since last year.

      Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts