In the aftermath of this week's riots in San Jose, a flurry of immigrant-bashing has arisen beginning with The Donald himself. Trump announced Saturday morning that "many of the rioters who attacked the peaceful Trump supporters were illegals. They burned an American flag and laughed at police."
As we showed in yesterday's post, the rioters not only were not Mexican immigrants, most were White and Hispanic Leftists educated in American public schools to embrace socialism and violence. Given the idiotic statements and conduct of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo during this whole debacle, it is not difficult to imagine that such scenes are not uncommon in San Jose.
Michael Savage, a San Francisco-based pundit and Trump supporter, burst into a hysterical rage over the riots, saying on Friday that "hordes of illegals have been released on the streets! The invaders have arrived! They've sent their criminal gangs to take over! The coming Civil War! Build a Wall now!" and so forth.
What is actually behind all of this anti-Mexican rhetoric? It should be obvious by now even to the Ritalin-riddled American intellects that absolutely nothing is going to be gained by building walls and mass deportations. Considering how degenerated that the native-born population has become, an influx of traditionalist peoples would probably benefit us more that it would harm us. What the US desperately needs now is new blood: new ideas, innovators and producers. Inbreeding the current population will only make matters worse.
There are two forces driving the anti-Mexican movement.
First is Wall Street. American corporate interests have hated the Mexican government since Mexico's banking crisis in the 1990s. The Clinton Administration engineered a bank bailout. Wall Street was hoping to turn the crisis to their advantage with the election of Vicente Fox, who promoted privatization. While Fox privatized many Mexican industries, he kept them in the hands of Mexican interests. As we've seen with Operation Fast-and-Furious, US covert aid to the vicious drug cartels, and continual interference in Mexican elections; American financial interests are only too eager for an opportunity to destabilize and intervene in Mexico.
The second reason---though the American Right will never admit it---is anti-Catholicism. The following is a specimen of some of their more candid opinions on Catholicism, as penned by Maureen Mullarkey in The Federalist:
"When the future looks back on this Pontificate, Pope Francis might well be credited with having awakened the sleeping bogey of anti-Catholicism. His staged assaults on the immigration policies of the sovereign United States are the tactics of yet another community organizer, this one with a global constituency. Francis' Marxoid rhetoric, advancement of deceptive climate-change narratives, and cozy photo-ops with anti-democratic regimes rekindle old suspicions that popery is the enemy of free institutions."
Note how this writer deceptively interjects the chicanery of American electoral politics into global ecclesiastical matters. She continues:
"Francis' populist demagoguery directed at Capitalist systems is incendiary. and however couched in religious language is profane...Tropes of a Left-Wing agitator, his conduct reminds us that Catholic organizations are prominent in the open borders/amnesty movement."
The subtle message behind these and similar diatribes coming out of the neo-Right is simply that the Vatican doesn't take its marching-orders from the US government; and is therefore, an enemy. Note well that the American Left---also deeply anti-Catholic---hates Catholicism for the same reason. The Vatican prefers to answer to God and not to the Pax Americana.
Neo-Right pundits---Ms. Maureen included---imply that the Vatican is simply trying to fill empty church pews in the US by supporting; never does it occur to these people that immigrants from Mexico don't need to come to America to go to Church. And for that matter, increased church-attendance wouldn't hurt the American culture one bit.
What Trump supporters need to ask themselves is:
Do we agree with this