The recent political media furor is focused, in large part, on the existence of many individual in our midst who skipped the part of the process where
they actually get declared citizens. There are far too many cases of people who have tried, have been trying, but the government left them hanging (surprise)
and now many who have been living a better American life than a whole slew of other Americans are suddenly
being 'assessed' as alien... and usurpers to society... and an economic threat.
The narrative distills down quite clearly... "Go away."
Which is fair and concise. it both lawful and true (presumably)...
but you now have millions of people who were actually "brought" here specifically welcomed (albeit by a third party in far too many cases)
Some diligently and adequately navigated whatever requirements the government demanded of them, avoiding negative labels...
Some deliberately sought to evade detection... with ample support from "home."
These are the people who are openly demonstrating they have no intention of being 'law abiding.'
These are the people someone is supposed to protect us from simply wande3ring into our country like a new playground.
Guess who that is? ...
Here's a hint: They are only here to "help."
Or shall we let California decide... who benefits from any privilege of American citizenship, or Texas, or Florida... or perhaps then Canada and Mexico?
Fear..... check.
But hasn't the Great American Experiment always relied upon the new strength and vitality that new citizenship brings*?
Of course, at that point population growth was inevitable... and a prima facie aspect of "land acquisition for a state"... hence it's built in to the framework.
Now cynics are inclined to point out that the "land acquisition" was about personal gain, rather than state... and perhaps so, or perhaps it was in the end necessary,
to project enough presence within their community to effect their experiment... ironically conceived in relative comfort, but advised by an unusual conjunction of ideals.
Whatever the origin, the process of accepting new citizens was always 'built-in' to the framework... at some point in time isolationism becomes a firewall...
nothing goes in, nothing comes out... your people fail to thrive.
These leaders had a love affair with the "order" of commerce... the "rationalism of law"... and leveraged human dignity against 'enforced tradition' which only serves the few.
* - (Incidentally, haven't our 'thought' leader fully exploited this as a 'virtue signal?')
Idealism... check.
Pretty picture... more or less?
Well, many generations of "land acquisition" later... guess who owns all the land...
Shall l leave it as "consolidated" owners? Or perhaps drop the charade and point out it's the banks.
We used to give land to immigrants... now the new establishment began trading a "piece" of the American life...
(which costs them nothing to offer)... for eternal gratitude... or maybe something more tangible.
The whole construct is deficient.
Everybody's locked in argumentation about how bad it gets, why it's not right, while others offer virtue signals of compassion and grace.
We see tragic implementation of policy that was meant to be mediated case-by-case by human hands... but those on the scene are not
allowed to intercede or even engage without the obligatory sideshow.
So it all becomes theater... and we become mere 'viewers' entertained.
Whose idea was that?
I figure the numbers are 20% who are people who have NO intention of going through the "ordeal" of supplication set-up by the bureaucrats...
They should be going at that demographic hard...
Criminals who WANT to be anonymous - serving as "soldiers" in "armies" in this country to expand their base.
Instead the are trawling the open field for the "easy" targets that don't fight back because they shouldn't have to.
Politicians say what's needed is "immigration reform"...
Populists say, "Sure, just a sec, we have a problem to deal with first!"
Let's see where their wisdom (the only wisdom that matters if you follow media narratives) will take us....
I close with samples of "narrative crafting" for the sake of those looking to identify - as an object - how
narrative propaganda manifests practically in "modern" journalism every single day.
The list does go on but these will do for now.
1. The unprecedented overreach has thus been characterized...
... but what does that say about a system of using other people's money that
requires an overreach to audit? Could a volunteering of accurate data be in order...
and why hasn't it always been? Too much hyperbole about a research catastrophe...
not enough invalidation of vanity research... too many long term waste projects... and
far too much "prestige" compensation... it now smacks of a racket... and has been
proven to be over and over... still... "overreach?"
2. So this author believes the government spokesperson has NO voice in how the
"modern journalist" characterizes their words... prove they made a lie out of your
work... then come back with a complaint.
3. Way to characterize saying ... you've thrown a bunch of woke bullshit in here at your own whim,
attacking older concepts, discrediting them yourself... and now claim because they "were discredited,"
they should be disallowed?.... go back to high school.
they actually get declared citizens. There are far too many cases of people who have tried, have been trying, but the government left them hanging (surprise)
and now many who have been living a better American life than a whole slew of other Americans are suddenly
being 'assessed' as alien... and usurpers to society... and an economic threat.
The narrative distills down quite clearly... "Go away."
Which is fair and concise. it both lawful and true (presumably)...
but you now have millions of people who were actually "brought" here specifically welcomed (albeit by a third party in far too many cases)
Some diligently and adequately navigated whatever requirements the government demanded of them, avoiding negative labels...
Some deliberately sought to evade detection... with ample support from "home."
These are the people who are openly demonstrating they have no intention of being 'law abiding.'
These are the people someone is supposed to protect us from simply wande3ring into our country like a new playground.
Guess who that is? ...
Here's a hint: They are only here to "help."
Or shall we let California decide... who benefits from any privilege of American citizenship, or Texas, or Florida... or perhaps then Canada and Mexico?
Fear..... check.
But hasn't the Great American Experiment always relied upon the new strength and vitality that new citizenship brings*?
Of course, at that point population growth was inevitable... and a prima facie aspect of "land acquisition for a state"... hence it's built in to the framework.
Now cynics are inclined to point out that the "land acquisition" was about personal gain, rather than state... and perhaps so, or perhaps it was in the end necessary,
to project enough presence within their community to effect their experiment... ironically conceived in relative comfort, but advised by an unusual conjunction of ideals.
Whatever the origin, the process of accepting new citizens was always 'built-in' to the framework... at some point in time isolationism becomes a firewall...
nothing goes in, nothing comes out... your people fail to thrive.
These leaders had a love affair with the "order" of commerce... the "rationalism of law"... and leveraged human dignity against 'enforced tradition' which only serves the few.
* - (Incidentally, haven't our 'thought' leader fully exploited this as a 'virtue signal?')
Idealism... check.
Pretty picture... more or less?
Well, many generations of "land acquisition" later... guess who owns all the land...
Shall l leave it as "consolidated" owners? Or perhaps drop the charade and point out it's the banks.
We used to give land to immigrants... now the new establishment began trading a "piece" of the American life...
(which costs them nothing to offer)... for eternal gratitude... or maybe something more tangible.
The whole construct is deficient.
Everybody's locked in argumentation about how bad it gets, why it's not right, while others offer virtue signals of compassion and grace.
We see tragic implementation of policy that was meant to be mediated case-by-case by human hands... but those on the scene are not
allowed to intercede or even engage without the obligatory sideshow.
So it all becomes theater... and we become mere 'viewers' entertained.
Whose idea was that?
I figure the numbers are 20% who are people who have NO intention of going through the "ordeal" of supplication set-up by the bureaucrats...
They should be going at that demographic hard...
Criminals who WANT to be anonymous - serving as "soldiers" in "armies" in this country to expand their base.
Instead the are trawling the open field for the "easy" targets that don't fight back because they shouldn't have to.
Politicians say what's needed is "immigration reform"...
Populists say, "Sure, just a sec, we have a problem to deal with first!"
Let's see where their wisdom (the only wisdom that matters if you follow media narratives) will take us....
I close with samples of "narrative crafting" for the sake of those looking to identify - as an object - how
narrative propaganda manifests practically in "modern" journalism every single day.
- Universities (finally) band together, fight “unprecedented government overreach”
- Trump admin accused of censoring NIH’s top expert on ultra-processed foods
- Trump annoyed the Smithsonian isn’t promoting discredited racial ideas
The list does go on but these will do for now.
1. The unprecedented overreach has thus been characterized...
... but what does that say about a system of using other people's money that
requires an overreach to audit? Could a volunteering of accurate data be in order...
and why hasn't it always been? Too much hyperbole about a research catastrophe...
not enough invalidation of vanity research... too many long term waste projects... and
far too much "prestige" compensation... it now smacks of a racket... and has been
proven to be over and over... still... "overreach?"
2. So this author believes the government spokesperson has NO voice in how the
"modern journalist" characterizes their words... prove they made a lie out of your
work... then come back with a complaint.
3. Way to characterize saying ... you've thrown a bunch of woke bullshit in here at your own whim,
attacking older concepts, discrediting them yourself... and now claim because they "were discredited,"
they should be disallowed?.... go back to high school.
