God, Mexico Sucks


And backwards.

These are the people we are importing into our country a million a year. I always knew women were treated badly in Mexico, but I never knew it was this bad. The Mexican immigrant women around here do seem to enjoy their relative freedom in the US. I don’t blame them.

This wonderful culture, celebrated in Latino Studies programs across the land, is probably also behind an Hispanic rape rate that is as high as that of Blacks – fully 6 times higher than the White rate. There is also a high rate of sex crimes involving sex with minors. If you read the article, you can see why.

This article broke my heart. But it also made me mad. American feminists rage and rage against American men, generally White men, as the most evil creatures on Earth. Look around the globe at how women are treated. White men probably treat women better than any other men around, and what do we get for it?

In the West, everyone wants to be a victim, mostly people who aren’t even victims at all.

In the Third World, where victimhood is the Real McCoy, no one wants to be a victim, and victimization is no charade or laughing matter.

Please follow and like us:

12 thoughts on “God, Mexico Sucks”

  1. You go to any American college and there’s some white feminist speaking about how oppressive our society is and the need to think multi-culturally. Do you think they’d want to start by importing non-Western attitudes toward rape?

  2. Sharon Smith is really good on what is wrong with the current American women’s movement:


    Smith brilliantly dissects the sellouts like Naomi Wolf and Gloria Steinem who reduced feminism to an affirmative action program for upper class white women:

    Wolf embraces not only the pursuit of profits, but the class antagonism that goes with it. Although she does not dwell on the subject, she admits that for every woman who succeeds in business, there are many other women who cannot. After all, this is the nature of capitalism–someone actually has to produce profits, or there would be no managers. But class differences between women are not a cause for concern: “There are going to be times when woman to woman aggression is a healthy, even energizing corollary of our having reached full participation in society. Women are managing, criticizing and firing other women, and their employees sometimes, understandably, hate their guts.” Moreover, she argues, power feminists should welcome any and all antagonisms that might be produced by the scapegoating and discrimination which takes place in class society:

    “We are maturing into the understanding that women of different classes, races and sexualities have different, and often competing, agendas. Those conflicts should not be a source of guilt to us. They do not represent a breakdown of sisterhood. In the ful/ness of diversity, they represent its triumph.”

    What is abundantly clear from the remarks quoted above is that Naomi Wolf is concerned only with that minority of women who are climbing the corporate ladder–power feminists in business suits, who return home to a house which gets cleaned by a domestic servant and children whose needs are cared for by someone else, usually other women. Working-class women–who do have plenty of reason to complain about low wages or lack of adequate child care or decent health care–are mentioned only in passing. They are the women getting fired by or cleaning the homes of power feminists.

    Unfortunately, writers like Smith do not get the cushy jobs and publishing deals that yuppie sellouts like Wolf do.

    Listen to Wolf defend the hijab. She’s so terrified of being called racist that she won’t defend the very freedoms that millions of Western women fought for:


    But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? Are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?

    The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I traveled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband.

    It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channeling–toward marriage and the bonds that sustain family life.

    She would never tolerate that bullshit coming from some complimetarian fundie, but academic hacks like and Tim Wise her line up to patronizingly excuse every POC cultural practice.

    The problem is that academia is an extension of the corporatocracy. Every genuine freedom struggle, including civil rights, feminism and GLBT liberation gets co-opted and its aims re-tooled to fit the neoliberal agenda. Hence the invention of “Cultural Marxism” to dispense with the pesky issue of class. A bunch of capitalist academic hacks use genuine struggles as a cudgel against economic leftists to maintain their privileged economic position.

    I hesitate to compare them to Stalin’s New Class since that would suggest we live in the socialist-communist-fascist state that the teabaggers whine about. However, that’s who these jokers remind me of.

    1. I don’t think Comrade Stalin would want anything to do with these perverted, degenerate cretins. Stalin banned abortion and criminalized homosexuality in the USSR.

      1. Yeah feminists, continue to undermine white men!

        Once your precious men “of color” take over, we’ll see if you like their attitudes regarding feminism/women’s rights.

        You’re right, Robert. We treat women better than any other race, and what do we get for it? We also treat our minorities better than any other group, and what do we get for it?

        I’m not even speaking as a WN right now trying to advance some agenda. Any intelligent realist ought to understand that there’s just no pleasing radical feminists, anti-racists, and eventually radical gay rights advocates.

        You cannot indulge them for even a second.

      2. Smith is good on this issue, but unfortunately, as part of the Trotskyist International Socialist Organization, she supports open borders:


        Capitalism is an international system, so the struggle for socialism must be international, uniting workers of all countries. The international working class is the only force capable of solving global problems like war, hunger and environmental destruction.

        Socialists oppose imperialism–the division of the globe based on the subjugation of weaker nations by stronger ones–and support the self-determination of oppressed nations. We oppose all immigration controls.

        She’s written some articles for Counterpunch supporting this line.

        1. Idiot. We support eliminating all border controls. Good God.

          You know something? There’s not a single socialist state anywhere on Earth that was so stupid and insane as to have Open Borders. They all had very closely guarded borders, and it was not necessarily so easy for anyone to get across them.

  3. What have Mexicans added to American culture? They all scream racism, yet no group of immigrants has been treated as well in America as those scumbags, and most of em are illegal. They work jobs Americans were paid decent wages to do until Reagan. A worthless race we’d be better of shunning, like the blacks.

    1. Well, they do have good food. I just ate 3 soft tacos from the local Mexican Sunday nite taco setup. I had to order in Spanish too, since the cashier didn’t speak English. The carnitas were excellent. The pastor, not quite so much.

      Mexicans = Good Food!

  4. That is a sad article. But what is Latin/Hispanic, anyway? As a person of Native descent, I’m very bothered by this Pan-Latinism fad (which is advanced mostly in the United States). No one from, say, Dominican Republic would look at an Argentine and think “Look! there is someone whose ancestry and culture I can identify with.” Most likely neither their ancestry nor cultural expressions are very similar.

    I, like most WNs, care about my race and have little interest in the issues of the Spanish and African (most of the Caribbean) descended. In regards to the cultural decandence of places like Mexico, I have to once again agree with WNs and point to extensive race-mixing. This is not because I believe that hybrids are less intelligent than their Indian counterparts (if we accepted the popular premise that Indians have lower IQs than Whites, then hybrids would necessarily tend to have a higher IQs than Indians), but because of what race-mixing does to culture.

    Like it or not, the Aztecs had a social organization that worked for them and the Spanish had their own. What does a hybrid have? I’m not saying that hybrids are innately less capable than Indians or Spaniards, they simply have no culture. And no culture = chaos, anomie, normlessness.

    Is there a way to remedy this? Maybe through the introduction of a totalitarian regime or even a new, more restrictive religion.

    I believe that the (undeniable) success of some groups that many racialists view as genetically determined is more related to cultural integration and discipline, which is, in my opinion, even more worthy of praise.

Leave a Reply

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


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)