In California, one of the most tortured issues, whether one likes it or not, turns on the position of California as Anglo-Hispanic or “Global” by way of fundamental culture and identity. Another slogan-like Title of the Virgin is “Madre de la Patria” (“Mother of the Fatherland”). Still another is “La Morenita”, “the slightly dark-skinned lady”.
From December of 1531—barely ten years after the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, when there were still enough remnants of the Aztec aristocracy, priesthood, and warrior nobility* (See Note Below) to have dreamed and perhaps even had some chance at a nativistic revolution against the Spanish—the Virgin of Guadalupe both physically embodied and symbolized the unique syncretism of cultures which is that which we call “Mexico” or “Mexican”, the culture of Anahuac and the race of Tlatelolco (the site of the final battle between the Aztec and Spanish in 1521, also the site of Sahagún’s bi-cultural “College” where the Aztec and Spanish aristocracy came together.
And now we face, whether we like it or not, in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and my native Texas, the question of whether the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was a mistake or not: whether the ultimate destiny of the Southwestern United States is Anglo- or Hispanic.
The Mexicans are winning the birth race and the immigration race, despite the rather nasty political invective (by my fellow WASPS and Anglo-German descendants, primarily) against “Illegal Immigration”. It was just pointed out to me yesterday by Melody Castillo Gillespie that, under that same Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there could have been no such thing as “illegal immigration” because the freedom to cross the border together with one’s property was absolutely guaranteed, even 12 months after the initiation of a new war between Mexico and the United States, and that Mexicans who acquired property in the United States by contract would be absolutely protected in their ownership on the same basis as other U.S. Citizens: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975 .
I have often written on these pages about the strong historical connexions which exist between Anglo-American and Latin-Hispanic culture and history on this continent—especially but definitely not limited to the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.
I do not, in any way, agree with the oppressive and homogenizing practices of globalism, but I see no realistic way to argue or maintain that the three Nations of North America do not share a common destiny. I have lived at different times in the United States, where I was born in Texas, Mexico, where I have spent more time than any other foreign country including England (where I lived with my parents when I was a small child, until age 6), and Canada (where I have lived less time but from whose population I have derived several of the great and deepest friendships I have known in my life). Crossing back and forth between the three countries of North America would seem to be a fundamental right of liberty, and yet it is one of the most hotly contested issues in America.
I submit that, if elected as a Senator from California, addressing these issues of historical identity, historical injustice, and ethnic affiliation and “destiny”, whether Manifest or not, will be one of the most serious issues I would address. I fear and despise the “mainstream” Republican approach to immigration from Mexico which would perpetuate the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of hardworking economic immigrants and utilize all the injustices inherent in the modern American judiciary against people of Hispanic speech and “southern” North American origin. But I equally despise the “mainstream” Democrats who would use issues of welfare and “entitlement” to social services and assistance essentially to wipe out Anglo-American culture and give a superior advantage to immigrants for the purpose of socially and economically destabilizing, and politically disenfranchising, the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-German, and general Anglo-European (non-Hispanic) population.
Local cultural and ethnic autonomy needs to be established throughout the American Southwest. Counties, Cities, and unincorporated areas must be given, perhaps according to the principles of local determination for each geographically coherent unit of 100,000-250,000 people (“neighborhoods” in Los Angeles) that they can select their identity and structure the nature of government and laws to avoid homogenization by “majority rule” (especially since there is simply no genuine population majority along ethnic or cultural lines anywhere in the Southwest anymore, but especially in California).
I would particularly suggest the devolution of legislative control over executive (police) authority and judicial decision-making to the county or municipal level in each and every area where this can conceivably be done, including but not limited to issues of family law, domestic violence, local property ownership and control, so long as all of these processes are subject to general and specific regulation by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the general precepts of the common law of contracts, property ownership, and the definition of (most) crimes.
The only way for such a process of political decentralization to take place is if the Federal Government abdicates its current policy in favor of increasing centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the government in Washington D.C.. If it is possible for the United States government to USURP unconstitutional power over all matters touching upon family, contract, and ownership of property, it should be possible for the United States government to RETURN that power to the states and local governments, to ABDICATE its central roles.
Once again I recommend a recent book I read on one of the oldest constitutional principles uniquely designed for North America, in 1650 by Lord Baltimore, the founder of Maryland. Carl Douglas 2011, “The Baltimore Principles“, Mesa, Arizona: the Arnett Institute. This book clearly shows how Constitutional abrogation and tyranny can best be preserved by granting increased power to local governments through a system of vertically integrated bi-cameral legislations starting at the local and county levels, where the people vote for one house at EACH level of government, but the governmental representatives elect representatives to a SECOND house at EACH Level of Government.
Full implementation of the Baltimore Principles would permit the devolution of local power downward on the vertical scale of hierarchy, thus permitting, at once, the equation of Federal (“Title 25”) Indian reservations with Counties or Municipal Governments as local sovereign entities while still preserving the Federal Nature of the United States, and even permitting such a process as the integration of all three countries in North America (subject to full open and honest plebiscite, NOT tainted by voter fraud or computerized manipulation) in such a manner as to maximize personal freedom, local autonomy, and abolish the injustices created by NAFTA and what amounts, in essence, to massive cross-border fraud, exploitation, and invited and fostered welfare dependency.
If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California. We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024. Call 310-773-6023 for more information.
Note*And, yes, the Tenochca-Mexica clearly had a society divided into three functional categories exactly corresponding to those posited as diagnostic characteristics of Indo-European Soceity by Georges Dumézil. This three-part organization (without direct Dumezilian reference) is most clearly outlined in Rudolph van Zantwijk’s 1985, “The Aztec Arrangement” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), although it was reasonable clear from Jacques Soustelle’s 1961 Daily Life of the Aztec, and indeed, directly from the organization of Fray Bernaldino de Sahagún’s 16th Century twelve volume Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España.”