Trump, Coulter, and how the culture of payasos* kills their message.


Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States! Porfirio Diaz, commonly attributed but unverified.

I’m Mexican. Of course I’m offended by Donald Trump and Ann Coulter!

Ah, but you see, it’s not quite so linear or predictable. Don’t get ahead of yourself.

Don’t presume that: I’m Mexican, therefore I am offended. This postulation infers that I’m offended by the substance of what they say.

It’s not quite like that. I’m stating two facts of which most people would assume the commonly held interrelationship between owing to the brouhaha that flared up recently thanks to what Donald Trump said at a news conference in which he threw his hat in the 2016 Presidential ring.

I can’t blame people for their assumptions, for the Hispanic reaction has been predictable and vociferous. But the offense I take is not with the content of their utterances, but the style and diminishing of their message because of such dramatic, narcissistic deliveries.

Were Trump’s words “racist?” I don’t see it.

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. It’s true. And these aren’t the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime; they’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards, and they tell us what we’re getting, and it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know, because we have no protection and no competence. We don’t know what’s happening. And it’s gotta stop, and it’s gotta stop fast.”

Of course, he’s correct. It’s not a pretty truth, so we react emotionally but thoughtlessly.

The greatest misfortune Mexicans must endure (not Mexico, because in this matter, the nation only benefits) is that their ancestral homeland abuts the United States.

This conjoined continental union of the countries creates a “spigot effect” in that historic immigration is so ingrained in the relationship between both countries, that unlike other global countries and their relationship with the U.S., the Mexican-United States border has assumed the nature of an exhaust valve in which the under-performing country to the South simply bleeds its excess burden into its neighbor to the North, the one that has its shit together.

Trump’s observation that the U.S. is a “dumping ground” for Mexico is accurate, and I dare fellow Hispanics to dispute this. In America, we get the wretchedest of the refuse from Mexico. The indigenous peasants, the refugees, those who are relegated to the subclass, even by Mexican standards. This filtering mechanism naturally creates a popular perception of Mexicans that they bring with them since this brand of illegal immigration is composed of a swath of people who, by virtue of their native backgrounds, can only reduce the American standard of living and tarnish the idealization of “diversity” that social liberals vomit with annoying regularity.

The fact they are illegally in the United States infers a “zero policy” effect on the crime they bring, which, in reality, is probably not that numerically awesome, but which, in principle shouldn’t be here to begin with. This is an aspect of Trump’s statements which is very logical, almost to a mathematical degree. If there was no illegal immigration, there would be no crime (on the part of illegal aliens, specifically, even though we’d still have American-born crime to deal with, but at least its ours).

This ties in with my other favorite histrionic agitator, Ann Coulter.

Again, her comments, on paper, are quite simple and not very debatable. Ann has many to choose from, but her latest, greatest, with Jorge Ramos from Fusion. This is how their quaint little exchange transpired:

AC: I have a little tip. If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you. Very easy to not be killed by ISIS. Don’t fly to Syria.”
JR: Are you really saying…we’re talking about 40 million immigrants in this country? Do you think people are biologically disposed to commit crimes? [Excellent question by Ramos]
AC: No…There are a lot of problems with that culture [Mexico]. Hopefully it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. America is the best in the world. And we are about to lose it. Everyone who lives here is going to lose that.”

How can one argue with the nuts and bolts of Coulter’s elemental idea?

If I was sitting with her over coffee, I suspect her delivery would be delivered in a less quarrelsome manner and with a trace of sincerity, perhaps. She also touches upon the “zero tolerance” adherence to illegal Mexican immigration. It’s not that the crime Mexican immigrants bring is tremendously overwhelming, but the fact that, given an equilibrium of no net illegal immigration, such crime wouldn’t be an issue since they wouldn’t be here.

Coulter is preying upon our fear of the unrehearsed random nature of crime; deliberately visiting a situation halfway around the world is asking for trouble whereas sitting in your house is not (until that Mexican rapist comes to get you).

I’m glad Ramos asked his question, for it allowed Coulter to clearly re-state her case in a non-racial context. It’s the culture, the nation, and the spigot valve that pours a country’s unwanted on us.

Coulter and Trump are entertainers whose enterprise consists of stirring up public agitation and the narcissistic, inflammatory nature of such involves stating dry, logical facts behind the blustery, rude, snarky veil of overstatement.

I’m offended by their Vaudeville show, not by their script.

I was chatting with a Japanese-American acquaintance recently and we began discussing immigration, of the illegal Mexican variety, specifically.

My friend is vaguely conservative but tends to get swallowed up in the socially liberal dialogue of the coastal, Hollywood elites. She tends to shy away from the “ideology of the offensive” which basically means the harsh truths.

I told her that Mexican immigrants, as we know them in the United States, are the worst versions of Mexicans Mexico has to offer. If Mexico was an ocean away, the filtering mechanism for its emigration would keep out the dredge, the poor, those who didn’t care enough to come to the United States. In this way, immigration from such a distance would result in a sporadic trickle of the finest legal immigrants that nation has to offer America. Hence, our image of Mexicans, a relatively sedate culture (yes, really), from an American perspective, would be radically different than it is now. Our image of Mexicans is painted by a counter-intuitive immigration dynamic in which the worst come to America, not the cream of the crop, unlike those nations that are separated from us by oceans of water. If India bordered the United States, would the tech industry look like it does now?

She nodded and uttered a vague vocal acknowledgement.

I wondered if it was the Buried Conservative or the Liberal Affectation in her that was agreeing or disagreeing with me.