The San Ysidro Interview: Pedro Gonzalez - Doing the Job That Americans Are No Longer Willing To Do
The Mexican-American Anti-Bullshit activist on why Americans need more self-respect, his polemical style, American nationalism and what it should be, how to water your lawn, plus hundreds of insults
Pedro “Speedy With the Insults” Gonzalez loves nothing more than engaging with his critics in a gentlemanly manner in order to kindly and politely work out their differences towards achieving a consensus for the benefit of all concerned. Mutual respect, a tolerance of how others think and what they say, and a lack of anger are what characterize this Chronicles Magazine writer. An increasingly visible presence on the right side of the US political spectrum, Pedro has appeared in many places, most notably on Tucker Carlson’s show.
Pedro wants you to know that he has many things to tell you, so I offered him the use of my incredibly powerful platform to do so. We conducted this interview in person while we were escorting a group of New Americans from Sinaloa safely across the border.
Warning! Some rough language ahead.
I told my old friend David French that I was going to interview you, and he replied to my email with this:
On second thought, it wasn’t David French. It was actually Noah Smith. My sincerest apologies to David for this honest mistake.
Anyway, I thought that this was incredibly rude of
David Noah (not to mention horribly racist). However, being an American patriot and a lover of liberty who holds the US Constitution dear to my heart, I had no option but to share this with you......in the name of free speech. This crude caricature is a blessing of liberty, much like drag queens reading books to small children in public libraries before they accept dollar bills being stuffed in their thongs by those same small children. It should be celebrated! To David Noah I say: "Friendly, Fun, Beaner Chum".
I’m not surprised David French would reply like that. He has been dismissive of me, presumably because I am not white. French claims to care so much about the concerns of immigrants and yet has ignored my repeated requests for him to self-deport as I do not want to share a country with him. Why is he like this? I do not know. Perhaps if I were to put on a nice pair of heels, slather on some makeup and fishnets, dance around small children in a public library, maybe pour hot wax on my nipples as “Ring My Bell” softly thumps in the background, it might titillate him to pay me more mind. I think about this often. I often wake up in a sweat over it.
Readers showld note that Pedro let Noah off of the hook - ed.
What is your typical day like, Pedro? I imagine that you wake up around noon, go into the kitchen, and say "Buenos Dias" to your pregnant wife who is re-frying the re-fried beans for the fourth time today. You then finish forging the three Social Security Cards that you have to deliver to customers later in the day. Once done, you head down to the bodega to buy tequila and some more beans (never enough!), picking up 12 Mexicans who have illegally crossed the border after coordinating with your cousin Juan who works the route from the Mexican side. A stop-off is made in a once-entirely Black and now diverse neighbourhood, where you threaten a Black family with a baseball bat and knife to "move out or else!" in order to make way for these new Americans. You get home around 5pm and blast some cumbia music in the backyard, then go into the basement to see if your 7 children have finished adding fentanyl to the heroin and cocaine that the last batch of illegals brought with them to give to you to sell on behalf of the Gulf Cartel. Your children have completed the pressing (great kids!), and you then call 18 of your nephews (you'd call more, but 13 of them are in prison), so that they can begin to distribute the product in playgrounds throughout the neighbourhood. It's now time to eat fajitas in the backyard, kick back, pound tequila, enjoy the very loud music, and be happy that your days of chain-sawing rival dealers are in your past because you are now on the US side of the border. I strongly feel that one should believe everything that they read or see on TV, and thanks to my habit of watching FOX News 12 hours a day, I am confident that I am correct in the depiction above.
You’ve done your homework. That is unusual for a mixed-race European. Anyway, I don’t know how much more I can add to this. But you did miss a few things. I will typically contact my handler in Langley—I mean, my boss, around 2 pm. Around then, I begin harassing specific groups of people on the internet. These vary by day, and I am an equal opportunity hater.
I recently got into it with Nikole Hannah-Jones, the founder of the 1619 Project who won a Pulitzer Prize based on affirmative action. She reminds me of an angry clown because of her hair (rude! - ed.). Imagine presenting that person with an award and keeping a straight face. Anyway, she got mad at me after I likened Lizzo to an all-consuming destroyer akin to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters (impolite -ed.). Lizzo recently said, “I feel like everybody in America got my mother---ing name in their motherf---ing mouth.” I worry she might actually be able to eat all those people because Lizzo is quite huge. It’s an issue we should take more seriously.
But I don’t just attack the left. I often attack neoconservatives, whose continued existence I find unacceptable. Have you seen Bill Kristol? He’s a corpulent warmongering dwarf covered in a layer of slime. Dan Crenshaw was grown in a lab beneath Karl Rove’s home and programmed with Reagan worship. Few know this. I try to spread awareness. Crenshaw was neo-conservatism’s attempt to make themselves “cool” again because most neo-conservatives look like goblins and thus trigger the reptilian brain’s fight-or-flight response, which makes political recruitment difficult. But he really just is John McCain with an eyepatch.
I also occasionally go after much more insignificant groups such as the dirty underwear huffers of the so-called “art right.” These guys think you can gargle another man’s piss as long as you say “MAGA” after wiping your mouth. They have no real politics except “artistic” circle-jerking, but they make nothing beautiful because they are ugly inside and out. Fortunately, you can spot them easily as they tend to cluster around conservative and conservative women who provide their only source of real-world influence. It is a tale as old as time. We must bring stigma back.
Cool it with the insults!
Why do you, as a Beaner, like Sam Francis so much? Francis was ejected from polite conservative company some time ago, yet many of his concepts have been posthumously popularized, especially the one he termed 'anarcho-tyranny'.
Ace, the blogger who runs Ace of Spades HQ, once referred to the white Americans loathed by David French, Kevin Williamson and Bill Kristol as “thick-fingered White N*****s that vote for Trump and think that a nation’s borders should be enforced.” Samuel Todd Francis was that before the Trump Era : an unreconstructed white man who laid the ideological foundations of Trumpism, acknowledged even by David Brooks in The New York Times as such. Everyone says Francis was mean. Nobody says he was wrong. Because he wasn’t—he has been vindicated time and time again.
Williamson wrote in National Review that the “truth” about white “dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.” As a polemicist, Francis placed the murder weapon pointed at those “downscale communities” in the hands of people like Williamson through their support for globalism and said, “no, they do not”. As an analyst of contemporary issues, Francis was the most prescient thinker in recent memory, anticipating the rise of religious wokeism decades before others. As a theorist of elites, he emphasized the ideological element of the managerial regime, which Francis understood as key to its powers of consolidation and control. It was through reading him that I came into contact with a wide array of other thinkers and ideas because Francis was so well-read and integrated all these different things into his work. For example, Francis was the one who helped me see how capitalism disintegrates social structures, from the family to the nation-state, by reducing them to mere dollars and cents and humans to interchangeable widgets.
Francis also made the most powerful arguments I had first read about how the civil rights regime radically transformed our society and effectively repealed the Constitution without formally doing so, erecting a totalitarian anti-white system with the bones of its remains. Christopher Caldwell has done a good job of reviving this argument. I am sure he has read Francis closely.
Francis’ work also made it clear to me how American conservatism is, in his words, a “defeated and historically irrelevant movement” that cannot hope to do more than fight rearguard actions, especially when it accepts the premises of its enemies. Conservatives will rail against transgenderism as to how it affects children while insisting that if an adult man wants to cut off his penis and pump himself with cross-sex hormones, that it is his God-given right to do so. Francis would have been the first to point out that if you accept the latter, there is no reason the former should be off the table.
Machiavelli famously asked if it is better to be feared or loved. Ideally, one would prefer to be both. However, according to Machiavelli, it is better to be feared if we must choose one over the other. In a similar way, Francis has not been loved but feared for his insights because they cut to the heart of any matter. He was not afraid to stare into the abyss that is our contemporary situation. Maybe it drove him a bit mad, as geniuses tend to be. So, I admire Francis for his intelligence and his bravery.
VOTE FOR PEDRO!
How do you respond to charges that your Latinx background makes you both a mascot for bad people on the right, and acts as a shield that allows you to be more vicious in your attacks on great Americans like Adam Kinzinger?
I think I push the envelope enough that it’s hard for me to become a token Beaner—a “mascot,” as you say. Nobody invites me on their program to talk about why amnesty is good or how all immigrants are “natural conservatives”—whatever that means—because they know better. I make it a point to state my immigration views: I support a moratorium and write about how mass legal immigration is also bad. I like slaying sacred cows…..but this can come at a cost for me.
Recall that Douglas Murray, that perfidious Anglo, colluded with Bari Weiss to kneecap me in my prime. My German father-in-law calls Anglos Inselaffe, which means “island monkey.” He says there is a reason God put them on that sad, shitty little island. It’s one of the only times I hear him talk about the Almighty.
The Murray-Weiss affair was especially bad because I have a family and am just getting started in this industry. Had they succeeded, I would have been ruined. Unlike Weiss, I cannot pretend to be persecuted and build a grift—an entire university, in fact—around that bullshit. And unlike Murray, I do not have access to whatever professional networks the bathhouses of neo-conservatism afford. I am a simple man of meager means. There is no safety net beneath my feet, and the shield of my bronze skin only goes so far.
This hyper-polemical style of yours has led to people describing you as a "Barrio Nazi" and "Mariachi Stormtrooper". Is this simply just another case of Latinx doing the jobs that white people no longer wish to do?
Well, first, my personal favorite is “Burrito Mussolini.” I think Ben Domenech may have given me that one. He was the author of two other good nicknames: “Barrio Nazi” and “Taco von Ribbentrop.” They’re so good it makes me wonder if Ben plagiarized them from somebody more creative. By the way, I do not know why he hates me so much. The only time I have seen him as angry as when he is responding to me was when TPUSA banned aging porn star Brandi Love from an event, preventing her from hawking her antique minou to teenage boys.
The “hyper-polemical style” is just who I am. It’s not a part that I’m playing on a stage. Ezekiel 25:17, the verse Quentin Tarantino rewrote for Pulp Fiction, goes: “And I will execute great vengeance upon thee with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.” I believe in vengeance. I believe in wrath. I believe in being mean to exact those things—“Woe to the conquered!” I really have that much hate in my heart for the that which I put in the crosshairs. And I think hate gets a bad rap. If you hate nothing, you do not truly love anything. To quote Radfem Hitler, my big secret is that I am a softy. I love America. I love my wife and kids. That is why I am so angry—and you should be too if you love what is around you. Without love and hate, there is only the howling nothing of nihilism.
A better question is: why aren’t other people as angry as I am? They should be.
White people today are into comic books, comic book-based movies, and dilating. When combined with your politics, the fact that you're a young father with three children makes you retrograde in the eyes of those with the correct, progressive views. Is having a larger-than-average family now a political act of defiance?
I feel deeply sorry for whites who have been psy-opped into living like Eric Butts, that guy who bawled at the trailer of a Star Wars movie. It seems obvious to me that this serves a purpose. People like him are compliant and distracted. They can’t put up a fight and can be easily dominated or even replaced.
On the other hand, parenthood is completely radicalizing and vitalizing—or it should be. I have less tolerance for things now than before I had kids. Obviously, you don’t want to miss the fun, and you want your kids to have a wonderful, carefree childhood—but we live in a world that wants to rob you and them of exactly that. Kids are not supposed to have an apolitical adolescence; they must be turned into shitlib activists from the earliest age possible and/or transitioned to a different gender. These threats to my kids trigger something primal in me that frankly makes me want to defenestrate feckless politicians.
I can’t understand and tolerate even less the people with kids who are spiritually the same as the Star Wars guy. Think of Mollie Tibbetts, the girl murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico in Iowa. Her father was more concerned about the feelings of other illegals than what had happened to Mollie. He eulogized her by saying: “The Hispanic community are Iowans. They have the same values as Iowans.” He added: “As far as I’m concerned, they’re Iowans with better food.”
What the fuck is wrong with this person? Why is he, as a father, washing the feet of the man who murdered—maybe even raped—his daughter? Why does he seem to care more about tacos than his own flesh and blood? Imagine holding your baby at birth, looking her in the eyes, and thinking: “I would be OK if an illegal laborer brutalized and killed you.” I would rip and tear apart the murderer of my children. The most forgiveness I could offer them is the death penalty. God and the state would have to grant you mercy because I would not.
But the worst part about this type of person is that his decisions have consequences for others. People who think like this will make choices and support policies that ultimately make others less safe. So there will be more Mollies taken from families who are not spiritually subjugated—but at least Mr. Tibbetts can have his burrito.
A more recent example of this is the murder of Elijah Dewitt, an 18-year-old white kid with a bright future. Dewitt was killed by two black guys while on a date with his girlfriend. The parents ludicrously forgave Elijah’s killers right away. Again, what is wrong with these people? Erick Erickson, a white conservative pundit, tweeted: “I think it’s the epitome of Christianity to forgive even someone who kills your loved one.” He was replying to Jake Bequette, who said the parents were absurd for “falling all over themselves to forgive the murderers and move on.” Bequette was right: any sane person can see something is terribly wrong when we prioritize virtue signaling over justice—and that is what this is. Remember, Erickson was the guy who said the mostly white crowd of January 6 protestors should be indiscriminately shot. For obvious reasons, he would never talk that way about far more violent Black Lives Matter mobs. No white person suffering from these brain worms would.
This disease does not affect all white people: Erickson and Bequette are both white. But it afflicts too many of them, conservative and liberal alike. Any society where this is the norm has a death wish. The Erickson and Tibbetts mindset is the problem, and the cure is more people thinking like Bequette.
This segues nicely into the following: the current dominant culture also views masculinity as "toxic". A reaction has resulted from the growing acceptance of this argument by way of the re-popularization of 'Lifting Culture' i.e. weight-training and fitness. An unapologetic masculinity has now staked out its own real estate that it occupies on the political right. However, many seek to disarm its effectiveness by associating it with homo-eroticism, whether subconscious or overt, in order to lessen its impact.
Bronze Age Pervert pioneered posting half-naked men with captions explaining a model’s Atlantean lineage and how they are the product of a radical racial eugenics program. It can be funny sometimes. But I find negative themes much more motivating.
I see Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, David French, Jim Swift…..and the idea that I might look like one of them terrifies me. That does more to get me into a steady routine than anything else. Because I believe there is a connection between body and mind; one supports and strengthens the other. Anyone who says otherwise is coping with their own inability to commit to discipline.
Before journalism, I was dedicated almost exclusively to physical pursuits. Boxing, Muay Thai, ocean swimming, long-distance running, bodybuilding. It was a completely different lifestyle—one I’ve been trying to integrate with what I am doing now, cutting weight, getting back into a consistent regimen. I met a lot of interesting people who had it worse than I did in these gyms when I was younger and who were even angrier than I was. One time, a guy I trained Muay Thai with noticed something was bothering me. He came over to me and talked about how after so many years, he only saw his estranged biological father after he died of an overdose. It had happened earlier that week. It was his way of saying that he understood pain, so I could talk to him if I needed to. “Listen,” he said, “you don’t want to be angry all the time, or else you’ll end up like me: ugly.” He was pretty ugly. But he was a good guy. I don’t know where he is now or how he is doing, but I will never forget him.
In my view, the greatest benefit of fitness is the mental strength it cultivates. Every effort is a battle between you and yourself. Every inch pushed or pulled is earned through struggle. There is also an authenticity to this that is unique: there is no substitute for when your muscles burn like they are being bathed in acid, your lungs feel like they’re on fire, the taste of blood fills your mouth, and your heart pounds as if it might explode, but you continue driving it so hard that you finally reach euphoria. People can bullshit their way through a lot of things, including politics and journalism (especially political journalism), where it is often a matter of who you know rather than what you can actually do. You can pull off a stint with The New York Times with a good network—or if you belong to the right victim group. But do you know what you can’t fake? Pulling 600 pounds off the floor, benching 400 pounds. You cannot fake the struggle. It is you and you alone, and the only way to reach the point where you can do these things is by committing your mind to the discipline it requires, which, in turn, cultivates mental and physical strength.
¿¡Qué estás diciendo!?
The idea of the 'bugman' i.e. de-masculinized urban nu-male, has also led to criticism on the right towards city life. "Trads" (those who espouse a simpler, older way of living) charge that urban living degrades not just males, but society as a whole. Many have even picked up the mantle of a "back to the land" philosophy, promoting ideas such as 'homesteading' and rural aesthetics as a counter to it. Is this a feasible alternative? Can it challenge for power? Or is it a case of "cope", where the option to "drop out" doesn't actually exist?
Some people prefer living in cities. Others prefer living in the countryside. Just like some people would be better served by going to a university and others by learning a trade.
I don’t think we should abandon cities. It should make people angry that we’ve effectively lost control of American cities to savage criminals and their enablers. But fixing them isn’t easy because it often comes down to how people vote—some vote for decline and call it progress. You can only help people who want help.
On the other hand, I think that retreating to the hinterlands is not an option because nowhere is ultimately safe. Some people acknowledge this, and I respect that. But it is a fantasy to suggest this is a long-term solution. Our enemies are imperialists—they will chase you to the ends of the earth and find any excuse to persecute you. Randy Weaver was not spared by moving to Ruby Ridge.
The incumbent regime hates blind spots, places that it cannot see and control. It works inexorably to extend its mastery of every single domain. Thus, the only way I see out of this mess in the future is through the effective use of power. Even if your goal is decentralization, you cannot accomplish that by running and hiding because the regime is totalizing, and it will eventually find you and swallow you. We must become imperialists in our own country because neutrality is not possible.
"Back to the land" can imply a blood and soil nationalism, although not always. Yet the USA is a propositional nation, one that rejected blood and soil nationalism altogether (many will dispute this). This brings up the lingering question of what defines an actual American? Is there a hierarchy? Or is it just anyone with citizenship? Or is it something in between? What does American Nationalism look like in Pedro's eyes?
There is a meme that goes like this: “The world you were raised to survive in no longer exists.” The problem American nationalists face is similar: the nation they were raised to love no longer exists in relation to the major political and cultural institutions of the United States. The word nation comes from the Latin natio, which means birth. Country refers to a government and geography; nation refers to a community with common characteristics more profound than eating and shopping at the same places. In Federalist 2, John Jay outlined six elements that constituted the American nation: shared ancestry, shared language, shared religion, similar conceptions of government and law, a shared culture, and a shared historical experience. As new arrivals came, Jay said in 1797 that we must “see our people more Americanized.”
Much of this has changed, but a core heritage population remains without whom this thing falls apart. I think any attempt to cut off America from this European-descended group spells the end of this country in any meaningful sense. I don’t see why this would be controversial at all. Why is it taboo to oppose the replacement of a country’s core population? Only in modern times could we be so stupid.
The task for American nationalists is one of palingenesis—forging a rebirth of this country that honors—rather than spiting or perverting—its roots while marching into the future. In practical terms, I would start with an immigration moratorium and end all foreign aid. I would pass Hungarian-style “Stop Soros” laws to make it impossible for subversive NGOs to operate in this country. I would uproot the inaccurately named civil rights regime at the heart of virtually every problem we face, whether we realize it or not. If you think the preference this regime affords minority groups cannot be abused, ask Jack Phillips, a Colorado Christian baker, about how many times he has been sued by gay and transgender people who have weaponized it against him to punish him for his faith in the name of anti-discrimination.
In 2018, the Supreme Court agreed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unfairly dismissive of Phillips’ religious beliefs when it hit him with an anti-discrimination law violation after he refused to bake a cake celebrating the marriage of a gay couple. I would argue the commission was working as intended. But more to the point, these people never left Phillips alone. Now he’s back in court over claims he violated anti-discrimination law by not making a cake celebrating a gender transition.
The task of American nationalists is building a country where abuse like this becomes impossible.
Can your American Nationalism find common ground with nationalists in Europe? This is an important question, especially due to the ability of globalists in your country being able to play on age-old ethnic conflicts on the continent to pit one or more countries against another.
In a similar way, European nationalists can find good allies among American nationalists, but not with the United States as a political entity, because it is hostile toward nationalism and the kind of social conservatism conducive to flourishing. U.S. support for any foreign nationalists, like Ukrainians, is opportunistic and temporary. Our government exploits nationalists the way any imperial power has throughout history. Under the current political order, you would never see support for genuine domestic nationalism from major U.S. institutions the way you see it for Ukraine for this reason. Hungary has found this out the hard way. Poland doesn’t seem to want to learn the lesson. The Poles try so hard to show the liberal West that it hates Russia and is, therefore, an ally—only for it to be slapped around by liberal internationalists for not totally subordinating itself to their designs. It is battered wife syndrome applied to international relations. This is a lesson Giorgia Meloni will learn in Italy. It seems she wants to show her loyalty to Washington’s globalism so she can have nationalism in Rome. But this mixing oil with water. The U.S. government has no desire to allow its “allies” to be truly sovereign any more than it wants to give American nationalists power over political affairs.
With this in mind, what is your read on the war between Ukraine and Russia? Is it just one war? Or are there several conflicts rolled into one that are being played out in Ukraine right now? Can the Ukrainians win? Can the Russians resist GAE?
I am going to quote a story that just broke in The Washington Post to start: “Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.”
Everyone owes Douglas Macgregor and John Mearsheimer apologies. They were right when they said the U.S. would fight to the last Ukrainian, which I think is especially immoral. At least Russia is honest about what it is—it does not pretend to be a democracy. On the other hand, the U.S. claims it is a democracy, that Washington is a beacon in the moral darkness of this world—and yet it is gleefully feeding humans into a woodchipper, knowing they will be reduced to a crimson purée. No decent American would deliberately support this because it is evil, which is why our government and media lie.
I have no idea how this will end, but it won’t end well. If the U.S. has weakened Russia by throwing Ukrainians at it, the U.S. has also injured itself in its jihad against Moscow. I think you can see signs of strain already, and life is going to get a lot worse for Europeans, too, especially after the Nord Stream affair. But that doesn’t mean everything will come to a halt. Like you, I believe the GAE is here to stay for now—but that doesn’t mean it will be pretty.
Why does the U.S. hate Russia so much? As I said earlier, the regime hates things beyond its control. Russia poses the possibility of existing outside the domination of the GAE, which is unacceptable. That is not to say I want a “Russian model” for America. But if it is possible for another country to resist, for it to organize its political affairs in a different way, other people elsewhere might get ideas. This is also why the liberal internationalists hate Hungary, and why some reacted with horror to Meloni, despite her contradictions. It is about convincing people that history ended with liberal democracy, which is nonsense.
To me, a question just as important as those preceding this one is: can small European nations survive in light of the USA stamping its total ownership over the continent as we have seen so far this year?
These countries are in a precarious position. They might have to make some concessions to survive. They will ultimately only survive by banding together. Nationalists must forge a new internationalism. And a paradox is that a nationalist American president could be their biggest ally. I think it was Carl Schmitt who said that only America could resolve the crisis of global order.
Más estupideces de Pedro y yo
You and I are both Latinx, but I am better (read: more oppressed by whites) than you are, because I am also Black, or what we Latinx call "negro": I will let my Rastafarian brothers explain:
Morlachs (Mauro-Vlachs or Mavrovlachi, also Nigri Latini in Latin sources, meaning “Black Vlachs”; in Greek: mauros-valchio, in Serbian and Croatian Mor-laci [mor-latsi]) were a population of Vlachs. In another version their name comes from the slavic terms of “morski-Vlasi” or Sea Vlachs.
The morlachs were shepherds that lived in the Dinaric Alps (western Balkans in modern use), seasonally migrating in search for better pastures for their sheep flocks (between mountains, in the summertime, and the sea shores, in the wintertime). They were a blend of previously Romanized indigenous peoples and new settled Roman army veterans and Roman colonists.
The adjective “black” may be used here with the meaning of “northern”, this metaphor probably deriving from the Turkish practice of indicating cardinal directions by colors.
Reports from the mid-11th century tell how the Morlachs lived in the mountainous regions of Montenegro, Bosnia, Stari Vlah, and Herzegovina …”
RASTA ANALYSIS: DECODING THE CODE:
If you notice, the wiki author of the article above tries to explain the meaning of the latin word “Nigri” (and by extension Mauros) as Northern!
Well both of us know that Nigri is a word used for Black people.
We also know that the Greek word Mauros used for Mauro Vlach means Black and not Northern.
The word “Vlach” comes from the same roots as “Wealas”. They say Wealas was the name the Goths and the Slavs called the people they met on the land.
The Gothics claim the word Wealas or Welsh means a stranger to their tribe. Among the Ibos of Nigeria, N’Weala means owner of the land.
In any event the Gothics were immigrants to Europe, and the Wealas were aboriginal. None gothic people.
Consequently, if we hear that people were called Nigri latinis, or black Vlach, or Mauros Vlach, we know automatically that such people were:
1. Black in complexion
2. Moorish in Nationality
3. Of pure Latini origin
So I say to you, Pedro: VATOS LOCOS FOREVER CARNAL!
Dutch: What the hell *are* you?
What is your secret method for maintaining a good lawn all year-round?
You know, my mower broke last year, and I had to pay a white guy to cut my grass twice. It was a weird role reversal.
Ideally, I would have someone like Ben Domenech mow my lawn while I watch from my porch, mint julep in hand, the warm summer wind gently ruffling my white linen suit as cicadas buzz in the trees as the sun hangs high overhead. The exercise would do him some good.
Brilliant UK-based conservative intellectual Douglas Murray wants to reach out to you to discuss "how to collaborate to defeat Woke Tyranny", and to trade photos.
I am not gay, but even if I were gay, I would not collaborate with a gay neo-conservative. There are some things you just can’t come back from.
Mel Gibson plays a guardian angel sent by God to help Kanye West defeat 'cancel culture and those who started it'. Kanye is down on his luck after being locked out of social media, banking, air travel, health care, and who has an artificial respirator attached to his lungs to reduce the percentage of oxygen intake in his system. Mel raises his morale by commiserating with him, re-telling his own similar experiences, and by bringing in Louis Farrakhan to teach him "Real History". They team up with Sam Hyde when they find him on the side of the road fixing a flat tire on his beater just after he murdered Hasan Piker at his home. Mel then reaches out to his Jewish friend Ron Unz, who happily forks over $80 to finance a hip hop track produced by Kanye in which he and Sam spit bars about 'who starts all the wars?" Would you watch this movie?
I’m sorry, I must go, Ben just showed up to cut my grass sporting two black eyes, and he is babbling and bawling about Meghan McCain slapping him around with her “big tits” (his words). But perhaps we could have a movie night sometime.