Posted on 02/26/2018 5:22:52 PM PST by C19fan
I’m used to being vilified by the far left as a bloodthirsty neocon warmonger for the Original Sin of having supported the invasion of Iraq along with 72 percent of the American public. It has been a little more surprising to be simultaneously vilified by the far right as a dangerous left-winger. David Horowitz’s FrontPage magazine accused me of going “full leftist” for acknowledging that racism and sexism remain pervasive problems. Breitbart called me, with ironic quotation marks, the “Washington Post’s ostensibly new ‘conservative’ columnist,” because, among other sins, I support gun control and immigration. American Greatness wrote that I am a “soulless, craven opportunist” whose “brain is broken,” because I compared President Trump’s indifference to the 2016 Russian election assault to a president ignoring 9/11. For the same offense, Jack Posobiec — an Internet troll notorious for pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington pizza parlor — said I was “sick” and a “Russian propagandist.” In the Orwellian language of the far right, someone who wants to combat Russian aggression is a “Russian propagandist,” whereas someone who echoes Russian propaganda is putting “America first.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Buckley was the prototype for today's GOP establishment, so naturally he didn't care about language or culture. Goldwater was (as Mariner says) a libertarian, who also don't make cultural issues a priority.
Buckley and Goldwater were both fiscal conservatives who opposed the welfare state. That's commendable, but it doesn't nearly go far enough. Fiscal conservatism by itself won't keep the US from being transformed into Mexico del Norte in everything but name, or keep our cities from turning into slums and gang war zones. Only fiscal conservatism wedded to a nationalist worldview can accomplish what needs to be done.
Since you're a Zionist, presumably you agree that Israel should be a Jewish state, which means mostly restricting immigration to Jews. Yet you welcome mass immigration of Mexicans and other Third World peoples into the US. If Israel is entitled to be a Jewish state (as I agree it is), shouldn't the US be entitled to maintain its identity as an English-speaking First World country rather than being turned into a dumping ground for Mexico and Central America's slum surplus?
bump
“Max Boot is a Russian-American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian. He worked as a writer and editor for Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s.”
Born: September 12, 1969 (age 48), Moscow, Russia
+1
“Hewitt and Medved are two other fake conservatives that still inexplicably have an audience. They have been amnesty pimps for decades.”
+1
What these United States are, presently, is a “dumping ground” created by opportunistic politicians and JOBS.
Certain people in America will not work: they are either snowflakes or a permanent, trans-generational welfare class, created because we welcomed a certain kind of mass immigration of “second class citizens” long ago . Mexicans (in particular) DO work. So, we give them special VISAS sometimes, or they sneak in with their MS-13 loser baggage, but they are a new kind of slave.
I say, encourage legal immigration from Mexico. NOT Syria. Illegal? We kick you out.
Everyone on this forum was a “Neocon” 15 years ago.
That was before Freepers called Neocons “Marxists.” (I hadn’t heard that before. I’m a Marxist!)
Something must have changed. Did all the “Have you Forgotten” people change their minds? I spent a good while in Iraq, and I sure as hell haven’t forgotten.
I don’t know what “Nativism” means in America. I’m just a third-generation American and I speak a number of languages. I am not threatened, personally, by vetted immigrants. What I don’t like is “second class citizens.” It’s what has caused America’s biggest problems. (Live in an inner city for awhile - you’ll see.)
I do not, alas, give a hoot how liberals re-define my language. I have a gay old time watching them do it. Am I a Neocon? Whatever. Our Navy was born so we could project military power overseas. Thank the LORD!
Yet you think that admitting tens of millions of Mexicans (as long as, according to you, "they're willing to work") to the US is a great idea, ignoring the fact that a United States with a majority Mexican and Central American demographic would no longer be the United States. If you think that the character of the US will not be radically changed by admitting tens of millions more meso-Americans, I suggest that you compare the socioeconomic and educational achievements of typical Anglo-American communities with the squalor of border towns with Mexican majorities. The Meso-American culture and mindset is quite a different beast from that of the US, and no amount of "vetting" will change that.
In other words, you seem to believe that Israel has the right to maintain its ethno-cultural and linguistic identity while the United States (and presumably other western nations) do not. Why not adopt a more logically consistent position where all nations - Israel, the US, European nations, are entitled to maintain their cultural, linguistic, and when applicable, ethnic identities?
In other words, you support another nation's right to ethno-nationalism, but advocate liberal multiculturalism in the US.
[Tens of millions of Mexicans] What? Didn't say that
The net result of the immigration policies you propose would be tens of millions of additional Mexicans and Meso-Americans in the US.
Border towns? Where are you coming from?
You seem indignant over my use of Mexican-majority towns along the US-Mexico border as case studies of poverty and social degradation. Do you care to refute the fact that these are some of the most impoverished parts of the US, or would you rather keep up with politically correct virtue-signaling?
I have been all over Mexico. Have you?
I have, my impression of most Mexican cities I've been to has been a collection of squalid slums and shanty-towns with a small, affluent elite in gated communities. Do you think that's a good social model for the US to follow? And I repeat what I said: America's border towns with Mexico, and other places where Mexican nationals and their descendants are majorities, are consistently among the poorest zip codes in America. There's a reason for that.
Can you imagine if SMART immigration policies allowed Mexico's best, brighter, hardest workers to be LEGAL
Yes, and if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. The "best and brightest" of Mexico and Central American countries are their nation's wealthy elite, they generally have no interest in moving to the US. The ones who want to move here tend to be those from the slums. If you're lucky, you get an unskilled minimum wage laborer with a family of ten. If you're unlucky, you get a gang member.
What is an "Anglo-American community?"
I find it difficult to believe that somebody who claims to have been "all over Mexico" is incapable of recognizing the vast cultural differences between the US and Mexico, or between First and Third World societies in general.
Because I am not a globalist.
It seems to me that you are a globalist, since the liberal immigration policies you propose are at the core of globalist ideology.
By the way, there are many Mexicos, like there are many Americas. Would I rather live “almost” ANYWHERE in Mexico City than “almost” ANYWHERE in, say, Chicago, or Los Angeles? You bet. Far fewer people on welfare, far few left-wing Statist whining losers, more religion, more family, (and the food’s better, too.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.