National Review published an article yesterday by cuckservative Jim Geraughty bemoaning Trump supporters, who he says are “doomsday conservatives” since they have a realistic perspective on race.
It wouldn’t be a National Review article without at least one factual inaccuracy, one which probably will not be corrected even though I told the author about it. Geraughty claims that America is “77 percent white, 13 percent African American, about 17 percent Latino, and 5 percent Asian.” If you want to cite bogus percentages you should make sure they add up to around 100. Even if “White Hispanics” are considered White, and there is no way half of all Hispanics are White, Whites are 72.4 percent of the population according to the 2010 census.
[Diana] West and others assert that a majority-minority United States will be a lesser country — less free, less prosperous, less safe. At heart, they believe that what gives America its unique strengths is a population that is predominantly European in heritage.
But if you think a strong national defense, strong family values, free-market economics, and respect for the rule of law only benefit white America, and can only be preserved by them, you’re out of your mind. Try telling the 233,000 African-American members of the military that they’re incapable of keeping Americans safe. Tell the 42 percent of Asian-Americans who profess faith in Christ that their lives don’t preserve and promote Judeo-Christian values. Tell the 55,000 Hispanic police officers that they’re culturally incapable of upholding the rule of law. Tell the immigrants starting 520 new businesses per month that they can’t strengthen American capitalism. According to apocalyptic conservatism, Clarence Thomas, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Thomas Sowell are part of the problem, not the solution.
Well, certainly Marco Rubio is part of the problem. Citing Thomas and Sowell is a very juvenile argument, no more intellectually advanced than the feminists who claim women are Just as Strong as Men by citing some female Olympic athlete. It’s true that immigrants are more likely than natives to “start a business.” The Huffington Post cites a study which shows that “Immigrants Twice As Likely To Start Businesses As U.S.-Born Citizens.” There is a very simple explanation for this: immigrants do not have businesses at the time they arrive in the county; American business owners do. It’s like measuring relative rates of employment by looking at people who got a job this year and excluding from consideration everyone who already had one. Immigrants are somewhat more likely to own small businesses(those with <100 workers) than natives.(18% of business owners, 16% of the workforce) “Entrepreneurship” isn’t really relevant to the main issue. The problem with the third world isn’t lack of “entrepreneurship,” any slum will be full of it, it’s corruption and the lack of high-value added industries which can pay high wages. The average income for Hispanics is significantly lower than that of Whites, reflecting a lower value creating ability on average.
I wonder what Jonah Goldberg, a half-Jew who self-identifies as Jewish, thinks of all the talk about Christianity found on National Review. A defense of “Christianity” is identified as being even more important than economic issues by some National Review writers. For instance, David French wrote in his article denouncing the word cuckservative that “Conservatives should reject those on both extremes of the spectrum. We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, “All are one, in Christ Jesus.”” Yet, what about those who have no faith in Christ?
Continued from Geraughty:
The Doomsday Conservatives contend we’re living in a genuine dark age of oppression of speech, at a time when Alex Jones is on 160 stations, Glenn Beck has his own television network, and Mark Levin’s books repeatedly top the New York Times bestseller lists. West concludes that the crisis she sees took hold when the American People “lost our nerve to even talk about immigration or Islam.” Look around you. Do you see a country that is afraid to discuss immigration or Islam?
It’s a bit like when Leftists insist “it’s time for a real national dialogue on race” or “it’s time for a serious national conversation on guns,” when in reality these dialogues have been ongoing for decades, in the halls of Congress and on cable-news shows and at dinner tables across the country. Trump-aligned anti-immigration zealots insist the conversation is nonexistent or suppressed so as to avoid the truth: They aren’t winning the argument.
The country is evenly split on whether to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in the United States. But only 27 percent of registered voters support banning Muslims from entering the country; 66 percent oppose the idea. A slim majority supports the status quo on “birthright citizenship” — giving American citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status. Support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants consistently sits between 50 and 60 percent.
Certainly this is a golden age for Conservatives™ like Glenn Beck. But for those who truly dissent from the established dogmas on race and immigration there is very little tolerance. “Islam” is discussed in the press, but mostly as a matter of “who should we bomb this month.” Not until Trump was there ever public discussion about Muslim immigration to America. The discussion about immigration was solely one about whether to tolerate the illegals(the position of some republicans) or to embrace them and give them citizenship.(the position of other republicans and the democrats) Not even now is it being discussed whether legal immigration levels should be reduced, the opinion of a significant minority of Americans.
It would be like a “conversation” about gun control that consisted of an advocate of banning all guns debating an advocate of banning most guns, with no representative for the Americans who are pro-gun. Those at National Review complain frequently about “media bias.” But when the media supports their POV Geraughty accuses his opponents of being sore losers.
White Americans where never asked whether they wanted an immigration policy that reduced them to minority status. Even now, many do not know it is going to happen. It is rarely discussed in explicit terms in our mainstream media. The liberals did not “win” any debate for the simple reason that a debate has never been held. But it must be said that in Europe, where the debate has been held and people have real alternatives, the liberals have won.
People love citing polls to show that their views are popular. Conservatives love to cite polls on gun control, for instance. Here’s some polls you won’t read about in National Review.
Geraughty writes that it is “frustrating that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement service capable of removing 409,000 illegal immigrants just a few years ago only removed 235,419 in the last fiscal year.” Yet, he nevertheless claims that “real progress has been made on immigration” because there are more border patrol agents now. More investment and less results, that’s Geraughty’s definition of progress.