I’d say the evidence is there that they want to do these things. When people wave Nazi flags or Confederate flags at their political rallies, I’m going to assume they’re indicating support of those historical movements. And genocide and slavery were central parts of those movements.
I oppose genocide and slavery. So I feel these people should not be given any power.
I wonder how much pushback the AFCers were getting from fellow white Republicans of, e.g., Irish, Italian or Polish descent, or others of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage.
My WAG is that the mooks who started this thinly veiled nativism movement had present in their minds the common American distinction between “Anglo” and “Latino” ethnicity, and wanted to refer to the former in a way that didn’t sound so much like just saying “white people”, so they came up with “Anglo-Saxon”.
Though that has led down an interesting rabbit hole about how colonial white Americans such as Jefferson perceived the term “Anglo-Saxon”.
You’re not being nearly racist enough.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
So, literally only Saxons and Englishmen were good enough for some of our Founding Fathers.
Shame on you for expanding the definition of whiteness…err Anglo-Saxons for political expediency.
Next, you’ll tell me those darned Irish and Italians are acceptable so we can enlist them against the Blacks and Jews!
Amusingly, Franklin’s diatribe there was exactly in the context of protesting “excessive” “alien” immigration…by Germans:
Yup, those swarthy Germans, cultural-replacement-ing our beleagured original white settlers and refusing to assimilate! The nativist song never ever changes, they just swap out the names in the verse.
Holy shit, that second quote could have been lifted right from MTQ’s racist fucking proposal!
I propose that all such anti-“alien” diatribes be lumped together as “Palatine Boors speeches”.
I have to chide those of you who took this little manifesto at all seriously as a policy paper or something. The congresspeople who promoted it are not interested in making policy. They are interested in courting controversy to gain increased support. Comms, not policy, as Madison Cawthorn put it.
Their “values” are overwhelmingly negative: they’re for sure against what liberals and Democrats seem to want at the moment. (Cleek’s Law.) But what are they for? They have to hand-wave with empty slogans (MAGA, AF) or meaningless tripe about Anglo-Saxon traditions. Even the weird stuff about architecture is just reactionary: they don’t want any of that modernist architecture the pointy-heads like, but they could never explain why promoting Greek columns is good for America.
This fundamental unserious leads to incoherence like Hawley’s and Cruz’s new “corporations are bad, my friend” stance, or the laughable Section 230 stuff.
It’s no wonder that a credulous both-sides-have-issues chin-stroker can look at their manifesto and find it — well, he won’t call it unobjectionable, that would be taking sides or something, but he certainly finds some unobjectionable stuff in it. That’s because there is nothing in it of substance.
I’m not saying it’s not dangerous — expanding the acceptability of racist and just plain idiotic rhetoric by politicians is extremely dangerous, and this was an attempt to do that. But it’s not something you should try to debate. (Which, y’know, is kind of on one poster in this thread.)
we even had a member whos spouse was injured by the idiot who drove through the crowd protesting the thing …
Wrong style of moustache. More like toothbrush…
[quote=FTA] “America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions. History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country, particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country,”
[/quote]
Anglo-Saxons were big into slavery.
Gosar is not an especially Anglo-Saxon surname… Fascinating.
Where did that caucus statement in the OP say anything about the legality of the immigrants in question?
If you‘re asking about the section that was copy-and-pasted in the OP, it doesn’t seem to; it’s the sentence after that one that makes mention of “immigration, legal as well as illegal,” before the sentences after that one address (a) which would-be immigrants they believe should be allowed in via “legal immigration”, and (b) ramifications for, specifically, “illegal immigration”: “As such, America’s legal immigration system should be curtailed to those that can contribute not only economically, but have demonstrated respect for this nation’s culture and rule of law. America’s borders must be defended, and illegal immigration must be stopped without exception.”
Yes, I am, since that is the exact bit you quoted as “sounds pretty sensible, actually.” Not any other extracts.
No mention of “illegal” anything in post No. 8. So was just curious as to when, exactly, those goalposts got shifted.
Actually, I’m not wondering at all. Quite obviously this caucus is whistling at exactly your pitch.
Not just white people, it’s a dog-whistle for the “right kind” of white people. Their kind of white people.
I know for damn sure that no matter how pale I am they’d never consider me a member of their club.
“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white Anglo Saxon children.”
The quoted bit mentions the problem of bailing out those who fail to contribute positively to the country — which I agree sounds pretty sensible — and so it then goes on to argue against legal immigration for those who won’t contribute positively, which I also find sensible.
Mmm, this future existence sounds like something they need to secure… you know, for the children…
You’re right, except there’s not even a cover.
CNN reports that the caucus is already dissolved under pressure from the Republican party. So apparently too much even for today’s RNC.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/17/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-america-first-caucus/index.html
Discourse tells me Rick_Kitchen already posted the article.
Benjamin Franklin thought Swedes were swarthy? Bad enough that he was a racist (he used to be a hero of mine until I read this), now I wonder if other racists were laughing at him.