I sailed wrote:
"The way you talk you had rather do nothing that to begin doing something. And that is simply insane."
I was advocating the construction of a physical wall between the United States and Mexico twenty years before most posters in this forum even thought of it.
Before Pat Buchanan.
Before "the internet" -- back in "the AOL issues forum" days.
OK, I reached back into my personal archives and pulled something out for you to read. It was written by me and posted to the Issues forum on AOL on November 16, 1995:
========
Orchidea -
RE your posting:
<< I doubt whether Mr. Potato Famine's idea of a "Great Wall" would work given the sucess rate of the Asian one. So, watch out, the Visigoths are at the gates!!! >>
Fences make for good neighbors.
And they *do* work, provided they are long enough, tall enough, strong enough, solid enough.
Should we go so far as to rely on a physical "barrier" to protect our southern border?
There are two possible avenues of thought to consider...
The first is that we should do nothing to halt the onslaught of multicultural values pouring into our society. Nor should we act to halt the inflow of "multicultural folk", particularly through our notoriously porous southern border, but also into our ports and airports. The relentless pressure this wave of non-assimilating immigrants, legal and illegal, places against our traditional economic/value systems can be resisted only so long. Eventually, like osmosis, it may permeate and corrupt entire regions of this country to the point where they no longer resemble the traditional "America" of our [past] consciousness.
The alternative scenario demands that we take concrete and definitive steps to protect our borders and our culture.
We must realize that there are certain, fortunate nations on this planet that have the advantage of "natural barriers" in their defense against outside pressures. Some that come to mind immediately are Japan, New Zealand, Great Britain, Australia. Because of the fact that all of these nations are are islands, they can protect themselves, *IF* they muster the national will to do so. Great Britain could not have successfully resisted the Nazis in 1940 without this "God given" geographical circumstance. Billions may yet starve in Africa, and the farmlands of India may go dry and become deserts, but so long as a country like Australia can protect its environment and social structure, it has *at least a chance* at long-term survival.
So, too, could North America (The United States and Canada) rely on such a barrier. We are large enough as a continent to become virtually self-sustaining. We are naturally immune from cultural pressures "from the [Arctic] north" - no one's coming in from that direction. By the west and east we are insulated by oceans. Our only "pressure point" is to our south - the Mexican border.
But the southern border is more than just with Mexico - in a broader sense, it is with the entire third world, pressing against our culture, in the same manner in which water bears against a dam. This is why our struggle to restrain it there becomes so important.
It is not only "Mexicans" (and other South and Central Americans) per se that infiltrate us from the south - it is the culture that they bring with them, much of which is inherently alien to our "traditional" beliefs and mores. Curse them if you like, but it is precisely such European "traditional values" that so coherently united and "communalized" our national heritage, up until the 1960's or so - the exact values which today are under such persistent attack from the "multiculturals".
Some months ago in this area, I proposed the concept of a physical, impenetrable wall between the U.S. and Mexico. I again propose it. Indeed, the U.S. Border Patrol, at certain points along the U.S -Mexican border already erects fences, but these serve as mere buckets against the flood when viewed in the larger scale. However, the fact that on the local level such fences DO serve their purpose suggests that we need a more substantive "levee" to protect our *entire* southern front.
Call this prospective "Wall of America" racist, call it elitist, call it whatever you like. The fact remains that with such an artificial barrier in place working in concert with our natural barriers to the north, east and west, and with extremely tight controls on who "gets in" via air and sea, we could effectively defend ourselves (our culture AND our environment) from the inevitable decline and collapse due to outside pressures that, at the present, we seem reluctant to resist.
It may be indelicate to say so, but I will assert that:
> All "cultures" are NOT of equal value; thus
> Some cultures are inherently superior to others;
> The history of mankind is of competing cultures conflicting with and overcoming one another (and not always did the superior culture triumph);
> That said, I consider OUR traditional culture (based upon Euro-Centric values) to be superior to others, and thus, worth preserving;
> Such preservation becomes IMPOSSIBLE unless we actively defend it against the corrupting influences of competing, inferior cultures.
If you live beside a river, and if that river is threatening to overflow your property, what do you do? Do you accept the inevitability of the pending inundation? Or do you at least attempt to build a levee to restrain such overflow? Must you simply stand by and let the waves wash over you, because you have no "right" to "resist" them? Is it unmoral, unethical, unreasonable to at least TRY to protect what you have and what you stand for?
Few will contest the individual's inherent right of self-preservation - do we also have a right to the self-preservation of our nation, our values, our culture, our future?
I believe that what we have built here, and what the future can hold for us, is WORTH protecting, by WHATEVER means possible.
Do you?
(posted to AOL Nov 16, 1995)
========
I think that establishes my credentials well enough on what I think about "a wall" on the southern border.
What were YOUR thoughts on immigration in 1995?
