Thursday, August 03, 2017

Lies about Lazarus rise

Is Jim Acosta ignorant, mendacious, or both? This is embarrassing:



The Lazarus poem was drawn up among a hodgepodge of other efforts to raise money to complete the construction of the statue a decade after it began. The poem was the brainchild of a wealthy Jewess putatively inspired by the statue to pen it. The statue wasn't inspired or influenced by the poem. It's housed inside the base of the statue and is not observable from the outside.

The statue commemorates America's freedom from foreign domination. The tablet in lady liberty's arm bears an inscription that, unlike the Lazarus poem, was actually part of the statue's design. It reads (in Roman numerals) "July 4, 1776".

The statue isn't a celebration of immigration, it's a celebration of this:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Did the men who signed that declaration of independence conceive of America as a "nation of immigrants"?

No. That phrase first appears in the 1920s, a century after the last of the founding fathers had gone to the grave.

To see what the founders thought about the composition of the country, we need to look at the law they actually passed regarding it.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited immigration to "free white persons of good character". It explicitly noted that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

CNN isn't just fake news, it's fake history (or "fake olds", if you like).

The RAISE Act will face an uphill battle in congress. There's bipartisan opposition to it, helpfully described by USA Today thus:
Critics, including many members of Congress, said the plan calls for allowing immigration based on ratios of applicants and a points-based system of approvals, not hard numbers.

That means it will wind up reducing legal immigration, whether applicants are skilled or not.

"The Perdue-Cotton bill does exactly what President Trump has indicated he does not want to do, and that is massively restrict legal immigration," said political consultant Liz Mair, who describes herself as a Republican immigration advocate.

Mair disputed Perdue's comparisons of his plan with those of Canada and Australia, saying, "both of those countries admit massively more legal immigrants relative to their population than the U.S. ever could if this bill became law."
But there's a lot of bipartisan populist support for it. This is one where we have to do more than offer our moral support in the silent comfort of our own homes. Contact your congress critters and tell them to support the thing. Find your house representative here and your senators here.

Something as simple as "Please support the RAISE Act put forward by Senators Cotton and Perdue. It is time we have an immigration system that puts Americans first!" will do perfectly fine. The aids just tally the "for"s and "against"s they receive.

25 comments:

Sid said...

If you're contacting a Democratic Congressman, it's also important to declare that the RAISE Act simply does what Canada and Australia do.

A lot of Democrats grimace when they hear about policies helping ordinary Americans, but they think that Canada and Australia are more enlightened polities than America. As such, it will make them feel that opposing the RAISE Act is backward and regressive.

Democrats would love to implement Canadian or Australian healthcare in America. (Heck, Trump would probably like to see Obamacare replaced with Australian healthcare.) Opposing Canadian and Australian immigration policy strikes at that self-image.

Anonymous said...

So if I scrawl "gas the jews, race war now" on the statue of liberty does that make it our national policy?

Desdichado said...

I suspect the only thing that will really send the message is to primary any Congressmen—especially GOPe Congressmen—who oppose the bill.

Duke Norfolk said...

This is what I'm sending to my Repub senator and rep:
"Please support the RAISE Act put forward by Senators Cotton and Perdue. This law would help to put Americans back to work and raise our wages. It is time we have an immigration system that puts Americans first!"

And this to McCaskill (pandering to her Dem B.S. I doubt it will work, but who knows):
"Please support the RAISE Act put forward by Senators Cotton and Perdue. This law would help to put working class Americans back to work and raise our wages. And although it has been derided as being backwards and racist, it would simply institute an immigration policy in line with that of Canada and Australia, which are exemplars of progressive politics."

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Jim Acosta is the synecdoche of American Journalism in that he is a LIAR (Low Information American Reporter) who lives in the Fools Paradise (Buddy Holly song covered by Don McLean) that is the Washington Press Corps

Black Death said...

Sid -

I was about to make the point about Canada and Australia, but you beat me to it. Good job!

The history of US immigration policy is mainly one of exclusion. Almost all Asians, Mexicans, and others, including eastern European Jews and Italians, as well as "psycopaths, lunatics, homosexuals, illiterites, infectious disease carriers, communists and anarchists", have been excluded or restricted at one time or another:

In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.

The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

....

Due to the Great Depression, legal immigration was virtually abolished in 1932. The restriction on Chinese was not lifted until 1943, because China was an American ally fighting the Japanese.

So there's plenty of precedent here. In addition to the obvious racial aspects, various groups, especially Chinese, Mexicans and Jews, have been denied entry because they depressed wages of US citizens.

And yes, Jim Acosta is a prototype of the Washington media types. Ignorant, biased argumentative and overbearing - he's why so many of us dislike and distrust the MSM.

TipTipTopKek said...

The ultimate redpill about immigration is simply to have people read both the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts of Congress and then remind the reader how many of the people in those Congresses were part of the Revolution, and also participated in the signing of the Constitution. It'll then get really clear what the intentions of the founding fathers were ...

Anonymous said...

Don;t forget to remind them also that the RAISE act is very, very similar to the recommendations of the Jordan Commission, which was endorsed by a very popular Democrat at the time, Bill Clinton.

Anonymous said...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....

The federal government has been in flagrant, up-yours violation of this principle for well over 50 years on the subject of immigration alone.

It's probably too late to fix the system by applying it, but it's too early to shoot the bastards.

Feryl said...

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table1

It doesn't matter that much what kind of person comes here; we just need far fewer people coming here in the first place. As Ben Franklin once observed (and Sailer hailed centuries later), too many people in too small of an area is not good. That's the overwhelming sentiment among Europeans. With ever higher density living comes a lower standard of living, more urban chaos, depressed marriage and birth rates, cultural liberalism, nihilistic anonymity and even a greater tendency for life-long mental and socialization problems.

The drawbacks to urban life are less apparent with blacks (who tend to savagery and indolence no matter what, though it appears that highly liberal mores and/or a cold climate make northern black urban areas particularly nasty) and Asians (who have a much greater tolerance for squalor, crowding, and a general lack of dignity and personal agency than whites).

It appears that huge waves of immigrants (no matter their ethnicity) are associated with urban overcrowding, growth of crime syndicates, exploitation of workers, and political corruption. Indeed, society as a whole, but particularly urban areas, takes on a seedy, sickly neon, hedonistic tone when too much diversity is packed together, threatening to infect more and more people who god forbid will bring the dystopia elsewhere or perhaps it'll collapse in on itself (as in late 70's New York).

Patting ourselves on the back for admitting current or future brain surgeons won't change the fact that the overall material and psychological well-being for a native-born person is contingent on stopping opportunistic migrants "looking for opportunity" who lower wages, disrupt social/civic harmony (clannish ethnic networks and neighborhoods, mixed loyalties, can never totally adopt the outlook and personality of natives), and drive up housing costs in some areas while collapsing property values in other areas.

I just don't get the apologists for "good" immigrants. We don't need anyone else here; besides, plenty of other countries need talented people. Why does any country feel entitled to own every great mind? We've got a long way to go in convincing other people that America isn't so special after all, in the sense that anyone ought to participate in it as though a striver mentality alone is what makes the country what it is. When one considers that periods of loose immigration are actually associated with abysmal social outcomes, how can anyone in their right mind say that we ended up as net winners from such phases? We need homogeneity, desperately. For all the bitching done about Japan, look at what they've done right. The evidence is overwhelming that mass and perpetual homogeneity is generally positive; not perfect, but preferable to 1910's NYC or post-1980 Los Angeles.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid/Jordan Commission Anon,

Whatever has to be done. Cuck about black and Hispanics being hit especially hard by low-skilled immigration and how tilting the immigration balance towards high-wage earners will reduce overall income inequality whereas low-skilled immigration increases it.

But do NOT overthink it to the point that you don't make contact at all. This is more effort than restrictionists have gotten from a president since the Hart Cellar Act. We have to step up here.

Anon,

Are you a heterosexual white male? If yes, then no. If no, then quite possibly yes, though you'll probably need to go back more than a century.

Parenthetically, these media whores are so duplicitous. When it comes to same-sex marriage, affirmative action, or conventional gender roles, tradition is retrograde and oppressive. But when it comes to immigration, don't you know that's what America has been about since it's founding?!

Desdichado,

Trump needs to start working on a (non-partisan) 2018 mid-term voting guide, for primaries (a little tricky) and for the general. There are lots of people who voted for him in 2016 who won't vote in the mid-terms unless they're prodded to. And their votes have the potential to make a big difference.

Duke,

Where in MO are you from? I'm in JoCo on the KS of KC.

McCaskill is vulnerable in 2018. The more pressure put on her the better.

ABS,

Ha, brilliant.

Black Death,

Right, another law not mentioned in the body of the post but relevant to the discussion is of course the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was passed right about the time Lazarus was putting pen to paper. History is messy.

I guess we should give Acosta credit for even having a conception of the 19th century at all. For many of these leftist charlatans, the world began in 1939.

TipTipTopKek,

There are quite a few people who think razing the monuments will stop when those involved with the Confederacy are pulled down. I think that's crazy because of exactly what you suggest.

Anon,

Stefan Molyneux speaks frequently about that same positioning. I suspect we won't full realize we're closing in on the "shoot the bastards" stage until we're there.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Agreed on the need for a moratorium on immigration. Reducing overall immigration and tilting towards highly skilled immigrants is still much better than the status quo, though--those skilled immigrants are going to mesh more closely with America's legacy population than low-skilled illegal aliens do.

Feryl said...

BTW, focusing on the race of immigrants is not going to be that helpful. Why? Because snapping one's fingers and changing the ethnicity of all immigrants to white won't magically solve all the problems created by large levels of immigrants. It may diminish the severity of some problems, but it won't get rid of them. Certainly, favoring anglophones would be the best option, since English, no matter how accented, enhances continuity and camaraderie.

If we want to appeal to liberals (who might one day be better at listening to us), focusing on the economic unfairness, the filth, and the corruption caused by generous immigration acceptance would be the best place to start. As opposed to focusing on the unflattering traits, however accurate, of certain ethnic groups. Besides, talk of some kind of white "homeland" seems to inherently degrade the meaning and worth of your current nationality. It shows a lack of respect for your nation's native born, including the whites in that category. Do white Russians feel so obligated to help whites that they'd welcome in legions of non-Russian whites, and probably dilute and distort their nation's culture in the process? If a group of whites was in danger of being hunted down for no good reason, sure, let them come in.Otherwise......

Feryl said...


"I guess we should give Acosta credit for even having a conception of the 19th century at all. For many of these leftist charlatans, the world began in 1939."

The battles of 1900-early 1930's were heavily economic and populist in nature, though there is an "ethnic" angle to be found in the sense that nativists were sick and god damned tired of O'Connors and Friedmans and Rossis stealing jobs, piling into tenements, joining crime outfits, and bringing every last negative trait of their ethnicity into America. Jews being acerbic and slippery, Irish being drunk, pugnacious, and over-sexed, Italians being...uh..Italian. Seems like Italians have assimilated better than the other ethnics who began arriving in the mid 1800's and thereafter (which includes blacks, too).

Thing is, the early 1900's overwhelmingly support the nativist case, so the period is often glossed over as "the 1920's were wild and the 1930's were a bummer". The Civil War proves our side right too, in the sense that had blacks not been permitted in the first place, we would have averted our national nadir. But the internationalist liberal wing insists on ret-conning the event into a moral saga, often deriding the nativist Southerner outlook ("just get the busybody yankees outta here") while like I say, the American nativist viewpoint is left out altogether (even though Lincoln himself was so soured on prop. nation sentiment that he openly mused about sending Africans back to from whence they came).

I suspect, btw, that we've got more Italian allies than you might suspect. Besides Giuliani and Scaramucci, let's give credit to Jay Leno for giving shit to Mexican illegals on national TV for quite a few years, and to Stallone for being a die hard anti-commie ("do we get to win this time?").

Feryl said...

Yeah, I know, don't judge a group by an individual....But. P.J. O'rourke is an anti-Trump zealot, a lolbertarian, etc. Loquacious and maybe even unpretentious (before Trump derangement syndrome, I guess). He still doesn't do anything to suggest that he's ready to take the machine gun and mow down those who threaten to besiege America with aliens, and right now stopping the invasion is priority number 1.

Also, contrast the differing stances of Scots-"Irish" (Ulster-Scots, Protestant, "don't fuck with me" territoriality and "don't fuck with us" loyalty and proud to be American) Vs Irish-Catholics (lovably and sometimes violently extroverted, mostly amiable, don't generally identify as white-Americans preferring to be called Irish, Catholic, or both). I know whose going to join me for the charge to push back against the invaders and sellouts.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

Couldn't help but laugh at your post because I'm a motley conglomeration of all 3 of those ethnicities/nationalities, those ancestors having immigrated during the mass migrations of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. But since I'm reading this blog (among other dissident rightist sites), I'd say my forebears assimilated quite nicely, the Italian ones especially.

Sid said...

Feryl - Yes, Irish Catholics are currently the most pro-Democrat of the white ethnicities polled (though I loathe to cite BuzzFeed): https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/trump-and-the-white-vote?utm_term=.mbLlYAGOm#.cuO7nqQV4

Irish-Americans have traditionally amassed social power through political office, government employment, and unions. Needless to say, this puts them firmly within the Democrats' orbit. Furthermore, the Irish feel loyalty and affiliation with the Dems. No Kennedy will ever be a Republican - extreme example, but you know what I mean.

Steve Bannon is an archetype of what Irish Catholic Republicans could be - pro-big government, pro-labor, but that big government serves the interests of Americans rather than foreigners.

One thing to our advantage is that Irish Catholics are notoriously xenophobic. They just put up with the liberals' open borders nonsense because there's just too much gravy from the Democrats for their employment and unions.

Irish Americans love infrastructure spending. One way to win more of them over would be to have a successful infrastructure program under Trump.

Part of Irish identity is to resent England and the WASPs. The Irish ultimately want to be distinct from the English, more than just another former imperial colony, but the Irish ultimately fit so easily into the Anglophone world that it's a challenge for them to find things that set them apart from the English, other than having a less successful and more humiliating history.

As such, it makes it easy for the Irish to swallow the left's anti-West nonsense. They were also oppressed by the English, weren't they?

But in the end, Ireland and Irish-Americans have had a successful history since the second half of the 20th century. They have a lot to lose now. And frankly, it will be a lot easier to maintain a distinctive Irish identity if Ireland remains an Irish island, rather than being another majority-minority hellhole.

Audacious Epigone said...

Steve Bannon is an archetype of what Irish Catholic Republicans could be - pro-big government, pro-labor, but that big government serves the interests of Americans rather than foreigners.

Or Pat Buchanan. He's Irish and Catholic though also English, and he roughly fits the same mold--or more precisely, Bannon roughly fits the Buchanan mold.

Audacious Epigone said...

The hyphenated-Americanism with the Irish--stronger than any other European ethnicity--is a mixed bag. On the one hand, things like St. Patrick's Day are the closest whites get to being able to celebrate ethnic pride. On the other, having a largely negative identity contingent upon revenging themselves against the English is not helpful at all in 21st century America.

Feryl said...

Oh, it's easier to for libs to deride guys like Bannon and Buchanan as ethnic apostates, weirdos, and oddly enough, "hypocrites" (since according to lib logic, nativist ideology would've kept the Irish out in the first place thereby in theory creating a grievance and adhering them to the Dems) because their stance is so exceptional. Also, doomy conservatism (as opposed to blind worship of the market and spreading the American Way) doesn't really match the Irish/Irish American reputation for being garrulous and sanguine.

American liberalism has often been premised on the idea that a victim group should never forgive dour and cruel nativist conservatives. It's been a smashing get out the vote strategy for blacks, feather Indians. It's been pretty successful with Jews, and with Hispanics in liberal areas. It's been more spotty with Hispanics in conservative states, and with Irish-Catholic Americans.

Baltic/Slavic Americans, Teuton/Nordic Americans, and Anglo/Scots Americans(including Ulster-Scots) have less of their identity premised on historical ethnic grievance against America. Italians are somewhere between the two camps.

Interesting too that Euro ethnics known to be (to at least some degree), uh, starchy have an easier time identifying as assimilated Americans. Ulster-Scots are more temperamental and loquacious than Anglo-Nordic-Baltic people, but Ulster-Scots are still more dour/emotionally stingy and pragmatic than Mediterranean whites, Irish, and Jews. Dour, doomy conservatism is rooted in Anglo level-headedness. Again I'd have to say that Italians are emotionally somewhere between blonde Euros and Irish/Jews.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

I read the other day that when the Senate returns, McCain plans to revive the old Gang of 8 bill. Sounds to me like a bitter, angry old man getting ready to give his country one final middle finger before he dies.

Sid said...

AE - Right, Pat Buchanan is one of the pioneers of the HBD-aware branch of the right.

Of all the Northern European ethnicities, being openly proud of ones Irish heritage is the least objectionable in modern America.

Furthermore, I've found that Irish nationals often treat Irish-Americans as fellow coethnics. If you're an English-American, you're just an American to an Englishman, whereas Irish nationals show interest and affiliation with Irish-Americans. For example, many Irishmen kept photographs of JFK in their homes out of ethnic pride.

Italian-Americans are interesting, because they've emerged as white Americans with middle-of-the-road political views. Most Italian-Americans are Southern Italian, and phenotypically are somewhere in-between "white" and "brown" on the skin color gradient. To this day, Southern Italy is integrated into Europe in only the roughest of senses.

That said, Southern Italy had numerous regional ethnicities. When Italians came to America, they found that their Italian dialect was easily intelligible only to people of the same region. Once their children grew up speaking English, it was difficult to hold onto their own distinctive regional identity.

At the same time, Italy changed too. The various Southern Italian dialects are moribund, being replaced with a standardized Italian language.

As such, people from different regions in Southern Italy became Italians and Italian-Americans in the 20th century, and they rarely feel all that much affiliation with one another now. In contrast, an Irish-American can go to Dublin, talk with friendly locals, and come away feeling more Irish than ever.

Feryl -

"Also, doomy conservatism (as opposed to blind worship of the market and spreading the American Way) doesn't really match the Irish/Irish American reputation for being garrulous and sanguine."

The Irish are rather garrulous, but I would add that they have a strong melancholic streak. The Irish are famous for having a tendency to self-destructive moodiness and depression, and are pugnacious and stubborn.

The Irish are also clannish and dislike outsiders. The efforts to integrate blacks with Irish Catholics in Boston through school busing were infamously disastrous.

The Scots-Irish are really Scotsmen who stopped off in Ireland before heading to America, but they, like the Irish, are Celts, and both groups have a rough clannishness and distrust of outsiders, for all their other differences. I think that the Scots-Irish adapted their clannishness to regionalism in rural areas and familistic business enterprises. The Irish adapted theirs to the unions and their neighborhoods.

As such, Buchanan and Bannon have their own brand of conservativism which is pro-labor, distrustful of foreign ties, and not naively worshipful of the "free market."

Audacious Epigone said...

When I ask people who say they are Italian about that ancestry, they almost never seem to know much of anything about it.

Feryl said...

"The Irish are rather garrulous, but I would add that they have a strong melancholic streak. The Irish are famous for having a tendency to self-destructive moodiness and depression, and are pugnacious and stubborn"

Yeah, what I shoulda said was that they're overly sentimental compared to the other white ethnic groups in this thread aside from Jews. Ellis Island schlock/schmaltz preys on the heavy hearts of Irish and especially Jews who still cringe at nativist movements rather than ever trying to at least meet older or even current nativists half-way.


"The Scots-Irish are really Scotsmen who stopped off in Ireland before heading to America, but they, like the Irish, are Celts, and both groups have a rough clannishness and distrust of outsiders, for all their other differences. I think that the Scots-Irish adapted their clannishness to regionalism in rural areas and familistic business enterprises. The Irish adapted theirs to the unions and their neighborhoods"

No matter, how do they identify and to whom are they loyal? Ulster Scots, who settled primarily in the South, Appalachia, lower-Midwest, and Western US, were an invaluable ally at taming rough people and rough lands, and they came to believe (with good reason) that America was their country with no question of mixed loyalty or pining for the old-world. If Ulster-Scots and Irish-Catholics are putatively similar, how do you explain how Italians have better assimilated than Irish-Catholics? Regionalism and date of arrival alone don't explain everything (Poles, Swedes, Germans, etc. arrived later than Anglo-Scots in America and settled in a variety of places, yet today these ethnic groups all fully belong to stock Joe Sixpack America).


It's put up or shut up time. Irish-Catholics and Jews need to shut the fuck up about their grandparents and great grandparents and great-great grandparents being victimized by filthy nativists in the 1800's and early 1900's. Get with the program and help us out.

Sid said...

"If Ulster-Scots and Irish-Catholics are putatively similar, how do you explain how Italians have better assimilated than Irish-Catholics?"

I have more content on that question with the part of the post addressed to AE. In summary, Irish nationals treat Irish-Americans like coethnics. The Irish suffer from a "narcissism of small differences" situation, where they now easily fit into the Anglophone world, but they still strive to maintain their own identity with anti-English and anti-WASP attitudes. Irish-Americans have traditionally sought to acquire social power through public office, rather than in the market, so it makes the Democrats a more natural fit than then the Republicans, and Democrats love playing up anti-Core America views.

In contrast, most Italian-Americans have ancestry from Southern Italy. The problem is, Southern Italy has a highly regionalized place, and each region had a distinctive dialect. When Southern Italians came to America, they could only communicate easily with people from their own region. Once their children learned English, it was difficult to keep ties with the old country. And during this time, Southern Italy's regional dialects were replaced with a standardized Italian language. In a sense, both Italians and Italian-Americans are constructions which came about in the 20th century. When Italian-Americans go to Italy, they might enjoy being there, but it's not the same place their ancestors came from.

"It's put up or shut up time. Irish-Catholics and Jews need to shut the fuck up about their grandparents and great grandparents and great-great grandparents being victimized by filthy nativists in the 1800's and early 1900's. Get with the program and help us out."

Agreed. I have no Jewish ancestry but I do have some Irish blood. Irish-Americans need to get with the program and then give their input on where things would go. For example, I think more infrastructure projects would get Irish-Americans on board.

In the 19th century, Englishmen in England and America regarded Irishmen as racially inferior white people. That's not the case anymore. Irish-Americans are now white people, and they lose as bad as anyone else from white people losing ground in North America and Europe.