America First Caucus Founded

Cherico

Well-known member
It took many decades for that to happen, and in the last 2 decades hispanics have gone more towards blue voting, not less. There's also the fact that so many of them have come into the country illegally, whereas the Italians and the Irish didn't.

they also just spent a summer watching the left close down their churches while letting the strip clubs remain open, watched as anarchists attacked their neighborhoods, watched their churches get defiled, and had their religious authorities attacked.

That tends to speed up the process a bit.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
So yeah no, ironically your best bet to save America and American heritage is with right wing immigrants.
Hispanics aren’t right wing immigrants. No, it’s by stopping immigration lol. What you are arguing is the same thing establishment Republicans argued for decades and have been wrong on for decades “Hispanics are a naturally conservative population” yeah except they don’t vote that way.
 
Last edited:

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
Jews in the United States are overwhelmingly left-wing, for instance they generally vote democrat by margins of 70-30 favoring democrats by forty points. Despite making up only ~2% of the US population, they supply the approximately 50% of the donations to the Democratic Party. That's a huge deal- it's entirely factual to say that without jewish donations in American politics, Republicans would lose a quarter of their cash, and democrats would lose half. Money matters in politics- that would basically relegate democrats to a rump party. Many of those in prominent positions who support democrats and woke politics are jews- for instance, Wolf Blitzer, prominent CNN anchor, is a jew, as is the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker. The NYT is owned by the descendents of Adolph Ochs, primarily the Sulzberger family, including their publisher who are jews. Alicia Garza, one of the three founders of BLM, is a jew. George Soros, the billionaire behind the Open Society Foundation which lobbies to bring endless violent refugees into Europe, and contributor to Hope Not Hate, which seeks to dox anyone who opposes this, is a jew. Perhaps the most famous and memorable of the lot, Jeffrey Epstein, who had many connections to prominent democrats including the Clintons, and is generally believed to have been part of a ring of rich and influential pedophiles, was also a jew, as is Ghislaine Maxwell.

Additionally, on the other side, it is notable that of the prominent jews that are on the right in the US, many of them were deeply involved with the neoconservative movement, such as Bill Kristol and Max Boot. Additionally, several of the prominent people who those on the right felt was giving Trump bad advice are jews, most notably Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump (Ivanka is not ethnically jewish but converted). Sheldon Adelson, the GOP/Trump megadonor who celebrated someone who stole US secrets on behalf of a foreign nation, is also a jew.

If your central moral principle is opposition to "anti-semitism" then you will always lose, as will any right-wing movement or group that bases itself around this, not necessarily even because this is an essential part of the question but merely because if you are on the right, (even the spineless, toothless version) you are then opposing the preferences of a supermajority of jews, you are opposing the revealed prefernces-in-donations of a supermajority of jews, and you are opposing the preferences of a significant number of influential jews. So the people you are in opposition to are going to be disproportionately jews. Since the people who care a lot about what is and isn't "anti-semitic" are going to generally defer to what jews think is and isn't "anti-semitic." It's like having the guiding moral principle of your party by "anti-racism" when ~80% of blacks are against you. This goes double for anyone who is a nationalist, since many of the more prominent jews on the right are also against you. The standard response to this (since ~Buckley's time) has been to ever-more-aggressively attack anything and anyone on your own side that could be construed as anti-semitic, in order to "prove" this wrong, but unless this actually succeeds in shifting the political alignment of most jews, this is doesn't work in altering that, and it doesn't appear to succeed. It also makes you look like a huge loser because keep conspicuously trying to get with people who want nothing to do with you. And since nobody wants to back a loser, this makes you into even more of a loser.

Let's go back to MTG's remarks that were supposedly "anti-semitic" the aspect that was anti-semitic was that she connected a rather implausible theory about how the wildfire's in California started, and said they benefitted PG&E, Solaren and Rothschild Incorporated. Because "Rothschild" is a jewish name, this was "anti-semitic." Sure, it's kooky. PG&E were found liable for the fires, and Solaren is a start up that does appear to be trying to sell the idea of space-based solar panels, however they do not appear to have ever successfully produced any power and their design called for transmitting the power via radiowaves. But is it "anti-semitic?" Have you ever said that Soros was behind something? Like, for instance, say you think that Soros is behind backing weak-on-crime DAs in a number of cities, which has the effect of increasing crime? Well, "Soros" is a jewish name too.
I'm not against opposing individual Jews. I despise a lot of left wing Jews for helping to ruin our country, much like I despise plenty of anglo-saxons for the same reason. I am however against opposing people because they are a Jew. There is a difference between these views despite what the left says.

I admit that the left uses the charges of anti-semitism to silence any opposition and that anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. And if you look at my previous comments you will see that I did not say that Greene was an anti-semite. I said that it was a possibility, and that it should be determined by what she says and does rather than what the media says about her.

Not being bigoted against Jews does not mean that I have to agree with the majority of them. I don't care that most Jews in America probably think that the definition of anti-semitism is being to the right of John McCain. My central moral principal is belief in the word of God as written in the Bible and I do as such believe that all races are equal before God, including Jews.
 

DarthOne

☦️
I'm not against opposing individual Jews. I despise a lot of left wing Jews for helping to ruin our country, much like I despise plenty of anglo-saxons for the same reason. I am however against opposing people because they are a Jew. There is a difference between these views despite what the left says.

I admit that the left uses the charges of anti-semitism to silence any opposition and that anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. And if you look at my previous comments you will see that I did not say that Greene was an anti-semite. I said that it was a possibility, and that it should be determined by what she says and does rather than what the media says about her.

Not being bigoted against Jews does not mean that I have to agree with the majority of them. I don't care that most Jews in America probably think that the definition of anti-semitism is being to the right of John McCain. My central moral principal is belief in the word of God as written in the Bible and I do as such believe that all races are equal before God, including Jews.
Exactly this, all the way. No group is without its unpleasant people, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. And just being part of a group should not be blanket protection from criticism.

Best advice I can give anyone accused of any sort of 'ism' is to, truthfully, give a puzzled reaction along the lines of 'what does their race/religion have to do with anything?' Along with probably pointing out that they are the first ones who brought up their race etc.


edit- cleaned up
 
Last edited:

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
It took many decades for that to happen, and in the last 2 decades hispanics have gone more towards blue voting, not less. There's also the fact that so many of them have come into the country illegally, whereas the Italians and the Irish didn't.
Was it even possible for the Irish to immigrate illegally?
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Yes. I think the white only immigration laws passed by our founding fathers were still in place at the time so they could come here and be citizens.
I'm only aware of naturalization laws that early in our history. What immigration laws are you referring to? Also I don't understand why you said "yes".
 

ReggieLedoux

Well-known member
Yes. I think the white only immigration laws passed by our founding fathers were still in place at the time so they could come here and be citizens.
The Irish were not considered white at the time, that's very much a later invention. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, since little thing called the slave trade was going on at the time which I suppose technically counts as legal immigration.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
The Irish were not considered white at the time, that's very much a later invention.

Do you have any evidence of this claim? Sure, there was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment at the time, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they were not considered White or were considered coloured at any point in American history.
 

ReggieLedoux

Well-known member
Do you have any evidence of this claim? Sure, there was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment at the time, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they were not considered White or were considered coloured at any point in American history.
Books at the time:

General historical agreement, including mentioning common sentiments held at the time:


This is pretty funny in a really kind of sad way:
.A quip, attributed to an African-American, went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.”
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Do you have any evidence of this claim? Sure, there was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment at the time, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they were not considered White or were considered coloured at any point in American history.
The Irish weren't considered 'white' until JFK.

Before that most Catholic heavy populations were seen as more loyal to the Pope and not 'true white people' by the WASPs.

In places with small black populations, or if they couldn't find blacks to harass, the Klan often went after Catholics as well.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Books at the time:

Do you have a page listing for where the claim is made or where the Irish are discussed, so I don't have to read a 334 page book to see if your claim is accurate?

General historical agreement, including mentioning common sentiments held at the time:

There's nothing in this suggesting Irish weren't considered White. The author uses the fact that they faced anti-Irish sentiment to say that they were basically not considered White, but this isn't the same thing.

In the census of 1850, the term “mulatto” appears for the first time, due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African-Americans.

This line itself disproves the claim you're making tbh. A new term was added to the census, "mulatto" in order to distinguish mixed people from either black or White. They did not at any point add a term "Irish" or, best as I can tell, any umbrella term for Irish and any other groups.

A joke is not evidence here. It's not about whether they ever got called "bog******" or something. Your claim was in response to discussion of the language used in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795. "White" here is thus a legal term. Is there any evidence they were ever legal considered nonwhite, i.e. could not be naturalized because they were not legally considered "free White persons?"

The Irish weren't considered 'white' until JFK.

What did they mark on the census, then?
 
Last edited:

LindyAF

Well-known member
I'm only aware of naturalization laws that early in our history.

There were immigration laws (at least per wikipedia) but they were on a by-state basis, so different states had different immigration laws. I haven't found anything on what different state immigration laws included though, so I don't know how permissive or restrictive they were, but I assume that since they did exist it would have been at least possible to violate them.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
I'm only aware of naturalization laws that early in our history. What immigration laws are you referring to? Also I don't understand why you said "yes".
It was possible for the Irish to immigrate legally, and I was referring to the immigration act of 1790 and the few updates that came after and kept it mostly the same
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
The Irish were not considered white at the time, that's very much a later invention. I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about, since little thing called the slave trade was going on at the time which I suppose technically counts as legal immigration.
Irish/Italians weren’t white is a meme that I have seen zero evidence that it is true. The immigration act of 1790 passed by our founding fathers only allowed whites to immigrate and be citizens. The slave trade was legally shipping goods not immigration.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
What did they mark on the census, then?
Just because the marked it on the census doesn't mean they were seen that way by the WASPs and certain Brit/Scot influenced groups.

The Irish were seen as expendable, and actually were sold as 'indentured servants' in a lot of the English speaking world, not just the US, or forced into wage-slavery in company towns alongside blacks.

I mean, for a long time black slaves sold for a higher price than Irish ones, who were mostly trying to escape the potato famine and British oppression. TheIrish of the day often were weaker than some African soldier who was on the losing side of a battle and got sold into slavery by the victors, or some poor sod who was born on a plantation and worked the fields his whole life.

The whole 'white identity' only came into existence to support the laws surrounding slavery in the US, while trying to erase the real differences between different ethnic backgrounds coming out of the nations that were settling the US.

The slavers wanted the issue to be seen as a 'all white person issue' to force the North's laws to abide their bullshit. The slavers wanted the issue to revolve around phenotype/skin pigmentation based bullshit to justify keeping slaves based on race and the 'One Drop Rule' laws/customs. The slavers wanted the poor Irish servants to feel like the blacks were the enemy, not their brothers in servitude and potential allies against the ruling plantation class.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
The Irish were seen as expendable, and actually were sold as 'indentured servants' in a lot of the English speaking world, not just the US, or forced into wage-slavery in company towns alongside blacks.
indentured servants were voluntary contracts made to be a slave temporarily in exchange for passage to the new world and weren’t Irish exclusive.

@ReggieLedoux ”Albanians have a foreign religion and customs and I do not wish to see them in this nation” also “Albanians are white”. These aren’t mutually exclusive things, and all the “Irish weren’t white” literature I see just says “well Irish were discriminated against so they weren’t seen as white”. You could see both as white and still discriminate lol. All of this is mostly nonsense made up to make it seem like race isn’t real or it’s just a social construct.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
The whole 'white identity' only came into existence to support the laws surrounding slavery in the US, while trying to erase the real differences between different ethnic backgrounds coming out of the nations that were settling the US.
Not fucking true at all.
“Free white persons of good character can become citizens” unless you think that Washington was one of these men, because he signed the bill, and because that congress was made up entirely of men who founded this nation. So that wouldn’t be so much the “slavers” but virtually the entirety of the people who created this country.
 
Last edited:

ReggieLedoux

Well-known member
@ReggieLedoux ”Albanians have foreign religion and customs and I do not wish to see them in this nation” also “Albanians are white” these aren’t mutually exclusive things, and all the “Irish weren’t white” literature I see just says “well Irish were discriminated against so they weren’t seen as white”. You could see both as white and still discriminate lol. All of this is mostly nonsense made up to make it seem like race isn’t real or it’s just a social construct.
No, but "The Irish are subhuman animals and we'd be better off without them" isn't exactly seeing them as part of the same ethnic group or race. Or species. Look at the Potato Famine and Trevalyn's deliberate and malicious response to it, enough to quite reasonably call it a genocide. And I mean, just cause something is a social construct doesn't mean it's false or anything. Money is a social construct made by people, I still go to work from fucking 7:30 till 17:00.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top