Thursday, February 01, 2018

Orwellian illegalities

Steve Sailer recently called out the fake news Washington Post on attempting to retcon the history of the vocabulary used to describe those illegally present in the country.

Ever since our elites legislatively opened the third-world floodgates in the sixties, we've had "chain migration", not "family reunification". We've had "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens", not "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented workers".

The midwits speaking power to truth in propaganda outlets owned by Jeff Bezos and Carlos Slim indefatigably try to obfuscate this reality, but they cannot alter it.

Steve showed this to be the case in the literature using Ngram viewer.

The story is the same among the populares. Internet search volume since 2004 in the US, from Trends:


"Illegal" (combined search volume index score of 41) garners over an order of magnitude more interest than "undocumented" (combined search volume index score of 3) does.

Is there any aspect of the immigration debate where fake news isn't actively engaged in retconning? Tell a lie repetitiously enough, and...

7 comments:

Kentucky Headhunter said...

I'm not a "drug dealer", I'm an "undocumented pharmacist".

The Z Blog said...

I'm not sure there is any debate in which the Left is not recasting history and redefining commonly understood words. The other day I pointed out how the Left will carry on like racism and sexism have been great sins since the dawn of time, yet hardly anyone used these words until the 1960's. http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12628

The usual game is to replace one word they don't like, because it has a narrow, independently verifiable definition, with another word that has a broad disputable definition. Replacing "sex" with "gender" is the best example. The former is a matter of biological reality and cannot be debated. The latter can mean anything you want. Thus we have people claiming a man in a sundress is a third "gender."

This form of argument often follows a formal set of steps. First the definition of a commonly understood word is expanded to include things formerly excluded. Gender, for example, was never applied to mammals. It was a word used in linguistics to describe the social aspects of words. They expanded the use of gender to include humans so now we have gender meaning human sexes and human sex roles in society. The final step is then to contract the definition to exclude the original meaning, which in this case means biological sex.

They are working hard to do the same trick with race, ethnicity, nationality, nation and citizenship. These are all words with different meanings, but they are conflating them in order to blur the meanings of them. If nationality is just where you were born, then race is a social construct. That sort of thing.

Black Death said...

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 repeatedly uses "illegal aliens." If anyone objects to its use, just say it's the statutory language.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The left constantly has to retcon because today's liberals are tomorrow's nazis

Audacious Epigone said...

Kentucky,

The applications are endless!

Z,

Touche.

We're most sensitive to the things we know best, and they're the least sensitive to things most people don't know much about, so it's especially salient wrt immigration, but it's standard practice on every front.

Black Death,

Exactly.

Random Dude,

Was talking to a couple people tonight about the Simpsons. One guy watched a new episode recently and confirmed what I knew had to be the case by now--the running gag about Smithers' unrequited gay love for Burns is no longer. The Simpsons of the 90s, a center-left satirical take on suburban American life is now too -obic and -ist to pass muster today. Saw somewhere a poll showing XX% of millennials, when shown a couple episodes of Friends, said the show was transphobic.

Feryl said...

The trans thing is a moral panic. It will pass eventually.

During PC spikes, we see moral panics about isms. In the late 60's, many people believed that blacks were beaten severely by bigoted whites on a regular basis. In the mid 90's, people thought the rain forest was almost gone and they "felt" (hallucinated) that hetero goons were regularly bashing gays (in fact, most violence in the gay community is gay on gay, not unlike black violence mostly being black on black).

These days there's hysteria about Rightist mobs terrorizing anyone who isn't a white male hetero.....Even as said population has declined (below majority status in two of the biggest states) and sometimes raw and even violent hostility by Leftists and non-whites is tacitly permitted by the media, an entire political party (the Dems), and much of academia

Now compare these PC periods to conservative periods. In the 1950's/very early 60's, it was taboo to bash authority and traditional morals. In the 1980's, people saw satanic cults and child molesters everywhere. Since conservatives prize order, we tend to think of the 50's and 80's as being periods that are politically low-key.....People are more relaxed, and less likely to rant and rave, or riot in anxiety/rage/frustration.

Telling confused and immature young people that the establishment, or older generations, is stupid/out-dated/corrupt/cruel, is not always a particularly great idea. Over-promising has it's risks, too; periodically the Left along with a Dem president will claim that we can solve world hunger or whatever, escape a bad past, etc. But again, they're filling naive young people with questionable ideas instead of telling them that life isn't fair and that they need to suck it up and not always expect to be rescued. Jimmy Carter's era was marked by apathy towards politics, and I suspect it's because he told people to be more realistic, which alienated college kids. And alienated Leftist ideologues who wanted the late 60's to last forever. Already by the late 80's another activist spike was brewing, then boiled over in the early 90's as both Right and Left hated George Bush. But Clinton was another realist Democrat, and signs of visible political consternation subsided by the time he won office again in 1996 (1996 was an all-time low in youth voter turnout).

Obama however, is the biggest Left activist ever elected to office. He's the biggest destroyer of civic well-being since LBJ.....And he's still at it. Obama, more so than any president before, is still acting like a partisan warrior after he left office. Traditionally, presidents are supposed to fade into the background and be ceremonial after leaving office. Not Obama, though. Even GW Bush has said repeatedly that it's not his job to judge or question subsequent presidents.

BTW, isn't Trump a cause of unrest? Well yes, he is....But that says more about the era created by Obama than it does about Trump. Trump thus far has not been dissimilar from a typical GOP president, and he certainly has yet to go as far as Eisenhower did in "laying down the law"; hell he hasn't even done some Waco style thing like Clinton's FBI/ATF did. It just so happens though that Trump came along during a PC period, and none other than Trump promised to not give a shit about PC, and that's why he gets a rise out of people.

Feryl said...

Reading about comment sections disappearing, I saw some quotes from the 2000's in which the Left was idealistic about greater communication opportunities. But the Obama era (certainly the later part of it) soured the Left on having any good feelings about anything, and the PC spike has made them hysterically neurotic and paranoid about anyone who goes off-script. It's typical moral panic stuff, though in the midst of a moral panic most people don't have the self-awareness or knowledge to realize that society periodically goes through cycles of hysteria.