ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

NYT cheers Muslim rule in America

Of course, the U.S. may already have a Muslim president, what with Obama talking about his Muslim faith and all. But the U.S. already faces significant future challenges with the post-1965 invasions; the new Muslim and Asian invasions only adds a violent complication to the inevitable collapse and civil war:
The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is drawing criticism over the bigoted comments he has been making recently about Muslims. It is well deserved, and is not a matter of “P.C. culture,” as Mr. Carson has claimed. Nor does Mr. Carson represent some minor fringe element in the Republican Party.

This latest sordid mess to arise from the G.O.P. nomination contest touches on bedrock American values, constitutional principles and American history. It reflects a pernicious habit among the leaders of the Republican Party to play with fire by pandering to an angry, disaffected and heavily white base by demonizing selected minorities. Muslims are just the current target.

Mr. Carson declared Sunday on ”Meet the Press” that Muslims are unfit to run for president because a president’s faith should be “consistent with the Constitution.” Later, he told the newspaper The Hill that Islamic Shariah law isn’t consistent with the Constitution because “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Leave aside for a moment the unintentionally funny spectacle of a member of the current Republican Party declaring that religion should be kept out of public life, and that Mr. Carson, as an African-American, is a member of a much belittled minority. The freedom of religion embedded in the First Amendment rules out the very idea of a religious test for public office, as John F. Kennedy so eloquently argued and then proved by becoming the first Catholic president.

As for Shariah law, Catholicism has canon law and Judaism has the Halakha and nobody is painting them as threats to the republic — at least not this year.... Anti-Muslim sentiment is playing out in the refugee crisis caused by hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Muslims, fleeing wars in the Middle East. The United States recently agreed to take an additional 30,000 refugees per year by 2017, but some conservatives are objecting, claiming they will provide a recruiting pool for radicals. Closing the country’s doors to Muslims would buy into Mr. Carson and Mr. Trump’s vilification and dishonor the thousands of Muslims who have joined Irish, Italians, Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Latinos, Africans and many others in becoming honorable citizens and perhaps, one day, president.
Never mind that those Irish, Italians, Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Latinos, and Africans have already completely destroyed what was once a predominantly English nation with English values. None - none - of the other immigrants ever fully grasped the English concept of limited government, which is why they transformed what had been a voluntary association into an empire held together by force in 1860.

What is happening in the EU is what has already happened in the USA, it's just that the changes are too large scale for most people to understand what has taken place. Like the EU, the United States was a diverse empire of different nations that were nevertheless sufficiently similar to function as a single political entity. The one exception were the blacks, but they were too few and too inept to blow things up.

The influx of Hispanics, Africans, and Asians guaranteed the end of the United States just as the influx of Africans and Middle Easterners guarantees the end of the European Union. What is happening in the EU is a magnified version of what has already happened in the USA, because the space is smaller, nationalism is stronger, the populations are more homogenous, and the speed of the invasion is greater. But it's the same thing in both cases, and the same end result is inevitable.

Diversity+Proximity=War. For all the protests of the New York Times, the Republicans aren't going anywhere nearly far enough.

Labels:

150 Comments:

Blogger epobirs September 23, 2015 4:23 AM  

It didn't help that a lot of the English couldn't wrap their head around limited government either. It seems to be a mutation that keeps cropping up but doesn't get enough reinforcement to take. Us small government types are the real X-men of the planet, hunted and hated by a world we're trying to save in spite of itself.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 4:31 AM  

It does seem a bit ironic that people who grasp that the Syrians invading Europe and the Hispanics, Chinese, Indians, and Africans invading the USA in pursuit of economic opportunity don't seem to understand that the Irish, Italians, second-wave Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, and Jews, did not come to America because they subscribed to the Rights of Englishmen, but for the same reason that the current invaders do.

Every wave of immigrants has contributed to the weakening of the Constitution. They haven't strengthened America, they have collectively killed it.

Blogger Chris September 23, 2015 4:48 AM  

The Pope is essentially proving the know nothings correct as we speak, and all the descendants of the ethnic Catholics from a century ago are complaining about the results of their fathers' policies. One may argue that Catholicism is true and the constitution is false or vice versa, but to pretend that the Catholic view of government is compatible with a 18th century English notions of limited government is absurd.

Blogger James Dixon September 23, 2015 5:24 AM  

> Leave aside for a moment the unintentionally funny spectacle of a member of the current Republican Party declaring that religion should be kept out of public life

But when it's Christianity and Kim Davis, the NYT is more than willing to make that argument, aren't they? So for the NYT, any religion is allowed in public life; except Christianity.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 23, 2015 5:52 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 23, 2015 5:53 AM  

The really tragic part of this article is that even though the NYT keeps calling every conservative in America a racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist white male of whitey whiteness.

Every mainstream Republican would still crawl on his belly over a mile of acid coated ground glass for one favorable paragraph from the paper of record.

I've voted Republican all my life and now the name itself sets my teeth on edge. It's that brand damaged.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 23, 2015 5:53 AM  

It's funny to see Carson trying to use Trump's anti-PC rhetoric, when he's only in the race because of PC. Not gonna work.

You can have Catholic limited government, but it's true that it wouldn't look like the American secular version. It'd probably be a limited monarchy similar to many in the Middle Ages. (A Catholic republic is probably an oxymoron.) Any constitution would have more religious restrictions baked into it, but that'd be okay, because they'd be things any Catholic would support anyway. Their main purpose would be to keep anti-Catholic entryists from gaining a foothold, which I think we can all support.

Don't look to Francis for ideas on that, though, because he's a globalist whose views on government are indistinguishable from Obama's, Cameron's, or Merkel's. Ask Aquinas or Dante.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 September 23, 2015 6:19 AM  

Cail, your example of a Catholic form of limited government is staring you in the face given that this year is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. It wasn't perfect and the attacks on its liberties started right away, but it is a remarkable document whose concept of liberty stands the test of time very well.

Of course, it's also a very English document as well. I don't see its like occurring in any other Catholic nation.

Blogger chris September 23, 2015 6:20 AM  

@7 Cail, I agree it would not be the American republic but more like either a monarchy with limits or a republic with limited franchise. The Catholics had the serene republics of Florence and Venice, the reformed had Geneva. (And the Swiss federation had both).

The US constitution falls out of the Scottish Enlightenment. It does not follow either the English way (which is the King-in-parliament is sovereign) or the Catholic ideas of Subsidiary systems (sorry spelling)

The Reformed want something more like Cromwell, who (though Kratman would deny this) is a model for Careera in Kratman's Nova Terra series.

Blogger Joe A. September 23, 2015 6:43 AM  

Carson's comments were so tame that I am surprised they're getting any press.

Blogger Sherwood family September 23, 2015 6:43 AM  

Carson's description of the problem, at least as reported, was not very helpful. He made an assertion and then provided no evidence to support it. If you want to make a statement that includes excluding a group of people from holding office based upon adherence to a religion you've got to couch it in terms that people can understand.

People get that in the U.S. you don't vote for card carrying Fascists during WWII or card carrying Communists during the Cold War. Sure, you want to go to party meetings and talk about the Vaterland/Lebensraum or the Workers of the World uniting, by all means, but we are not going to vote in a group of people with supremacist ideologies that do not mesh with a constitutional republic.

You've got to make the same case by showing (and you will have to demonstrate carefully) that Sharia law is the same kind of supremacist ideology married to a set of supernatural beliefs. America has no beef with private supernatural beliefs but the supremacist ideology is something we cannot accept and which we won't allow into public office except in the cases of a few kooks here or there.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 23, 2015 6:50 AM  

Stilicho, right, we do have examples. I think most Americans (including me until a few years ago) have a very narrow view of monarchy, mostly based on Henry VIII and George III. We weren't taught -- not even (especially?) in Catholic school -- about all the kings and queens who ruled quietly and nobly over the centuries, some of whom became saints.

I should be clear: I wouldn't turn America into a Catholic monarchy even if I could. Catholic rule over an 80% non-Catholic population wouldn't make any more sense than Muslim rule (though it'd be kinder). I'm just dreaming about what could be done in some corner of the former American republic after it breaks up. Like maybe a 10-mile square around my house.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 6:53 AM  

Cynical bastards created this information to take support from Trump. My WAG as soon as this blip wears off Carson will belly crawl in front of the press.

But conservatives always fall for "issues" it allows them to show and tell how much they know and how smart they are to people who could care less.

PC must fall and we must regain free speech, then you can play with "issues" and then perhaps even solve them.

Blogger J Curtis September 23, 2015 6:59 AM  

This was an example of rhetoric that I employed recently.
A SJW would immediately defend Islam in an online forum after Carson's remarks.
Point out to the SJW that the prophet Mohammad referred to blacks as 'raisins' and said it was understandable to withhold medical attention to them.
One could then put them in the uncomfortable position of asking them why they defend such racist hate and inquire why they dislike blacks.
A good follow up would then be to ask the overall level of acceptance re: gay marriage in the Muslim world as opposed to western democracies.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 7:05 AM  

I dont even see what is so wrong about Carson's statements.

I mean, ok, the assumption that any Muzzie is down with Sharia is probably a massive stretch, however, any normal American should prefer an America that won't have a Muslims president in the next 3 centuries.

If the situation changes in that timeframe, as in, Muslims become a relatively harmless minority like Catholics are now, it might become irrelevant enough to not care.

But as of now? LOL.

Blogger RC September 23, 2015 7:17 AM  

Though there are many other options that would serve the same purpose, were it possible, a video of Constantinople on May 29, 1453 and its aftermath would disabuse any sane man of the reckless and self-destructive views of the fools at the NYT. Is it not a sin to commit suicide?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 7:18 AM  

Any group that accepts PC protection seemingly turns to crap, with perhaps the possible exception of Jews, but then they kind of self inoculate against that problem.

Myself not being the stereotypical nice Ned Flanderscon would prefer instead to throw our new muslim overlords in a cage with our current overlords the SJW and let them fight.

And reading this morning, of course our man Trump is masterfully avoiding theological debates which so excites our aspie brethren and instead just saying no Syrian refugees.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 7:22 AM  

Last post promise, I think I have a idea that can be fleshed out that will help fumigate the SJW from orgs needing to be redeemed.

The SJW must continually be badgered to explicitly state what or what cannot be said and that the SJW must be highlighted as the thought police, no hiding behind phony authority like women love to do.

Blogger darrenl September 23, 2015 7:24 AM  

So put down this reporter as a voter of a Muslim presidential candidate who supports Shariah law.

Next!!!

Blogger Daniel September 23, 2015 7:33 AM  

I am totally unsurprised to see the NY Times endorse Carson in this way, as they really hate Trump.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 7:39 AM  

I don't understand the apparent claim of superiority of English culture. We had this nasty revolution and war of 1812 to get away from that culture and centralized government. The Germanic, Highland Shepherd, Jewish, Dutch, native American, Slavic (here in PA),other European, and slave cultures were all critical in the formation of the limited government of the time. Perhaps the biggest factor allowing limited government was the lack of communication and slow transportation of the time.

The USA now has very good communication and transportation. That makes it much more likely that a person who feels superior can rally support and impose their taxes, laws, and SJW will on other people. It may be that modern communication had more to do with the change from limited government to our present socialist mess.

And let's look at those immigrants. The "rice cultures" were an incredible boost to California. The amazing work ethic of the Asians was a primary driver in many of California's accomplishments. They are still so renowned that they are heavily discriminated against in college admissions.

VD, you are a mutt like I am. I have grandkids that can check the box for black, white, Asian, native American, and Hispanic. I understand the fear of being overrun by other cultures. But the many cultures are what made America what it is.

I guess I just don't understand the claims that the English Culture made for a superior America that is being destroyed by immigration by "Irish, Italians, Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Latinos, and Africans". It was the original combination of those that made America what it was during a period of relative isolation of town, village, and state.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 7:45 AM  

I guess I should have made it clear. I am in favor of controlled borders. I think making immigrants ineligible for any welfare assistance would solve the immigrant problem. I also think all H1B's should immediately become green cards, which would make the debate about bringing in people who take over technical jobs much more honest.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 23, 2015 7:50 AM  

I don't understand the apparent claim of superiority of English culture.

Nor did you see one here. You saw a claim that the English had a superior concept of limited government, which other peoples don't appreciate (or perhaps even understand). Why did you extrapolate that to all of "culture"?

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 7:52 AM  

1) It's interesting to see that the NYT wasn't nearly as bothered by the fac—I think they were kind of giddy about it—that Mitt Romney's Mormon faith was a challenge to his success with the Republican party. But when it's a totally hypothetical Muslim candidate, suddenly religious blinders are a "bedrock value" of Americanism? Did this author somehow miss the whole story of the settlement of America, by the way?

2) English culture is great and all, and the rights of Englishmen (even when championed and applied to the Dutch and Low German settlers of the Midlands) are nice, but the East Anglian Puritan group that made up the core of the Yankee Nation were always proto-totalitarians. Even before the Revolution, and certainly right after it, they were all for using the government to score themselves free benefits at the expense of everyone else. That's what the whole Whiskey Rebellion was about, among other early domestic crises. I think it would be very difficult to claim that many of the later specifically western European immigrants that came during the 1800s and early 1900s were any less amenable to the whole Rights of Englishmen and limited government idea than the Yankees were from the very beginning anyway. The whole point of the Puritan settlers was to establish their communal utopia in the Colonies, after all.

If you want to make a case that the Borderlanders and their successors in what is now today's South and West are the only "true" Americans who really get the American dream—I wouldn't argue against that really, although it would be hard to make the case that without the Yankees we'd have anything like the America that we have today. Rather; I think it's most likely that the American dream was always an ephemeral dream to begin with, one that's difficult to hold on to with or without immigration. Most people don't really want freedom, wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it, and are afraid of it anyway. They want a strong leader to lead them. Sadly.

3) As for the notion of a Catholic benign monarchy, I think that all Christians—Catholic or otherwise—who understand their doctrine understand that one of the whole points of the religion is that earthly, temporal authority is fleeting and that we look forward to the establishment of the perfectly benign divine reign of Christ, of course. While this can and often does lead to the idea of rather loose rule on earth, since all earthly kings and/or rulers are merely regents at best, it also means that the Constitutional republic of America was always a means to an end, not a permanent state of affairs.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 7:55 AM  

The Germanic, Highland Shepherd, Jewish, Dutch, native American, Slavic (here in PA),other European, and slave cultures were all critical in the formation of the limited government of the time.

No, they were most certainly not. You have clearly never read the work of the Founding Fathers, nearly all of whom were Englishmen.

But the many cultures are what made America what it is.

Exactly. They turned a functioning limited-government voluntary society that did not interfere in foreign affairs into a world-spanning empire ruling by force and occupying dozens of foreign countries that is on the verge of economic and political collapse.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 7:57 AM  

With the post-1965 invasions, the new Muslim and Asian invasions only adds a violent complication to the inevitable collapse and civil war....

Anyone who seeing such a calamity approaching---especially those with long time-horizons---would plan accordingly. But how? What would actions now would give the best chance to survive such a dystopian future?

Blogger Salt September 23, 2015 7:58 AM  

I don't understand the apparent claim of superiority of English culture.

English culture allowed for the train of thought which resulted in the orgination of, and subsequent revolution, of the colonies.

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery September 23, 2015 7:58 AM  

DadofTen - are you really a father of ten? (As opposed to DadofTen being your Borg identifier, I suppose).

If so, that is awesome. If I had the time, I'd father a thousand sons, like The Chairman from the Grimnoir Chronicles.

And let's look at those immigrants. The "rice cultures" were an incredible boost to California. The amazing work ethic of the Asians was a primary driver in many of California's accomplishments.

This is a romantical view indeed. They were cheap labour, and widely despised by Americans at the time, because they didn't want their country to look like the fleshpots of Asia.

The US doesn't really need cheap labour any more. You have - what? - 9 million unemployed? Tons of graduates struggling to find work that pays well enough to service their student loans?

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 7:59 AM  

I think it would be very difficult to claim that many of the later specifically western European immigrants that came during the 1800s and early 1900s were any less amenable to the whole Rights of Englishmen and limited government idea than the Yankees were from the very beginning anyway.

You could certainly argue that the Pilgrim-Yankees didn't really get it, although they did fight at Lexington and Concord. But you can't argue that the later immigrants did. They had no tradition of it and at the first opportunity, they agitated for more and stronger central governments. Believe me, I grew up in Minnesota with the only ruling Labor party in the nation. Scandinavians have never, ever, understood the concept of limited government.

They are an intrinsically decent people who have absolutely no grasp that everyone else isn't just like them and isn't inclined to abuse power if given the opportunity.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 8:00 AM  

What would actions now would give the best chance to survive such a dystopian future?

Go live near people like you and make your community as self-sufficient as possible.

Blogger Stingray September 23, 2015 8:21 AM  

Trump has begun to influence the other Republican candidates. Because winning. That was fast.

Blogger Cail Corishev September 23, 2015 8:24 AM  

My understanding of the US founding is that a minority of the English settlers wanted independence and were willing to fight for it. So the Founders were a self-selected subset of the self-selected subset of English who had left for the wilderness in the first place. It's no surprise that they were for limited government, but I don't know how much that reflects on the "English" in general.

I'm thinking of this in the context of the other conversation about how English and Germans react the same way to being cornered because they're Saxon cousins. So are they really that different, or did coming to the US at different times and in different circumstances select for different subsets?

There's no question that my German-American family and friends are too trusting of the state and anyone else in officialdom (frustratingly so). But is that a German thing that sets them apart from the English, or is it because the Germans who came over were not adventurers heading for wilderness, but farmers and other settlers looking for a place like home?

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 8:25 AM  

You could certainly argue that the Pilgrim-Yankees didn't really get it, although they did fight at Lexington and Concord.

And then promptly formed the Federalist party, abandoned the basic Revolutionary practice of taxation without representation to bilk frontiersmen with the Whiskey Tax, and tried to set up mercantile protectionism and corporation welfare and cronyism, etc.

Like I said, we wouldn't have had America without them, but I'd almost rather have the Scandinavians at this point. At least they aren't trying to aggressively push their cultural values on everyone else while simultaneously use the force of arms inherent in the government to rob everyone else blind. Scandinavians in Minnesota didn't set up the multi-national Empire started by maneuvering otherwise decent people into invading and occupying otherwise friendly territory to fleece and exploit it for your own coffers. Yankees did that.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 8:37 AM  

@28 Unlike the Chairman, I have raised all 10 with one amazing wife. Though we have only had all 10 together on 2 occasions for a week.

On the "rice culture" folks. They are still a major driving force in CA. They were great as cheap labor, but quickly took economic leadership roles. Kind of like the indentured Europeans.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 8:43 AM  

I don't know how much that reflects on the "English" in general.

That's because you have not read the relevant writings of the Englishmen in question. Of course most Englishmen didn't follow the abstract concepts involved, not one in five were capable of doing so. But it was their intellectual heritage, not the Germans, not the Scandinavians, the Irish, the Italians or anyone else.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 8:47 AM  

Any comments on the possibility I raised earlier about transportation and communication driving central government more than immigration? Let mead population density.

When the USA was being settled all the folks most in favor of no government moved along the frontiers like Laura Ingalls Wilder and clan. Regardless of origin they wanted little central government because they got no benefit and had no reliable communication with it. So all the US was originally settle by loners wanting no government, from all nations. Those original settles left an imprint on those who followed and on their descendants.

As later settlers came, communication increased along with the number of people. Transportation and communication finally got to the point that the law could be forced on communities that were big enough to get taxed. SJW's happened because of population density, communication, and transportation. Today you get SJW's even in remote settlements because they CAN call on big brother to come and tell everyone else what to do.

What think ye?

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 8:48 AM  

"English culture allowed for the train of thought which resulted in the orgination of, and subsequent revolution, of the colonies."

On the other hand, England hasn't fared much better than the US over the past couple of centuries. Generally speaking, England has led the way as the West has embraced totalitarianism.

Blogger Phillip George September 23, 2015 8:48 AM  

On the superiority of being British,

It's all about the Coronation Oath Act. of about 1680. The Sovereign promises to reign until Jesus personally comes and protect and defend the Protestant Reformed Religion. British is a theocracy based on the bible and an attempt at "God's will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" It's why the bible is the most printed book in history and why pink covered the globe, and why the sun never set on the British Empire and why the industrial revolution and scientific information explosion took place.
British is just a thin slice of gospel.
It only failed because people forgot God. It isn't just intellectually superior. It's truth. Rudyard Kipling predicted the fall in Recessional.

The only way back is to recreate it. There isn't anything else. Wheels won't be reinvented.
The greatest art, literature, poetry, jurisprudence, statesmanship, etc etc.

British means God's Gospel. But forgot it.





Blogger Durandel Almiras September 23, 2015 8:50 AM  

@32 - I'm curious about the same thing. I'm 3rd generation American, 3/4 Italian, 1/4 Armenian. Of the Italian side, it's north Italian, which is much more Germanic than the south (I'd like to here Vox's take on the genetic lineage of Italy and how that plays out in current politics sometime). I don't know why, but my family is very Saxon in mindset as opposed to our Italian relatives and kinsmen. Same for the Armenians in my family. My family as a whole hates a government that isn't minimal.

By the way, for any Ilk who are American American, because your family has been here for that long, as a 3rd Generationer I agree with Vox' assessment that we are still allied to our mother country. In a war between the USA and Italy, I'd go join Italy even though I have only lived there very briefly in my life. Because they are my people and Italy is our land. And my gratitude for taking in my Armenian side of the family during the Armenian genocide in Turkey isn't enough to surpass kinship.

If I feel that way, what makes these idiots at the New York Traitors think that immigrants and first gen Muslims are going to suddenly turn their backs on their heritage, history and race/ethnities? Something happened to a large segment of Europeans as this mentality has to be a disease.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 8:53 AM  

@35 How many of the Englishmen of the time really knew and believed what those famous writers said? The elites, for sure. But during those times the English were becoming an Empire held together by sword and taxes (not to forget the Maxim gun later on). They had great writers, but my reading of history was that they wanted the biggest, most controlling king possible.

Blogger Rob September 23, 2015 8:55 AM  

As for Shariah law, Catholicism has canon law and Judaism has the Halakha and nobody is painting them as threats to the republic...

This is REALLY REALLY Simple:

Under Catholicism, the rules for us Catholics only applies to Catholics. Non-Catholics don't have to give up meat on Fridays of Lent.

Under Judaism, the rules for Jews only applies to Jews. Non-Jews don't have to give up eating pork.

Under islam, the rules for muslims applies to both muslims and non-muslims. During Ramadan muslims must fast during the day, and non-muslims must also fast during the day. islam isn't a religion, it is a political system. A political system founded by a 7th century, mass-murdering pedophile.

Hell, under Mormonism, the rules for Mormons only applies to Mormons. One can still buy Starbucks coffee in Salt Lake City, Utah!

Blogger Durandel Almiras September 23, 2015 8:56 AM  

@VD - Is localized, small direct democracy the way to go? What about developing a system of government that was structured to eliminate SJW entryism while also forcing the ruling class to be moral, long term oriented, nationalistic and have nobilesse oblige to the people?

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 8:57 AM  

Generally speaking, England has led the way as the West has embraced totalitarianism.

Not even close to true. England has been dragged along into totalitarianism by France and Germany and under false pretenses. There is a reason it still has the pound, and why it is voting on leaving the EU soon.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 September 23, 2015 9:00 AM  

Cail, which German immigrants? There were two great waves: late 1600's which was primarily religious dissenters of various stripes who often moved to or near the frontiers and the mid 1800's wave which is what you seem to be describing (although I would add an unhealthy dose of proto-socialists to this latter group).

Blogger John Wright September 23, 2015 9:00 AM  

It was this bit of rhetoric I thought was particularly stone-deaf to the voice of history:

"As for Shariah law, Catholicism has canon law and Judaism has the Halakha and nobody is painting them as threats to the republic"

Canon law? Really? Does this nitwit have any idea what the relationship was between canon law and common law in England for five centuries, or between canon law and the Code of Justinian for ten? The writer here pretends there is no difference between a set of laws which explicitly separates spiritual and temporal powers into kingdoms and bishoprics, and one which explicitly combines them into a caliphate.

It is akin to an argument saying that the Christian law forbidding forced marriage, polygamy, and keeping harem slaves is the same as Mohammedan law allowing these things.

Black is white, up is down, A is non-A.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey September 23, 2015 9:01 AM  

It's interesting to see VD predict a break-up and civil war. I've been predicting the same for years. It's not difficult to see where this is going. And yet most don't want to think about it.

Blogger John Wright September 23, 2015 9:02 AM  

" (A Catholic republic is probably an oxymoron.) "

Venice?

Blogger Cail Corishev September 23, 2015 9:05 AM  

That's because you have not read the relevant writings of the Englishmen in question.

You're right about that, though it's a lack I intend to remedy.

Sir Kenneth Clark makes an interesting point in his documentary "Civilisation," that while Europe was producing great statues, paintings, and architecture, much of it large-scale, the English excelled more at writing and smaller-scale pursuits. Maybe that goes along with this unique intellectual heritage you're talking about.

OpenID mamcpacma September 23, 2015 9:06 AM  

Decentralized limited government did not originate with the English or the Scotts. It can be traced back to ancient China (the Taoist) and to ancient (pre-kingdom) Israel. The Germanic Anglo Saxons understood it as well as the Iroquois Indians. The Bible, correctly understood, is foundational to limited government.

The concept of Complex Systems and its integration into a social system is the necessary condition for stable societies. The various groups mentioned above had values that supported
vigorous complex systems.

The old Adam is the issue. Too many fallen souls can't recognize that sustainable order in social systems will not be possible when that order is imposed from the top. So when you have religions and/or religious leaders that believe that order is imposed top-down and they can influence the secular world, protect yourself.

By the way, my daughter is going to be teaching economics as an adjunct. I suggested that if she really wanted to help her students, find a way to help them understand self-organizing systems.

Blogger Eric I. Gatera. September 23, 2015 9:17 AM  

This seems incorrect. Ben Carson has come to prerminence because of his anti-PC approach @ the prayer breakast in 2013. It is not a co-opt of Trumpism.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir September 23, 2015 9:20 AM  

@Cail Corishev "My understanding of the US founding is that a minority of the English settlers wanted independence and were willing to fight for it. So the Founders were a self-selected subset of the self-selected subset of English who had left for the wilderness in the first place."

And it wasn't long after the Revolution that the displeasure of the majority--who were never consulted in the first place as to whether or not they wanted to revolt against England--began to surface. Richard Henry Lee, who had actually been a member of the radical cabal that fomented the Revolution, expressed his disillusionment with that which the Revolution had promised vs. the sad reality of that which it had actually produced. In his letter to John Lamb he said that it was "really astonishing that the same people, who have just emerged from a long and cruel war in defense of liberty, should now agree to fix an elective despotism upon themselves and their posterity." (June 27, 1788)

Blogger Stickwick Stapers September 23, 2015 9:23 AM  

VD: ...the Irish, Italians, second-wave Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, and Jews, did not come to America because they subscribed to the Rights of Englishmen, but for the same reason that the current invaders do.

I had long thought Scandinavians were just a notch below the English in terms of the qualities that make a nation vital and prosperous. After all, Sweden was the second country to industrialize after England, and the early Swedes who came to America were conservative and Christian. I couldn't square that with how deeply leftist American Scandinavians tended to be until I read that the later wave of Swedish immigrants were socialists who were fleeing political oppression in Sweden (let the irony sink in a bit on that one).

My mother's family came from Granvik to settle in Minnesota as part of that socialist wave. I read a detailed chronicle of my Swedish family's history written by my great-aunt, who described how the family had shed its Lutheran identity in America to become a bunch of Freethinkers (aka obnoxious atheists). I got the sense this was part of a movement that was taking place in the Scandinavian community at the time.

It's interesting that these people thought America was a safer place to be socialist and atheist than Scandinavia. It's not such a mystery anymore why places like Minnesota and Wisconsin are predominantly leftist.

Blogger JAY WILL September 23, 2015 9:30 AM  

Its not that unlikely that de-stabilizing middle eastern countries, and flooding white Europe with the most incompatible people possible was always the plan. Its far more unlikely that this is an error of judgement by deluded politicians. Jihadism is to be expected and is a price worth paying for the Greater Good of the global utopia.

Just went on the site "Global Goals". Your not white, your not British, your not American, your a global human being. Now suck it up prole while we transfer your wealth to the more deserving while ourselves dodging taxes to pay for our essentials like gas guzzling, climate change producing, little kid killing, private jets. And as we increase our private security, build higher private property walls, we will decrease national security, smash down backward borders and (force you) to welcome the white privilege checking diversity. Bring on the rape!

If we had real investigative journalists, Global Goals, and all the other "humanitarian" projects would be exposed. But there is utter silence, either they are in on it or more likely too fearful of getting sued the fuck out of.

Whats worst is that its just the way the game has always been played. Part of the game is convincing people that the game isn't actually played this way, in other words you feel/think you are engaged in some sort of honest process but its BS. If I can get you to be honest and open you are more exploitable. Proles are taught to believe that lying is wrong etc, the leader classes know that lying and deception are essential tools of governance and power. Deltas are exploitable by alphas and gammas for this reason. An unholy alliance currently of alphas and gammas, the alpha empowers the sneaky lying gamma (gollum) to do his bigger picture deeds.

Think of it like a poker game. You are led to believe you are 9 individuals competing on a level playing field. But 3 of the field are the same person, they have tracking software, they talk to you like your friends but YOU are the mark, you are the fish.

I can at times feel very superior to deltas, who are actually objectively superior to me in most ways. There is a decency I see in a lot of them that I don't possess. That decency in poker terms is a leak, the "refugee" senses it the powerful senses it. The honest decent lefty just wishes the world would be run by other deltas, it never will be. The decent delta would tell the other poker players that they are being shafted and fuck his own edge up.

This is why the greatest man of all is the freewheeling winner, he's that good, that competent that he can be like a delta in spirit, be nice, friendly, polite. He can win without deception and skulduggery. Cheaters are rightly hated because they fuck the game up, but cheating is too profitable in poker and in life to ever be got rid of.

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 9:31 AM  

England's embrace of totalitarianism dates much farther back than the formation of the EU. It implemented widespread gun control before the US did and has some of the most draconian gun control laws in Europe. A broad range of speech there is criminalized, much more so than the US. Prior to 1860, theirs was also an empire held together by force. Its people voted for politicians who liberalized its immigration laws, just as was done in the US. And in the past couple of decades England has wholeheartedly embraced the mass surveillance of its citizens. Overall I see little love or understanding of freedom remaining in the English spirit.

But I very much hope they do leave the EU, along with any other nation that wishes to survive.

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 9:32 AM  

It's interesting that these people thought America was a safer place to be socialist and atheist than Scandinavia. It's not such a mystery anymore why places like Minnesota and Wisconsin are predominantly leftist.

Indeed. Other Scandinavians came to Utah and Idaho and other places for religious reasons after converting to Mormonism in the early, mid and late 1800s, and—guess what? They yet retain totally different values than the Minnesota/Wisconsin Scandinavians.

One aspect of the American experiment, and its indirect consequences on both the developing American population and what remained of the founder populations from whence these settlers came that hasn't been explored very well is how much self-selection by nature/personality influenced the values of both.

OpenID mamcpacma September 23, 2015 9:38 AM  

And as to Obama's religious affiliation, I can understand one Freudian Slip .... but two.

1) Campaigning in 57 states

2) Being corrected when he spoke of his Muslim faith (wasn't that George Stephanopoulos)?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 9:46 AM  

This begs for a reframe let them defend shariah, shariah or whatever it is sounds stupid as hell

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown September 23, 2015 9:48 AM  

America was such a cool idea..... and this is a very bitter pill. But it's all true.

"They (Scandinavians) are an intrinsically decent people who have absolutely no grasp that everyone else isn't just like them and isn't inclined to abuse power if given the opportunity."

An argument can be made that this also applies to classical liberals, libertarians and the aforementioned "limited government types". In trying to prepare our sons and daughters for the interesting times ahead, is the important lesson that a system like the original American form of government is only sustainable in a small ethno-state or that freedom failed? Both? Neither? Category error?

I don't mean to get all "muh feelz" on you guys, but being able to log in here every day and read the opinions of people who are smarter and wiser than I keeps me sane.

Cheers,

Gunnar von Cowtown
VFM#100

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 23, 2015 9:54 AM  

I see that no one mentioned Scott Walker and his swipe at the Donald when he left the race. He said, "I'm suspending my entry into the race in order to leave room for a real conservative that will challenge the frontrunner". Here, Scott Walker, aka "the true conservative", is attacking the Don because Don is supposedly "racist" and a populist. Walker is the "real conservative".

Methinks that these people don't have a clue on conservatism. They think conservatism includes Political Correctness! Jeb, Kasich, Perry, Walker all think they are the "true conservaitives" while allowing all forms of immigration. Ben Carson would just pass out green cards to everybody.

No one in the race is conservative. But at least the Trumpster will kick out all the illegals. But the Press won't let that happen; they are already going full bore on the character assassination of the Donald.

Blogger Phillip George September 23, 2015 9:55 AM  

Thanks John Wright. Some things being spelled out in black and white to give clarity to any honest investigators. Others might run with this:
Secularism no more exists than macro morphic entropy lowering complexity adding evolution.
If four dimensional time space exists temporal is rather illusionary. Nothing is moving.

If I'm going to build a bridge, say the Brooklyn Bridge, I best insist it be a Christian Bridge.
Canon Law suffers from "legal fiction". I'd rewrite it all this weekend if I wasn't busy. Fiction of course is useful, entertaining and even profitable, only so long as everyone knows that it is fiction - otherwise, it is fraud.

Blogger HardReturn¶ September 23, 2015 9:57 AM  

Electing a sultan-president instead of a philosopher-king is probably moot point anyway. The empire likely won't last that long.

Blogger Salt September 23, 2015 9:59 AM  

On the other hand, England hasn't fared much better than the US over the past couple of centuries.

Of course not. As I said, it was the English culture which allowed for the thought. England didn't embrace the thought that made America, that's why it fled. Immigration has polluted the idea so much that it's hardly recognizable now.

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 10:01 AM  

"An argument can be made that this also applies to classical liberals, libertarians and the aforementioned "limited government types". In trying to prepare our sons and daughters for the interesting times ahead, is the important lesson that a system like the original American form of government is only sustainable in a small ethno-state or that freedom failed? Both? Neither? Category error?"

The Constitution was written for a sane and moral Christian people, not for a bunch of retards asking whether it's OK for a muslim to be President. I am not necessarily advocating a theocratic ethno-state, but it isn't clear to me at what precise point tolerance and diversity become toxic.

Blogger Jeffrey S. September 23, 2015 10:06 AM  

"Never mind that those Irish, Italians, Germans, French, Jews, Russians, Latinos, and Africans have already completely destroyed what was once a predominantly English nation with English values. None - none - of the other immigrants ever fully grasped the English concept of limited government, which is why they transformed what had been a voluntary association into an empire held together by force in 1860."

Of course, Ben Franklin's stuff on the Germans was right and America needed to slow down the numbers that were let in and make sure the ones here in the country were assimilated. But I think we did a pretty good job with the Germans and my sense of who was driving the abolitionist movement as well as the movers and shakers of the Republican party suggest that the Germans were not crucial to their success. I think you have to look to Albion's Seed and the original divisions within the English who settled America to explain both phenomenon. One could even argue the Irish were O.K. -- they were big Democratic supporters in 1860 and were famous for not wanting to fight in the Civil War (see New York draft riots.) Of course, once the 20th century rolled around, they were happy clients of the welfare state -- but at least they weren't on board with conquering the South.

Blogger Owen September 23, 2015 10:08 AM  

By the way, for any Ilk who are American American, because your family has been here for that long, as a 3rd Generationer I agree with Vox' assessment that we are still allied to our mother country. In a war between the USA and Italy, I'd go join Italy even though I have only lived there very briefly in my life. Because they are my people and Italy is our land. And my gratitude for taking in my Armenian side of the family during the Armenian genocide in Turkey isn't enough to surpass kinship.

Certainly casts a different light on FDR's use of internment camps.

Blogger IM2L844 September 23, 2015 10:15 AM  

@59
But at least the Trumpster will kick out all the illegals.

The Republican National Committee would rather lose the election than allow that to happen.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2015 10:17 AM  

It's not really my fight, but black conservatives really go through a massive gauntlet in public life. The root of this article is really to put that brotha back on the plantation. That it has a side dish of muslim cheerleading is bonus for the NYT.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 10:20 AM  

I don't understand the apparent claim of superiority of English culture. We had this nasty revolution and war of 1812 to get away from that culture and centralized government.

British rule in America in the 1770s wasn't "centralized". It couldn't be, given the primitive communications of the time. What London wanted from the colonies - some taxes to offset the cost of military protection - was entirely reasonable.

The War of 1812 wasn't fought to get away from centralized British rule. The USA stupidly declared war on Britain because the USA insisted on trading with Britain's mortal enemy. The USA was lucky to escape from that war as lightly as it did.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2015 10:22 AM  

@15 Tommy Hass
I dont even see what is so wrong about Carson's statements.
---

That's because there isn't. The real problem is they caught a black man who escaped the democrat plantation. And they better take him down fast as possible before any more think it's a good idea.

Blogger Student in Blue September 23, 2015 10:23 AM  

As for Shariah law, Catholicism has canon law and Judaism has the Halakha and nobody is painting them as threats to the republic

In addition to what's already been said... I remember hearing that there was great concern and consternation over JFK and his Catholicism.

But sure, no one's EVER painted Catholicism and Jews as a threat. Neverrrr.

Blogger hank.jim September 23, 2015 10:28 AM  

"Go live near people like you and make your community as self-sufficient as possible."

Pretty much the way it is.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2015 10:29 AM  

@26 VFM bot #188
Anyone who seeing such a calamity approaching---especially those with long time-horizons---would plan accordingly. But how? What would actions now would give the best chance to survive such a dystopian future?
---

That's a good question. All I can do at this time is move closer to my family and try and put some roots down in that area. And put up Confederate flags everywhere :P

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 23, 2015 10:32 AM  

@ #3 Chris: but to pretend that the Catholic view of government is compatible with a 18th century English notions of limited government is absurd.

Catholicism has always been informed by Aristotle who counseled mixed government, aka, classical republicanism. Aristotle got his mixed government from Sparta that kept their kings. Classical republicanism, limited government was always started under kings. Catholic England and Catholic Venice moved to mixed government in the 13th century but of course Church and State went together. Church and State went together in both Sparta and Rome. Roman Republican government constitution was split between the res divina and the res publica. Cicero, like Caesar Augustus, held a religious office and supervised liturgical rites. This is the patrimony of the Graeco-Roman heritage at the bottom of Western Civilization. The separation of Church and State is not Western Culture or Civilization. That was an Enlightenment concept.

Blogger GreenEyedJinn September 23, 2015 10:46 AM  

Wait...what?? So the NYT really DOES think it's OK to have a potential US president who believes homosexuality should be punished by death?
Oh! The intolerance of it all!!

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 10:58 AM  

"Under islam, the rules for muslims applies to both muslims and non-muslims. During Ramadan muslims must fast during the day, and non-muslims must also fast during the day. islam isn't a religion, it is a political system. A political system founded by a 7th century, mass-murdering pedophile."

You know shameless ignorance and dishonesty of this kind should be punishable by death.

Non-Muslims don't have to fast, you lying despicable sack of shit.

Being a "pedophile" in the 7th century is literally irrelevant. Explain to me, why anybody should give a shit. Protip: you can't.

What's more, being a "mass murderer" is also ok. You are worshipping one. Its OK to be a mass murderer if you are God or God allowed/ordered you to. That's what you fella profess to believe.

Furthermore, Napoleon, Julius Caesar and George Washington were also mass murderers. In fact, the people that were killed by Muslim armies back then had it coming. They started the violence by expelling Muslims from Mecca under the threat of death (and many assassination attempts) Retaliating against such tribes is perfectly just.

Summary: slice lengthwise.

Blogger Steve Moss September 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

VD I'm attempting to translate your hypothesis, and it's reading to me that a subset of English are the group that promoted principles of limited government and successive ways of non-English immigrants, including other Europeans (Irish, Germans and Scandinavian, etc.), weakened those principles. I'm not certain that you are hypothesizing whether only the English (or a subset of English) are capable of promoting principles of limited government.

I would challenge your hypothesis by pointing to the following:

England is itself a land of immigrants. The original inhabitants (at least during the last few thousand years) are Celts, ancestors to the Welsh, Scots and Irish. Then Anglo-Saxons, who are north west Germans. Then Normans, who were of Scandinavian descent. Add in a multi-century occupation by the Romans, and successive raids and occupation from Danes and Norwegians (the Dane Law), the English are about as mutt-like as your typical American of multiple generations.

You are a mutt, and seem to support limited government.

I believe many of your readers are also mutts and support limited government.

My director ancestor, William Henry Moss IV, was English, fought in the Revolution, was elected captain of his militia company. His grandson married the daughter of a Hessian soldier who deserted the English army to fight for the colonials in exchange for a land grant (not an uncommon event). No Moss in my direct family line has married an Englishwoman since, with lots of Irish, Scots, German, and Scandinavian being incorporated.

My Swedish great-grandfather, who lived until I was double digits, was a hard core limited government conservative. But he didn't settle in Wisconsin or Minnesota, instead it was Missouri then Arizona.

So from what little I can gather from you and your readers, and from my knowledge of my family tree and history, I don't think your hypothesis can withstand scrutiny. I understand that this is not a conclusive rebuttal, but I don't think your hypothesis has much support.

I think it more likely associated with value sets and aristocracy. As to value sets, some immigrants, primarily fleeing their homes for economic reasons, of whatever ethnicity, can become, over time, supportive of limited government as they and their children are integrated into traditional American political society. Other immigrants, fleeing persecution, might be quicker to support limited government as they felt the heavy hand of government first hand (I know some Eastern Europeans who are rabid conservatives for that reason). The question is how quickly do their descendants become mutts like the rest of us, or do they hold firm to their ethnicity. etc. by remaining apart due to their large numbers. This is what I think the real problem with mass immigration, we're establishing entire concentrated sets of peoples within our borders, as opposed to many who come from many places and who are scattered about which forces them to integrate more rapidly.

I would also point out that many of the architects of our current woes are of English descent.

By contrast, the Founders were "aristocrats" who were being put upon by other aristocrats. They rebelled and, understanding that if it can happen once it can happen again, and they had the moral fortitude to prevent that for themselves and others via the Constitution. I think they were exceptional men in exceptional times and we are unlikely to see a similar collection of individuals anytime soon. It was a rare blessed event which we were lucky to have once and we are unlikely to see again. The deterioration we are experiencing is more due to the passage of time creating space between us and those great men, whom were not easily replaceable, irrespective of being English or something else.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 11:00 AM  

Muslims were peaceful until the expulsion. Thank God they were annihilated in response.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 23, 2015 11:15 AM  

The English are not a monolithic whole. I point to the book Albion's Seed. America was colonized by different sets of Englishmen. East Anglia, i.e. the Puritains, the Cavaliers settled the South and Scots/Irish the Appalachian.

The Puritans came over to set up a pure Christian state, a city on a Hill. They were milleniarists. The progressive Yankee has his roots in the Puritans who secularized their milleniarianism. Read Yankee Babylon. It was not about economics.

The American Revolutionary War was first called the Presbyterian War because the Scottish Presbyterians and leftover Puritans were attacking the Anglican Church that was still in "popery".

The Intellectuals of America were all formed by John Locke who talked of limited government. So in a sense VD is right there but then the Puritans were not Lockeans. Furthermore, many of the founding fathers were Masons and Freemasonry was about establishing a New Order. That has to figure in the picture.

America is a farrago of ethnicities, ideologies and religions. It is a muddled mess that no longer can be held.

Blogger Salt September 23, 2015 11:17 AM  

@76 I can trace lineage back to Virginia (pre-1861); An ancestor was a Virginian (Maj. Gen. US Army late 1800s). Also Dutch (date?), Scots-Irish > Canada (1800s minimum), and Germany (late 1800s or early 1900s). Matter of fact, if family name signify clan, I had a relative who was a physician to Hitler. I'm as much in favor of limited government and 'the rights of Englishmen" as anyone.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 11:34 AM  

Napoleon, Julius Caesar and George Washington were also mass murderers.

The men your soldiers killed in war weren't "murdered", chief.

Blogger J Melcher September 23, 2015 11:35 AM  

I've had longer to reflect on the question than Dr Carson had, so any improvement in a response I might offer results more from that interval than comparative ability to campaign. That said, I'd wish Dr Carson, or any candidate so ambushed, might have responded with something like this:

"There can be and should be no religious 'test' for any candidate for any office in the U.S. But I personally would be very reluctant to vote for a Muslim candidate. That would be true even though I anticipate such a candidate would hold views and political goals for abortion law reform, traditional marriage support, substance abuse legislation, and other social issues that are closer to my own views and goals than most contemporary Democrats."

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 11:42 AM  

You know shameless ignorance and dishonesty of this kind should be punishable by death.

Careful, Tommy. You're inner Moslem is showing.

Muslims were peaceful until the expulsion. Thank God they were annihilated in response.

"You know shameless ignorance and dishonesty of this kind should be punishable by death."

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 11:56 AM  

Being a "pedophile" in the 7th century is literally irrelevant. Explain to me, why anybody should give a shit. Protip: you can't.

The mere fact that a person has a child rape habit has no bearing on their character and truthfulness, right Tommy?

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 12:00 PM  

The Intellectuals of America were all formed by John Locke who talked of limited government. So in a sense VD is right there but then the Puritans were not Lockeans. Furthermore, many of the founding fathers were Masons and Freemasonry was about establishing a New Order. That has to figure in the picture.

And just when you had composed one of your best comments ever on this blog, you just crashed and burned.

Come on, man...

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 12:04 PM  

I still liked the post, Wheeler. Keep 'em coming.

OpenID Jack Amok September 23, 2015 12:12 PM  

England didn't embrace the thought that made America, that's why it fled.

Most of the commentary on immigration is about the impact it has on the receiving country, but there is also the impact of emigration on the country losing the migrants. I believe that England (and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe) lost a significant portion of it's liberty-inclined gene pool to America.

(Perhaps that's also what happened to ancient Scandinavians, who were good at building ships and cracking skulls so it was possible for those who wanted to get away from their nannying neighbors to sail over the water and take a piece of land from someone else).

A great deal of life - especially in electoral politics - happens at the margins. Marginally fewer liberty-focused Englishmen in leadership positions leads to expanding the vote, which gives more voice to government-loving members of the population, until eventually you have universal suffrage (and how do they suffer...) and a steady slide down to totalitarianism.

OpenID corvinus333 September 23, 2015 12:13 PM  

The Founding Fathers shared certain principles with the Masons, such as separation of church and state. Which works well enough when most people are Christians, but is absolutely disastrous when most people think sodomogamy is just wonderful and that you're a bigot if you don't think so.

The fact that many of them like Thomas Jefferson hated Christianity doesn't really help matters, and pretty much ensured the Republic would turn into a farce once Christianity lost its dominance.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 12:17 PM  

Okay, I'm tired of the "Limited Government is genetic to the English" meme going on here. The English do not, have not, and never did believe in limited government as a principle. If you want o see this in action, study Irish history some time. Hell, right up into the 1970s's the Queen still held absolute title to every acre of England, which is why you can go picnicking in a farmer's field any time you care to.

What the English do believe in, or did until recently, was their rights. As in "The Rights of Englishmen", which is what the Revolutionary War was fought over. As Englishmen, the Founders believed they had all the rights of English citizens in England. The Crown considered the rights of the Colonists to be on a par with the rights of the Irish. The Founders fought a war to reassert their rights, including the rights outlined in The Bill of Rights.

@Dad of 10, you piker! -- Dad of 11

OpenID corvinus333 September 23, 2015 12:20 PM  

I have in fact wondered for some time if being at least part-English helps prevent one from voting Democrat.

Most white Americans are part-English anyway now, so it may not be immediately obvious.

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 12:22 PM  

England is itself a land of immigrants. The original inhabitants (at least during the last few thousand years) are Celts, ancestors to the Welsh, Scots and Irish. Then Anglo-Saxons, who are north west Germans. Then Normans, who were of Scandinavian descent. Add in a multi-century occupation by the Romans, and successive raids and occupation from Danes and Norwegians (the Dane Law), the English are about as mutt-like as your typical American of multiple generations.

While not a basically untrue summary of English history: so what? That doesn't make England a nation of immigrants or mutts either one, since its generally assumed that the ethnogenesis of "the English" didn't really gel until the 100 Years War anyway.

OpenID Jack Amok September 23, 2015 12:26 PM  

Regarding "mutts", remember than the Bell Curve refers to distribution within a gene pool. If (and I believe it is true) there is a genetic component to favoring small-government, then every gene pool will have an average and a standard deviation. It will have it's outliers to the left and right. So take the most totalitarian-minded people on earth and you will find a few liberty-lovers among them. Give those liberty-lovers a chance to migrate to a place that embraces their dreams and off they go.

So it is entirely possible - likely even - that a nation of limited government will end up with a collection of mutts who are genetically compatible with the founding race. But that doesn't change the fact the mutts were skimmed from a totalitarian gene pool, and it doesn't mean letting in hordes of their distant cousins (the ones they fled from) won't destroy the dream.

OpenID pancakeloach September 23, 2015 12:36 PM  

@65 Certainly casts a different light on FDR's use of internment camps.

Yikes. That it does.

My grandfather's parents immigrated to America when he was a child, and their family was very small for several generations prior, so we don't have a flock of cousins back in England. The other side of my family can trace its roots to the American Revolution.

So that makes me third generation as well, yet I have always thought of myself as American-American. Perhaps assimilation to American identity is much faster for the descendants of modern English immigrants? Or is the definitive factor the lack of family ties remaining in the "motherland"? I would probably feel very differently if I'd been spending my childhood summers with family in Britain rather than in the Appalachians.

Blogger Bobo #117 September 23, 2015 12:39 PM  

"Certainly casts a different light on FDR's use of internment camps."

That's exactly what I've always thought...

Blogger Chris Mallory September 23, 2015 12:45 PM  

@76
My paternal line started in France/Normandy. The earliest paternal ancestor I have been able to trace back to lived and died there in 1054. His two sons crossed the channel in 1066. From that point, they were British until 1660 when my line crossed to America. Every other branch in my family tree came from the British Isles, mostly Northern England along the border with Scotland. The two lines that I have not been able to follow back to Britain both had English names and one appeared in North Carolina in 1790, the other in Alabama in 1831 (the Alabama ancestor died in a Missouri prison).

According to the Ancestry DNA test, I am Western European and British with a small amount of Irish, but since the Irish group includes all of the UK, I don't let that depress me. I am not a "mutt" and my ancestors along my paternal line did not go anywhere as "immigrants". They were conquerors and colonists.

Blogger Chris Mallory September 23, 2015 12:48 PM  

@92 The people who inhabit Greater Appalachia are about the only group that refer to themselves as "Americans" instead of some mix-mass immigrant title.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 12:58 PM  

"The mere fact that a person has a child rape habit has no bearing on their character and truthfulness, right Tommy?"

Who had a child rape habit? Habit implies that it happened more than once and rape implies that it was forcible or statutory rape.

It wasn't statutory, and focrible rape, er, since when can you rape your wife?

It's simple m8: He ain't worse than Thomas Jefferson or many respectable Romans in that regard. It was even legal in America until the late 19th century to marry 10 year olds. Some musician(?) (Jerry Lee Lewis) actually had a 13 year old wife.

Bottomline: it's disgusting by today's standards, but bitching over a guy consummating marriage with a 9-13 year old girl in the 7th century IN THE FUCKING DESERT is petty beyond belief.

Avaunt, thou fairy.

PS: You honestly think Jesus would care if you married a menstruating girl with the consent of her and her parents?

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 1:07 PM  

"The men your soldiers killed in war weren't "murdered", chief."

Neither were the men killed in war by the Muslims.

@82
"
'You know shameless ignorance and dishonesty of this kind should be punishable by death.'

Careful, Tommy. You're inner Moslem is showing."

1. I never pretended not to be wrathful at times.
2. It was well deserved.
3. I was cranky when I wrote this.
"
'Muslims were peaceful until the expulsion. Thank God they were annihilated in response.'

"You know shameless ignorance and dishonesty of this kind should be punishable by death." "

Nothing dishonest about it, to my knowledge. The violence doesn't predate the expulsion.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 1:15 PM  

"England is itself a land of immigrants."

This bullshit is pushed only by the SJWs who want to submerge England with a tidal wave of brown vermin.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 1:16 PM  

"bitching over a guy consummating marriage with a 9-13 year old girl in the 7th century IN THE FUCKING DESERT is petty beyond belief."

Can you name a SJW compaint that isn't petty?

Micro-aggressions = petty aggressions.

Next!

Blogger Bobo #117 September 23, 2015 1:31 PM  

"Certainly casts a different light on FDR's use of internment camps."

That's exactly what I've always thought...

OpenID mamcpacma September 23, 2015 1:34 PM  

"If I'm going to build a bridge, say the Brooklyn Bridge, I best insist it be a Christian Bridge."

Isn't it funny how, as the US becomes a post-Christian nation, the bridges deteriorate?

OpenID Steve September 23, 2015 1:35 PM  

@11 Sherwood-Carson's description of the problem, at least as reported, was not very helpful.

He talked about Taqiyya & Hijra but lame stream edited it out.

Regardless of origin they wanted little central government because they got no benefit and had no reliable communication with it.

What positive benefit does the current govt give me in exchange for the money it transfers to Latrina's 39 illegitimate crack babies? I will grant that being able to track all communication is a Jewish lesbian gatekeeper's wet dream, paging Barbra Specter. Any communication method that lacks a dislike button will succeed by pandering to women's need for self validation.

the prophet Mohammad referred to blacks as 'raisins' and said it was understandable to withhold medical attention to them

When I see a Che shirt on a white I tell them its a good thing blacks are too stupid to know how Che treated them.

DadofTen - are you really a father of ten?...your Borg identifier My money is on the dad of a kitten named Ten.

-BGS

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 1:38 PM  

"Neither were the men killed in war by the Muslims."

Category error.

Muslim bandit raids =/= war.

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 1:38 PM  

Nothing dishonest about it, to my knowledge. The violence doesn't predate the expulsion.

Here's the hint. Nobody beyond the tribal elders of Mecca were responsible for the expulsion of the false prophet Mohammed. Therefore you're using the expulsion as the excuse for the entirety of the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Persia, the middle east, North Africa, Iberia, and the eastern Balkans is shown to be either the most egregious ignorance I've ever seen, or a blatant, bald-faced lie.

So what was that you were saying should be punishable by death? Or is it your claim that since the false prophet Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca for being a violent malcontent that suddenly its OK for his followers to turn into a bunch of barbaric savages?

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 1:39 PM  

" The violence doesn't predate the expulsion. "

he Muslim presence in Spain was the result of violence, and could only be maintained by violence, dumbass.

OpenID Steve September 23, 2015 2:03 PM  

@71 Tommy Non-Muslims don't have to fast, you lying despicable sack of shit.

No they don't but if they are caught they are tossed in jail like the foreign traveler male nurse in Kuwait( put back on map with US taxes) thrown in jail for drinking a bottle of water in 100+ degree heat. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/sharia-in-action-in-kuwait-police-arrest-man-for-drinking-water-in-public-during-ramadan

Being a "pedophile" ..., why anybody should give a shit. Protip: you can't. Ann Corcoran can

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/afghan-practice-of-sexually-abusing-boys-making-the-national-news/
(includes 5 links to bacha bazi being imported)
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/germany-isis-recruiting-among-refugees/

In fact, the people that were killed by Muslim armies back then had it coming. They started the violence by expelling Muslims from Mecca

Moslems invaded Europe before that. Don't be mad that someone decided to occupy the land bridge moslems came thru.

Blogger Sheila4g September 23, 2015 2:06 PM  

@91 Jack Amok: " But that doesn't change the fact the mutts were skimmed from a totalitarian gene pool, and it doesn't mean letting in hordes of their distant cousins (the ones they fled from) won't destroy the dream."

This. Those of us skimmed from the totalitarian gene pool can cite snowflake anecdotes all day but none of them refutes Vox's premise. What I wonder, though, is what motivates such anomalies. While I was raised in suburbia by your classic, knee-jerk liberal Ellis Island democrats, I felt an immediate bond with the "Little House" books and not the "All of a Kind Family" books. I'd rather puke my guts out trying to butcher a hog than live on NY's lower east side . . . and I'll fight to the death for my right to bacon.

Blogger Thordaddy September 23, 2015 2:09 PM  

Islam is an anti-Supremacist ideo-religion.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 2:10 PM  

In fact, the people that were killed by Muslim armies back then had it coming. They started the violence by expelling Muslims from Mecca

Moslems invaded Europe before that. Don't be mad that someone decided to occupy the land bridge moslems came thru.


Tommy thinks the Pacific War started when evil aggressive America nuked Hiroshima for no reason.

Blogger Eric Castle September 23, 2015 2:13 PM  

@49

I was amused by remembering the Biblical context that you alluded to in pre-kingdom Israel. The people demanded a king "like everyone else" to rule over them, in essence rejecting their perfect King God Himself in order for some cult of personality like human king to rule over them.

Samuel takes this so badly on behalf of God and his rant about just what this new king would do to Israel should be remembered time and again in any context when a new "Dear Leader" type is called for: 1 Samuel 8:10ff.

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 2:16 PM  

"Bottomline: it's disgusting by today's standards, but bitching over a guy consummating marriage with a 9-13 year old girl in the 7th century IN THE FUCKING DESERT is petty beyond belief."

What difference does it make that he was in the desert? That's pure misdirection. And it's uncommon for a girl to be menstruating and capable of safely bearing children at nine, but that is just about the age of child most commonly targeted by pedophiles. A nine year old is not a thirteen year old.

Blogger haus frau September 23, 2015 2:43 PM  

Bottomline: it's disgusting by today's standards, but bitching over a guy consummating marriage with a 9-13 year old girl in the 7th century IN THE FUCKING DESERT is petty beyond belief."

Considering that modern Muslims believe Mohamed to be the perfect man and imitate his actions as a matter of Islamic piety, yeah it's pretty damn relevant. He was a sociopthic ChoMo cult leader. Let's not pretend this had absolutely nothing to do with Mecca's leadership doing this expelling him from Mecca.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 2:44 PM  

Bottomline: it's disgusting by Northern and Western European and Christian standards, but bitching over an Arab megalomaniac fucking a 9 year old girl in the 7th century IN THE FUCKING DESERT where no-one could hear her screams is petty beyond belief.

FIFY

Blogger James Dixon September 23, 2015 2:48 PM  

> Non-Muslims don't have to fast, you lying despicable sack of shit.

I notice you're arguing with a single example and not the primary point, Tommy. Which is: "Under islam, the rules for muslims applies to both muslims and non-muslims".

> Muslims were peaceful until the expulsion. Thank God they were annihilated in response.

Don't worry, Tommy. When the clash of religions comes round again we won't expel anyone from Mecca. Your folks will be welcome to remain in the radioactive ruins.

Blogger DadOfTen September 23, 2015 3:10 PM  

@112 I get my trusted information about Muslims from reading books written by Muslims.

Mohammed did NOT consider himself a perfect example. He said that he had violated all 10 commandments. He did not recommend his followers do the same.

Unfortunately many Muslims do look up to Mohammed as the perfect example despite what he said about himself. What amazes me is that he started a moral revolution of a better society in those deserts. They must have been amazingly immoral before that for what he taught to be considered a moral revolution.

Blogger Sheila4g September 23, 2015 3:12 PM  

Here's a photo demonstrating the honor in which Islam and its devotees hold Christians and their ancestors. I don't have a lot of taboos about inanimate objects (i.e. God's word is what is holy, not the paper His word is recorded on) but the inherent callousness and disrespect here is just vile.

Blogger Matamoros September 23, 2015 3:25 PM  

Some thoughts:

they transformed what had been a voluntary association into an empire held together by force in 1860.

Right, the constitution, except as a sham, has been dead since Lincoln.

@24 - Puritan group that made up the core of the Yankee Nation were always proto-totalitarians

Indeed. See "Yankee Babylon: Yankee Dream. Yankee Nightmare." by MacDonald King Aston for a good exposition on this topic.

@7 & 50 - Carson - James David Manning calls Carson, “The 2nd Magic Negro”. Can the elites fool Americans into voting for another black? Btw, Everyone should see Manning’s “Black Peope Hate White People” - https://www.facebook.com/drjamesdavidmanning/videos/936231963127624/

@2 Germans - The Germans were original stock Americans along with the Scots-Irish and English coming into America during the 17th & 18th Century. The reason the Revolution succeeded is because the Germans sided with the Revolutionaries. The English split down the middle, Tory and Revolutionary; whereas the Germans went virtually 100% behind the movement for independence. Washington’s life guard was 100% German-American.

Unlike the Scots-Irish who practices slash and burn farming, moving when they had worn out the soil; the Germans built farms to last and practiced advanced farming and livestock management. Having come from the ravages of the 100 Years War they wanted stability, and to be left alone - American virtues.

The 1848’ers and later were Marxist/Socialist/Communists who supported a unified State. They and the Puritans built modern consolidated America - see Alan Stang’s “Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln’s Marxists” which is hard find for obvious reasons.

An article is here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm

Don’t forget that Germany, especially northern Germany is open to invasion from all sides. It has had to fight for its very existence against the French, Swedes, Huns, Tartars, etc. That is the reason Germans want a strong central State that can withstand invasion, while allowing maximum person liberty.

@32 But is that a German thing that sets them apart from the English, or is it because the Germans who came over were not adventurers heading for wilderness

Many Germans were Mountain Men and Frontiersmen. I have several in my lines that I know about. Zane Grey wrote about German frontiersmen who tamed the frontier, for ex: Lewis Wetzel.

34. DadOfTen - Congrats! I’ve beat you by one. Mine are all grown as well. I’m looking toward around 50 grand-children.

I encourage others to take up the challenge. Our people will live!

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 3:26 PM  

Nothing dishonest about it, to my knowledge. The violence doesn't predate the expulsion.

The Ummayad conquest of Spain was nonviolent? Do I have the wrong expulsion here?

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir September 23, 2015 3:29 PM  

mamcpacma: "So when you have religions and/or religious leaders that believe that order is imposed top-down and they can influence the secular world, protect yourself."

The principle of subsidiarity guided Christendom's monarchs during the Middle Ages (the 13th century being the high-water mark of western civilization, IMO). But subsidiarity gave way to other impulses during the 16th century. We're now living in the consequences of those impulses.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 3:38 PM  

The English split down the middle, Tory and Revolutionary; whereas the Germans went virtually 100% behind the movement for independence. Washington’s life guard was 100% German-American.

Which supports Vox's point that immigrants are not loyal to the government of their new country, and indeed, have no qualms about taking arms against it.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 3:41 PM  

"The Ummayad conquest of Spain was nonviolent? Do I have the wrong expulsion here?"

Yes. I am referring to Muhammad and his people getting expelled from Mecca. It is commonly stated that Koranic surahs before that expulsion were peaceful but turned violent and martial afterwards.

OpenID corvinus333 September 23, 2015 3:58 PM  

The 1848’ers and later were Marxist/Socialist/Communists who supported a unified State. They and the Puritans built modern consolidated America - see Alan Stang’s “Red Republicans: Marxism in the Civil War and Lincoln’s Marxists” which is hard find for obvious reasons.


@117 Matamoros
The Puritans came primarily from East Anglia, which is the part of England that is the most Germanic. So it's unsurprising the Puritans resemble Germans and Scandinavians in their attitudes.

The unique Celto-Germanic blend found in Britain seems to account for the traits of the English. The Scots and Irish vote leftist, but that may be simple anti-English stupidity.

And incidentally, one reason white Catholics in the USA now vote GOP may be because the white Catholic population has been absorbing English blood. The other reason may be simply that in certain parts of the country (such as NY and NJ, where Italian-Americans run the GOP) they're simply getting sick of darkies.

Blogger Tommy Hass September 23, 2015 4:05 PM  

"Here's the hint. Nobody beyond the tribal elders of Mecca were responsible for the expulsion of the false prophet Mohammed. Therefore you're using the expulsion as the excuse for the entirety of the Muslim conquest of Arabia, Persia, the middle east, North Africa, Iberia, and the eastern Balkans is shown to be either the most egregious ignorance I've ever seen, or a blatant, bald-faced lie.

So what was that you were saying should be punishable by death? Or is it your claim that since the false prophet Mohammed was kicked out of Mecca for being a violent malcontent that suddenly its OK for his followers to turn into a bunch of barbaric savages?"

No.

1. Muhammad wasn't expelled because he was a violent malcontent. He became a violent malcontent because he was expelled.

2. I am talking strictly about the conquests of Muhammad himself. He wasn't part of the conquests of Persia, North Africa etc but Mostly in Arabia. I do not know if the people he defeated in Arabia were all allied with the Meccans, but his enmity with his tormentors was just. What happened afterwards is a different matter.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:05 PM  

The fact that many of them like Thomas Jefferson hated Christianity

Please list the all of the signers of the declaration of independence and the constitution who hated Christianity.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 4:15 PM  

I am referring to Muhammad and his people getting expelled from Mecca.

Got it. I stand corrected. Carry on.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:36 PM  

And incidentally, one reason white Catholics in the USA now vote GOP may be because the white Catholic population has been absorbing English blood. The other reason may be simply that in certain parts of the country (such as NY and NJ, where Italian-Americans run the GOP) they're simply getting sick of darkies.

I can speak with some experience here. My family was Democrat going back to the end of the Civil War.
It's abortion. Irish and Italian Catholics have a particular horror of abortion, much more so than Mexican Catholics, Mainline Protestants (in general, many individuals are doing God's work, but the orgs have mostly been turned), or non-denominational churches.
The Dems have become the all abortion all the time party, and no faithful Catholic can remain.

Blogger Dexter September 23, 2015 4:57 PM  

Muhammad wasn't expelled because he was a violent malcontent. He became a violent malcontent because he was expelled.

Yeah right. He and his buddies would have been totally peaceful, like all nomadic desert tribesmen, if not for that.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 23, 2015 5:22 PM  

Thomas Jefferson did hate traditional Christianity. Some of the founders used the word "priestcraft" as a deragatory term. Thomas Jefferson attended Masonic meetings and those of Rosicrusianism. Benjamin Franklin was a Mason. Thomas Paine, who really was the main motivator of the American Revolution, was an ardent atheist that hated Christianity with a passion. Thomas Paine was a student of sorts of Joseph Priestly. Priestly had a lot of influence upon the founding.

All sorts of influence on the Americans at that time, radical Protestantism, Masonry, Enlightenment, John Locke and the Classics. All of these streams formed America as a propositional country the first in the world. America is not based on nationhood as in the Old Order of Europe. Masonry was about setting up a classless society, without regards to religion or caste or origins. What Masonry taught meshed with the Enlightenment. That is why the phrases "Novus Ordo" and "E pluribus unum" are on the Seal of the United States of America. America is a Masonic country with a radical Protestant population. And then that population was divided along sectional lines of North, South, Appalachian, Ohio Valley. The North had a very different culture from the South.

Blogger Matamoros September 23, 2015 6:02 PM  

@112 . . . one reason white Catholics in the USA now vote GOP may be because the white Catholic population has been absorbing English blood.

Germans are the largest White minority group in the country. They were prominent in Pennsylvania, as well as the South, and New York prior to Lincoln’s War. In the South everyone was Democrat until Kennedy broke the compact, and Nixon and Reagan wooed them into the Republican Party with understandings of a new compact to leave the South alone.

The Southern Democrats were greatly different from the Northern ones, but the compact allowed live and let live until Eisenhower (a Republican, mind you) used troops to force integration in Little Rock, and broke the property covenants which protected private and social property from such “block busting”.

Northern Democrats did not stop Eisenhower, but consented to it because it suited their Puritan equalitarian desires. So there was a fusion of Northern Democrat (ND) with Red Republicans (RR) vs. Southern Democrats (SD) with Western Republicans and Democrats (WWD) that hardened under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately for everyone Reagan’s successors were basically part of the ND/RR coalition; and the WWD/SD coalition fell apart.

Trump appears to be reviving this national coalition against the ND/RRs. As Vox notes, those who do not support personal liberty (read Confederate writings for Southern understanding of the raison d’etre of the constitutional Republic) are on track in destroying the country.

The SJWs are the latest morphing of the Puritans.

Blogger Matamoros September 23, 2015 6:06 PM  

@128 America is a Masonic country with a radical Protestant population. And then that population was divided along sectional lines of North, South, Appalachian, Ohio Valley. The North had a very different culture from the South.

A very astute and interesting observation. I would assume from this that you believe that the Masons kept the Puritans under leash, until they joined with jewish and other interests to take over?

I have heard it said that the military is the last bastion of masonic power in the U.S. and it is being undermined. Would you agree?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 6:13 PM  

I would assume from this that you believe that the Masons kept the Puritans under leash,

You imply disparity where none exits.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 23, 2015 6:44 PM  

No, Chris, I wouldn't deny it if it were true. Of all the people whose character went into Carrera, I cannot recall any of it that came from Cromwell.

Blogger Noah B #120 September 23, 2015 7:01 PM  

"Muhammad wasn't expelled because he was a violent malcontent. He became a violent malcontent because he was expelled."

The lesson is obvious, and timely. There is little point in simply expelling muslims.

Blogger Matamoros September 23, 2015 7:22 PM  

@131 - Actually there is a lot of disparity. The English Freemasons were educated men who believed in the rights of Englishmen, were primarily deists, and believed in personal liberty.

The Puritans were uneducated nincompoops who were so obnoxious that they were kicked out of everywhere they settled until they came to New England and began realizing their delusions.

Blogger Chris Mallory September 23, 2015 7:53 PM  

@129 "Germans are the largest White minority group in the country."

Only because the British are broken up into other groups.

In 1790, Germans made up less than 10% of the White population of the US. We didn't get invading hordes of Germans until the 1840s and 1850s.
The US would have been better off turning them back to Europe. Same as with the Irish and other non British immigrants.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 7:58 PM  

@Matamoros
In origin, yes. But buy the time of the Revolutionary War, the two groups had already started to merge, largely because the Puritans had started their downward slide into what they became, Unitarians. Because the essence of Puritanism is stiff-necked spiritual pride. Being better than you is the only absolute in Puritan society. The standards have changed, but the pride has not.

Blogger Steve Moss September 23, 2015 8:29 PM  

Jack Amok @ 91

This is a good thought. I think it true that American colonials were descendants of the religiously devout, criminals, rebels and risk takers. It would make sense that there was some environmental and/or genetic factor to their behaviors, which they passed down to their descendants, including a disdain for bending the knee, doffing the cap and kissing the ring.


Chris Mallory @ 94

Are you originally from Bakersfield, CA? I have some Mallory cousins in that area, including 1-2 named Chris.

Western European is inclusive of German, French, Dutch, etc.

British is inclusive of English, Scots, Welsh, Irish.

If you consider Western European as being a cohesive ethnic group, then you are not a mutt. Personally, I think there are differences between Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, etc.

So though you may not consider yourself a mutt, I, who have an almost identical family origin, consider myself one.

Dexter @ 98

Ok, England is not a land of immigrants. It is a land of multiple waves of invaders who stayed and interbred. Feel better?

OpenID Steve September 23, 2015 8:34 PM  

The lesson is obvious, and timely. There is little point in simply expelling muslims.

You should elevate moslems above your own people~ Vlad Tepes.

BGS

Blogger Jim September 23, 2015 9:37 PM  

@97 "The violence doesn't predate the expulsion." Yeah, that whole battle of Tours thing? Pure propaganda, it was a footie match, went 2 - nil against the muzzies. All the 'conquering' of North Africa and Spain, and all those other places? Pure happenstance. They just sort of wandered in and took over. There was no fighting! it was all done by playing chequers!

Blogger ScuzzaMan September 23, 2015 11:23 PM  

"What would actions now would give the best chance to survive such a dystopian future?"

The violent mobs of indigent and indolent locusts will be strongly clustered around the major urban concentrations. By definition, these are people unable to feed themselves, totally disconnected culturally and intellectually from the realities of food production and the concepts of "you dont work, you dont eat" which inform much of classical western european culture circa 18th/19th century.

The major defence against these people will be the energy that they must expend to reach you. Again, be definition they are people who prefer to take the easiest way out of any difficulty, and when that difficulty is feeding themselves they are going to riot and loot whoever is (A) nearby and (B) unable to repel them.

So move out of the cities into small, isolated rural communities where people understand both individual liberty and community interdependence, i.e. where people help each other because it is a mutually beneficial and voluntary arrangement. Select such communities that are at elevation because mobs take the line of least resistance and like water they flow down hill not up.

The effort required to get to you will be the surest protection. But don't neglect to make yourself and your community a hard target, either.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 23, 2015 11:33 PM  

@17
"Any group that accepts PC protection seemingly turns to crap, with perhaps the possible exception of Jews, but then they kind of self inoculate against that problem."

They invented PC. Specifically, in the Moscow Politburo, in 1928. [Remember, the October Revolution and the following Russian Civil War was nothing less than Reform Jews (i.e. Pharisees) hijacking the Russian government].

OpenID Jack Amok September 24, 2015 1:16 AM  

I think it true that American colonials were descendants of the religiously devout, criminals, rebels and risk takers. It would make sense that there was some environmental and/or genetic factor to their behaviors, which they passed down to their descendants, including a disdain for bending the knee, doffing the cap and kissing the ring.


Here is the difference between an American and an Englishman. 400 years ago, two serfs in an English village stood up and said "we want a better life!" The local Lord of the Manor replied "Why are you carrying on like this? Don't you realize how good you've got it? You have a king and a lord who look out for you. You have a country you can be proud of. This is how civilisation works. We all have our part - you have yours and I have mine. If we don't each do our part, things would collapse and we would be no better than Frenchmen or the barbarians living in the wastelands to the East."

Englishmen are descended from the guy who said "I'm sorry, M'lord, I never thought of it that way. I'll get right back to work."

Americans are descended from the guy who said "Fuck this, I'm getting on a boat."

Blogger Dexter September 24, 2015 2:54 AM  

Ok, England is not a land of immigrants. It is a land of multiple waves of invaders who stayed and interbred. Feel better?

Nope. Still wrong.

Blogger VFM 188 September 24, 2015 7:55 AM  

Americans are descended from the guy who said "Fuck this, I'm getting on a boat."

What you said, Jack. A whole bunch of them in fact. Problem is, after they build a civilization, a number of generations go by and their original bad-ass attitude gets attenuated. That appears to be an intractable problem for every civilization, throughout history.

Blogger Steve Moss September 24, 2015 9:56 AM  

Dexter @ 143

Nope, I'm still right.

VFM 188 @ 144

I think VD has hypothesized a time to civilization process to civilization. Assuming some basis for that hypothesis, then it would make sense there is a time from civilization to barbarism back end. In other words, civilizations fail, usually from the inside more than from external forces, as they depart from their founding principals and lapse into degeneracy, indolence and/or entitlement. The degenerate, the indolent and the entitled are not going to strive as did their ancestors and lack their ancestors ability or desire to resist.

Blogger Matamoros September 24, 2015 10:58 AM  

@135 - In 1790, Germans made up less than 10% of the White population of the US.

The statistics I saw from a book on Germans in America stated that at the time of the Revolution Germans were 1/3 of the population.

Remember to factor in the Austrians, Swiss Germans, Alsatian and Lorraine Germans, etc.

#136 - Because the essence of Puritanism is stiff-necked spiritual pride. Being better than you is the only absolute in Puritan society. The standards have changed, but the pride has not.

Well said.

MacDonald Aston well points this out in its various ramifications.

@137 - I think it true that American colonials were descendants of the religiously devout, criminals, rebels and risk takers.

That is true of the English. Remember Georgia was a prison colony and criminals were sent to all the English colonies. The Puritans were kicked out of everywhere and had to emigrate from England.

The Scots were trying to get away from English rule. The Germans were freemen, mostly artisans and educated people trying to get away from the devastation of the Palatinate. Both of these were risk takers. The Germans in particular were building farms and businesses.

Remember freedom of the press comes from the ruling as regards John Peter Zenger, a German. Peter Muehlenberg (pastor of a German-English Anglican church in Woodstock, VA) was a leading firebrand for the Revolution, and fought in it as an officer.

@72 - What would actions now would give the best chance to survive such a dystopian future?

As per Col. Kratman, crucify a few hundred in each European country pour encourager les autres. Then tell them to be gone or be dead.





Blogger Steve Moss September 24, 2015 11:30 AM  

From what I've read, the population of the colonies exploded between the Revolution and 1790, by about a million (net gain), from about 3 million to about 4 million. And this is despite between 100,000-500,000 Royalists fleeing to Canada. A 25% increase in less than 10 years.

The immigrants mirrored the demographics of Revolutionary War America, being mostly English, with a lot of Germans and Scots-Irish thrown in, followed by Scots, Irish and the Dutch. Amazingly, a few thousand Swedes made it over also, though I thought they came much later (and did in larger numbers).

Blogger Anton Chigurh September 24, 2015 4:28 PM  

Your bizarre turn into insulting the Irish, Italians, Germans and French who helped build this nation in the European Christian way reminds us that while you are often brilliant, Vox, you are also oddly dumb in a nerd way, which is not a nice way. Cheers

Blogger Matamoros September 24, 2015 6:46 PM  

@147 - Amazingly, a few thousand Swedes made it over also,

Delaware was settled by the Swedes who sold their colony to Pennsylvania - and it remained a part of Pennsy until it split away and became a State.

Btw, Delaware was another slave State that received the tender mercies of the Union Army to prevent them from seceding, as did Maryland.

Blogger joe camel September 27, 2015 4:19 AM  

What do SJW's have in common with RCC haters? They both lie about Puritans and ascribe the evils of Unitarians to them, even though Puritans, like their Cavalier counterparts in the south drove Unitarians out of their lands whenever they could. Go figure!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts