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

Saturday, November 19, 2016

An enemy of Christendom

None other than the Littlest Chickenhawk, (((Ben Shapiro))), reveals himself to be an enemy of the West, the Alt-Right, and America, as he tells lies about the Alt-Right:
Sean Illing: Are there any concrete political goals on the alt-right, apart from restoring a kind of cultural hegemony?

Ben Shapiro: They want to destroy the Republican Party from within and take it over. They want the constitutional right destroyed. They actually hate the constitutional right more than they hate the left. They don't actually hate the left. They think the left is wrong about racism but they don't object to big government that takes care of people; rather, they think you should have special privileges if you're of European descent. They want what they call "Christendom" protected from foreign bodies.

VP Reader: And with that last line, I knew that Shapiro was not an ally of the West, even though he claims to be one. He is an ally of the "West" that is most beneficial to him and his tribe while keeping Christianity down to a sufficient degree that it does not, once again, become the culturally dominant worldview of the West. But that kind of an ally is no ally at all.
He's also lying. Four times in six sentences.

  1. We don't want the constitutional right destroyed. We want them to come to their senses, stop relying on the magic words "muh Constitution", and start defending the posterity that the Constitution was written to defend.
  2. We don't actually hate the constitutional right. We think they are misguided, outdated, and naive, but we don't hate them. We expect them to join us one day.
  3. We hate the Left. We know they will never join us and we look forward to relegating them to the ash heap of history. Therefore, we hate them more than the constitutional right, whom we don't hate.
  4. We do actually hate the Left.
And while many of us would prefer small government, we recognize that if we do not stop and reverse the invasion, the small government vs large government debate will be rendered moot, because all of the invading foreign bodies prefer large government.

It is all too typical that dishonest "journalists" like Illing prefer to interview enemies of Christendom and the Alt-Right about the Alt-Right rather than speak directly to anyone from me to Richard Spencer to Greg Johnson to Andrew Anglin.

I don't care if someone immigrates here so long as they're willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don't care what someone's race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn't accept that.
- (((Ben Shapiro)))

(((Shapiro)))'s position is not at all consistent with the founding vision of the country. The Alt-Right doesn't accept that because it is obviously untrue. It is conclusively disproven by the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Naturalization Law of 1790. From Infogalactic:

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

And if you're dumb enough to cite a five-word sentence fragment of the Declaration of Independence in a futile attempt to prove that (((Shapiro))) is correct, I have six words for you: READ THE REST OF IT, MORON.

Labels: , ,

205 Comments:

1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Escoffier November 19, 2016 1:07 PM  

Man that is such a funny (((coincidence)))!

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable November 19, 2016 1:07 PM  

it is not obviously untrue

Needs a tweak.

Blogger frigger611 November 19, 2016 1:09 PM  

But of course all men are created equal. That's why me and LeBron have identical NBA contracts.

Blogger The Aardvark November 19, 2016 1:10 PM  

But...but...what about The Huddled Masses?!

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable November 19, 2016 1:11 PM  

I never liked Shapiro much, but I am amazed by his abject refusal to represent his opponents fairly. Most other cuck commentators are starting to pay attention to which side their bread is buttered on. He is well behind the curve.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 1:17 PM  

A reminder about little Ben Shapiro's character:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jilQ_31WquQ

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep November 19, 2016 1:21 PM  

The painful contortions to merely avoid saying "endowed by their Creator" are almost as much fun to watch as the desperate, grasping search for that one diverse example to 'prove' whites guys didn't invent the modern world.

Speaking of partial quotes, they never even include the little bit after "the huddled masses", because they know that commie shit won't fly:

"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"

Blogger Johnny November 19, 2016 1:22 PM  

>>Sean Illing: Are there any concrete political goals on the alt-right, apart from restoring a kind of cultural hegemony?

I have to admit that I am just starting to get clued in to the real nonsense that floats around in the heads of these people. "Cultural hegemony" is the ordinary state of humanity. That is what a tribe is and that is what a culture is. Not that everybody agrees, but there has to be a core, common viewpoint. But then I guess it is okay for (((some people))) to have cultural hegemony and others not.

Anonymous BGKB November 19, 2016 1:23 PM  

I don't care if someone immigrates here so long as they're willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization

They hate everything about the West except the benefits office

Most other cuck commentators are starting to pay attention to which side their bread is buttered on.

The question is "Has he always been David French kissing Soro's ass for cash?"

A reminder about little Ben Shapiro's character:

He looks too tall to be Benji.

Anonymous Cinco November 19, 2016 1:23 PM  

But of course all men are created equal. That's why me and LeBron have identical NBA contracts.

Actually you earn a little bit more than him. You know, due to your privilege and all.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2016 1:30 PM  

Shapiro is talking out of his ass. He obviously doesn't know American history, the alt-right, or the history of the conservative movement, even. Or he's a liar; take your pick.

Fortunately no one listens to him, besides journalists.

Blogger GFR November 19, 2016 1:32 PM  

He has never forgiven Trump for raping and murdering his girlfriend.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence November 19, 2016 1:33 PM  

Reminder:

Ben betrayed and attempted to destroy Breitbart and Bannon in an SJW attack with Michelle Fields.

Milo had consistently built him up with a friendly twitter feud, even after he had quit in a huff.

When Milo was banned from twitter, Shapiro laughed and said it was appropriate for a horrible person.

There are few cucks I detest more than Ben Shapiro.

Anonymous IndecisiveEvidence November 19, 2016 1:34 PM  

Reminder:

Ben betrayed and attempted to destroy Breitbart and Bannon in an SJW attack with Michelle Fields.

Milo had consistently built him up with a friendly twitter feud, even after he had quit in a huff.

When Milo was banned from twitter, Shapiro laughed and said it was appropriate for a horrible person.

There are few cucks I detest more than Ben Shapiro.

Blogger VD November 19, 2016 1:37 PM  

They always leave out these two bits in particular:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages

The equalitarians and conservatives who appeal to the Declaration are either ignorant or wholly and utterly dishonest. The 1740 law restricted the colonial equivalent of citizenship (British subject resident in America) to Anglicans, with exceptions permitted to some Quakers and Jews.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2016 1:37 PM  

@8-They did a half-baked job indoctrinating me, because "cultural hegemony" sounds good, though I have the vague notion that it's a bad thing. Restoring cultural hegemony smells like victory, and I'm not supposed to want to win.

Blogger bkm ( wut is the great flaw in the Alt-R? too many chiefs, insufficient Injuns. good thing Vox Day is the Little Injun That Could pull that fine train. { Vox Gayness intensifies } ) November 19, 2016 1:39 PM  

12. GFR November 19, 2016 1:32 PM
He has never forgiven Trump for raping and murdering his girlfriend.



you forgot "in public".

if Trump had had the simple human decency to rape and murder Michelle Fields in private, Benji might have let it go.

but he did it out in public for the whole world to see and the Littlest Warhawk cannot allow such a provocation of his manhood to stand.

Blogger VD November 19, 2016 1:40 PM  

Ah yes, forgot this: "They [our British brethren] too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity."

The Equality as the basis for America is utter bullshit. The idea it can be used as a conceptual basis to support foreign immigration that is non-white or non-Christian is totally false.

Anonymous Godfrey November 19, 2016 1:44 PM  

Israel has a wall.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 19, 2016 1:48 PM  

The cucks are trying to rebrand themselves as the "constitutional right" now? That's funny stuff.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2016 2:00 PM  

We hate the Left. We know they will never join us and we look forward to relegating them to the ash heap of history.

OOSH.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2016 2:01 PM  

Godfrey wrote:Israel has a wall.

Don't they just bring taller ladders?

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 2:04 PM  

"All men are created equal" was rhetorical trolling against the British crown. So sad many treat it as law and holy writ.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 November 19, 2016 2:04 PM  

Ben Shapiro is preparing to jump ship. He isn't the only one. Jonah Goldberg wrote a very heartfelt goodbye to the Clinton's today or yesterday, and in it he basically laid the corruption of the Democrat party entirely on them. Now that they have been vanquished the neo-cons can return home. By 2020 they all will be writing in support for Kamala Harris, Tammy Duckworth, or Liz Warren.

Will Best

Blogger OneWingedShark November 19, 2016 2:05 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:The cucks are trying to rebrand themselves as the "constitutional right" now? That's funny stuff.

It is very funny, but it's been going on for a while now, just look at how they were pushing Ted Cruz in the primaries (and even before).

OpenID sigsawyer November 19, 2016 2:07 PM  

The lie I hate the most is that powerful government is large government. The weaker and more divided the sovereignty, the bigger the government tends to become. Most sovereigns consider the necessity of intervening in nongovernmental matters to be a last resort in a case of terminal societal illness, not a permanent state of affairs.

Have you read your Filmer, Vox? Your arguments against the 'muh constitution' crowd sound like they were inspired by his insistence that laws cannot rule, only a person can

Anonymous Mike November 19, 2016 2:17 PM  

"READ THE REST OF IT, MORON."

Thank you for that. I've had countless arguments over that very topic. The Declaration is NOT a proclamation of Marxist equality. It is instead an affirmation of the right of all peoples to self-determination.

Blogger jandolin November 19, 2016 2:19 PM  

The exposes of (((Shapiro))) and other (((conservatives))) have not harmed their careers. The neocons have many well funded networks in television, radio, newspapers and magazines where they get paid handsomely for their pretty lies.

Blogger OneWingedShark November 19, 2016 2:21 PM  

Wyrd wrote:"All men are created equal" was rhetorical trolling against the British crown. So sad many treat it as law and holy writ.

It does have theological basis though. Consider these:
- Acts 10 (especially verses 34 & 35)
- Romans 5:12-26; and 3:23

Blogger Johnny November 19, 2016 2:24 PM  

When Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal," European societies were divided into classes with different laws for different groups. The concept he was implementing was equality before the law. That meant no noble class empowered to judge peasants, and no separate rules or separate court for the clergy.

Anonymous Ironsides November 19, 2016 2:27 PM  

ChickenChicken Sweep wrote:The painful contortions to merely avoid saying "endowed by their Creator" are almost as much fun to watch as the desperate, grasping search for that one diverse example to 'prove' whites guys didn't invent the modern world.

Speaking of partial quotes, they never even include the little bit after "the huddled masses", because they know that commie shit won't fly:

"The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me"


Might as well quote Heartiste/Roissy/Weidmann's "The New Colossus" here, since it's a logical extension of the commie blather of what you quoted:

Much like the brazen golem of Mosaic fame,
With conquering meme astride from land to land;
Here at our brain-washed, super zip gates shall stand
A crazy lady with a torch, whose flame
Is her imperious virtue, and her name
Whore to Refugees. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her weepy eyes command
The blue-balled lackeys to their nation betray.

“Keep, ancient lands, your Whiteness pure!” cries she
With fishmouth lips. “Give me your stupid, your poor,
Your mandingos yearning for handouts free,
The vest-bomb refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the vibrant, tempestuous, to me,
I lift my womb to their coal-black spore!”

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-new-colossus/

Blogger Cail Corishev November 19, 2016 2:27 PM  

@22, Yes, it'll come as no surprise if the spiritual and ideological (and sometimes literal) descendants of those (((neoconservatives))) who left the Democrats in the 1960s return home. They did their best to remake the right and the GOP to serve their globalist ideology, and fairly succeeded for a while, but their welcome has run out.

The real question is whether the Democrats will take them back. Will they be too white, or just (((non-white))) enough to be acceptable?

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 2:30 PM  

Anyone who thinks there's equality in law hasn't been paying attention to recent cases that have been overturned because an all-white jury judged a black person. Muh racism.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 2:32 PM  

It does have theological basis though. Consider these:
- Acts 10 (especially verses 34 & 35)
- Romans 5:12-26; and 3:23


Spare me your Churchianity.

Anonymous Credo_In_Unum_Deum November 19, 2016 2:33 PM  

I think people like Shapiro (and others...) are now just pissed off that the White people who make up the majority of this nation have collectively said with electing Donald Trump, "If you can play Identity Politics, then so can we."

Blogger YIH November 19, 2016 2:33 PM  

Curt Doolittle on the Compatibility of the Christian Myth with Natural Law, and the Incompatibility of Judaism and Islam.
The article treats Christianity as a mythos, as if fiction, but the points it makes are clear:
CHRISTIANITY
Christianity consists mostly of church manufactured dogma for the purpose of persisting authoritarian rule, by preserving the ignorance of the population, but suggesting, directing, and commanding them to act in accorance with natural law with one another, using readings from the text. This is, from what I understrand, why prosperity increases with the distribution of christianity: trust extension through constant repetition and virtue signaling.

JUDAISM
Judaism is poly-moral. In other words, there are different moral standards for in-group and out-group members. The general strategy is to contribute nothing to the commons, nothing to the host, but to extract and hold within the clan (tribe) every calorie possible. It is perfectly acceptable to create negative externalities, to 'cheat', and it is part of the law that permits them to - and encourages them to.
The old ''do whatever you want to Gentiles, just don't do them to fellow Jews''.
SLAMISM
islamism is immoral. it seeks and spreads obedience and ignorance. it asks not for christian productivity and trust expansion to all, and instead of jewish parasitism, seeks expansionary conquest and predation - the expansion of mandatory ignorance. And it does so by fascinating means: the promise of respect for submission (non-contribution) rather than contribution.

Sounds about as compatible as Windows software on Linux or Mac.

Blogger weka November 19, 2016 2:38 PM  

Why do people consider Goldberg to be a conservative? By your methods you will know them, and the neo con witchunts, using the full rule book of Alinsky, is how you find them.

The Alt Right refuses to follow the rules they wrote.

I hope that they will converge with the remainder of progressives into a Whig party, while the republicans become a Nationalist, Jacksonian one.

The alternative is race-based parties, which is starting to happen in NZ: the immigrants have an Asian party, the Maori have their own party, and Labour tries to court any minorities left.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora November 19, 2016 2:44 PM  

Jacob I loved and Esau I hated straight up disproves the theological argument of equality.

Blogger Happy LP9 November 19, 2016 2:44 PM  

Upon monitoring Ben:

I gabbed this earlier today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeashT7iMYE Ben expresses; Cognitive Dissonance/Reluctance towards DJT. Ben trashes Vox Day, Milo, Alt Right. Ben distorts/insults Bannon, Pat Buchanan. Ben offers his 'subjective' views. Media, Holywod, EDU narratives all failed/rejected. Insufferable listening

Blogger praetorian November 19, 2016 2:46 PM  

Benji, Benji...

The goyim know.

Blogger pyrrhus November 19, 2016 2:49 PM  

"I don't care if someone immigrates here so long as they're willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don't care what someone's race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn't accept that."
Developing psychic abilities, Benji?
Of course, if Benji channeled one of the Founding Fathers, he would find the word "white" prominent...

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep November 19, 2016 2:53 PM  

@29 - Thanks, I hadn't seen that excellent translation before.

Anonymous Haven Monahan November 19, 2016 2:58 PM  

Ben (((Shapiro))): I think the politics of the alt-right mirrors the identity politics of the extreme left in many ways. And that's why you see some members of the alt-right who say they believe in black nationalism as well."

What about Jewish identity politics? What about Jewish nationalism also known as Zionism? What about the over 50 Jewish political organizations in the US? Why does Ben (((Shapiro))) not denounce Jewish identity politics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish-American_political_organizations

Anonymous Bz November 19, 2016 3:00 PM  

Shapiro, a spokesman of the Oy West.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 3:02 PM  

Shapiro, a spokesman of the Oy West.

The Ballad of Irving:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD8EtvWW8nw

Blogger Retrenched November 19, 2016 3:02 PM  

What we have now, essentially, is a black, brown and Jewish left against a white right. The white left and Jewish right are fading into irrelevance.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 3:04 PM  

@28-"Equality before the law" is almost as ridiculous a concept of equality in general. The entire purpose of the law is to discriminate. We have to come up with a better phrase for what you're talking about.

Jefferson wasn't on about that, anyway. He was speaking less specifically.

Anonymous BGKB November 19, 2016 3:04 PM  

Benji, Benji...The goyim know.

I wish I had gotten some tweets in on that.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:05 PM  

"And while many of us would prefer small government,"

Something frequently missed, well...two things, is that a)things have gone so far now that they will not simply revert on their own, while b) great revolutions are carried out _with_, not against, the power of the state. Put a bit differently, for example, if you want to change the morass that is public education, you don't do it by eliminating the Dept. of Education, or, at least, not yet, but by using the Dept. of Education, possibly after standing some bureaucrats therein against a wall, to destroy everything it "accomplished" in its lamentable existence.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 3:12 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:Of course, if Benji channeled one of the Founding Fathers, he would find the word "white" prominent...
He would have found the word "Englishmen" prominent. "White" as an identity group did not exist. An Englishman felt little more commonality with a Russian than with a Greek or Arab.
Basically the world view was not racial in the modern sense (Thanks Lincoln!), but rather based on circles of consanguinity.

There were the English, then the Welsh, French and Germans, then the Scots and Irish. Outside of that were the other civilized races, the Greek, Italian, Arab, Turk, Russian, etc. And finally the barbarians, Chinese, Africans, Indians and inhabitants of the cannibal islands.

Blogger Lovekraft November 19, 2016 3:15 PM  

Shapiro's eyes give him away as someone to be wary of. Darting, squinting. He really should stop virtue signaling by taking swipes at us.

Blogger Thanks, J. November 19, 2016 3:20 PM  

Spread the word, he's done, he's a legacy media operative and ally of the Democrats and GOP backstabbers.
I tire of people like (((Ben Shapiro))) being confused by some kids with something called "the alt right" because they critique feminists and SJWs.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:22 PM  

Mmmm...the 1790 act isn't actually "in pari materia"* with the Constitution and stands more for the proposition that the founding fathers (note how I still avoid the gender neutral, nonsense term, "framers") hadn't thought about it enough rather than that they thought about it in any particular way. Conversely, they _may_ have been already thinking about and, if they were thinking about it at the writing - enough so to be considered "in pari materia" - then it would kill the notion that they did not intend naturalizing "free white persons," even if not descended from those who were citizens already, to be other than "our posterity."

I suspect, but none can be certain, that the latter reading is more accurate and that they _did_ fully intend that free white immigrants were among the posterity for whom they were securing the blessings of liberty.

*Things which out to be read together for full understanding. For the Constitution this would include, at a minimum, the Federalist Papers _and_ the Declaration, the latter because the 1st ten amendments, already in conception during the writing and ratification, read like a laundry list of British conduct we objected to in the run up to the revolution.

Blogger Wanderer November 19, 2016 3:23 PM  

Reminder that not so long ago this cuck beta male faggot was busy whiteknighting (((Michelle Fields))) and her attempts at taking down Trump and Breitbart using SJW-like tactics.

Blogger Thanks, J. November 19, 2016 3:23 PM  

SIGH. People thinking something is "OVER" because of an election win. Trump's big win, in the end, is just a start and POTENTIAL new beginning.
IOW, "the meme war of 2016", so-called, was just a battle.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT November 19, 2016 3:26 PM  

@6 - OK, which one of the Ilk made that video? I'm in tears and there's coffee every where.

That has the potential to rival Der Fuhrer's videos.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:31 PM  

Amusingly, neither alt-right nor alt-nazi have much to fear from Shapiro or any other soft or quasi-conservatives, less still the never sufficiently to be damned neo-cons, who aren't conservative at all and never have been. No one not already convinced is going to be persuaded by anything they say. Rather, the danger to both would be in their success. Said differently, as the specific and implied goals in the 16 points are reached, expect support to hemorrhage away. That's politics, which is to say, "that's war."

Blogger JDC November 19, 2016 3:31 PM  

possibly after standing some bureaucrats therein against a wall, to destroy everything it "accomplished" in its lamentable existence.

Colonel...surely you meant crucifixions?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:33 PM  

We're in a hurry here, JDC, shootings will have to do for now. For those who don't get with the program with sufficient enthusiasm then, yes, nails.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:33 PM  

...for the children, of course.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:36 PM  

"'White' as an identity group did not exist."

Somewhat belied by the language of the 1790 Act, Snidely.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2016 3:37 PM  

JDC wrote:possibly after standing some bureaucrats therein against a wall, to destroy everything it "accomplished" in its lamentable existence.

Colonel...surely you meant crucifixions?


It's a reference to communism. The man's a connoisseur of political violence.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 3:37 PM  

Hammer, wood, and nails ready, Mr. Kratman.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:39 PM  

@60

Well...maybe.

Anonymous JAG November 19, 2016 3:40 PM  

I can assure Little Benji that the Alt-Right hates the left with the heat of a thousand suns.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 19, 2016 3:43 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:@60

Well...maybe.


You have one of the most fascinating minds on the internet, and that's with some hefty competition.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:46 PM  

@64

Somewhat flexible, anyway.

Blogger YIH November 19, 2016 3:47 PM  

Happy LP9 wrote:Upon monitoring Ben:

I gabbed this earlier today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeashT7iMYE Ben expresses; Cognitive Dissonance/Reluctance towards DJT. Ben trashes Vox Day, Milo, Alt Right. Ben distorts/insults Bannon, Pat Buchanan. Ben offers his 'subjective' views. Media, Holywod, EDU narratives all failed/rejected. Insufferable listening

Good thing I don't have to hear Little Chicken**** often. Not a good speaking voice. Vox could imitate it by pinching his nose shut. Not as bad as Mark Levin however.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 3:49 PM  

@51-"Framer" is by no means a nonsense term, and its gender neutrality is incidental. It means "author," specifically of the Constitution, and is not interchangeable with Founding Father. Many of the Founding Fathers smelled a rat and were opposed to the Constitution, as I'm sure you know. You can't very well call them framers.

Blogger Happy LP9 November 19, 2016 3:49 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI0aAVh0dJc Stefan covers Bannon, citess Milo or My Baby Nero in a lovely dress defends Bannon. It is important to note that Beck and Ben buddied up as they both lie, distorts facts, remains deceptive/snaky in any real truthful info on the AltRight to Bannon on and on. Many are asking how much longer can Beck's business dealings stay afloat.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 3:50 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Somewhat belied by the language of the 1790 Act, Snidely.
Not at all, Tom.
White was a category that included several identity groups, and excluded several they wanted to exclude. It was not itself an identity. No-one thought "I'm White". He would think "I'm an Englishman" or, later on, "I'm an American".
The use of the word "White was simple economy of language.
It also lead to a bit of a problem whent he question "Are Italians White?" was brought up.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:51 PM  

And yet another increment of your core SJWism, Tuble. Why am I unsurprised?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 3:52 PM  

@67-Of course, you can speak of the "framer" of any law, not just the Constitution. I spoke of the distinction between the framers of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers proper because that's the most popular use of the term.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:56 PM  

Please spare us the semantically driven, intellectually dishonest nonsense, Snidely. And Englishman thought of himself as an Englishman, even as a Yorkshire man might detest a Man of Kent, because of who was allied, who was close and threatening, Scots and Frogs, say, and who was distant and barbarian. We, composed of whites English, Irish, Scot, Dutch, and German had enemies close, Indians, notably, and slaves, with whom the free are always in a state of war. Now you can say that English, Irish, Scot, Dutch and German were "American," but that is also a stand in for "white," which view is supported by the 1790 act and its limitation on naturalization to "free whites."

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 3:58 PM  

It's not a popular use of the term, Tuble; it's an imposed bit of linguistic matricide and historical Winston-Smithism, originating with and driven by the academic left, in an attempt to make us forget that, "Gee, they were all men. Can't let impressionable minds think of that, now, can we?"

OpenID simplytimothy November 19, 2016 3:58 PM  

I slightly modify one of Shapiro's statements:

"There's two issues here: the policies and the ideology. I think the ideological tension is interesting, because the goal of XYZ is never to expose their true ideological commitments until it's too late. XYZ needs to entrench their power before revealing their explicitly 123 aims."

Shapiro has had some familiarity with these duplicitous types.





Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:00 PM  

@70-You're unsurprised because it's a case of confirmation bias. I'd like for you to explain how that was an example of SJWism, anyway, out of curiosity.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:05 PM  

Your preference for the nonsense gender-neutral term, in a case where, historically, they were all male, is classic SJWism, Tuble. (It is nonsense precisely _because_ they were fathers, male, in other words, not framers, which could have been either sex.)

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:05 PM  

@73-I wouldn't put it past leftists to use the term like that, and I don't actually know the origin of the popularity of the term "framers of the Constitution " But I'll bet you don't know either, and are merely assuming.

In any case, it's still not a nonsense term. It wouldn't do to speak of all the founders when you only meant those who produced the Constitution, for instance, as I said above. You are free to come up with a gender-specific term if you like.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 4:09 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:"Gee, they were all men. Can't let impressionable minds think of that, now, can we?"
More importantly they're trying to erase the idea of fatherhood from our consciousness.

Leftism! Because getting back at your father is a lifetime endeavor.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:10 PM  

@76-My preference for the term framer over father, you mean? I have no such preference, except in such cases where the more precise term is appropriate. Even then, I might not care. Not enough to correct anyone, for instance. But I do feel the need to correct people who throw around the word "nonsense."

You can't go around calling something nonsense just because you think it benefits leftists. Theoretically benefits them, I should say, because I have no experience of actual leftists preferring the term "framers."

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:10 PM  

I don't have to; it already existed: "founding fathers." You are probably too young - most SJWs are young - to remember when that was the only term used or to have noted when leftist academia began to replace it with framers, sometime in the early to mid-80s, as near as I can tell.

Now there is a reason to distinguish between founding fathers and framers, but that reason is not the SJWs or leftist Academia's reason.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:10 PM  

You're young and, SJW-like, seem to have little experience of anything.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:16 PM  

I don't know where you get the idea that framer is a replacement for founding father, anyway. Apart from the fact that they are not synonymous (Patrick Henry was a founding father but definitely not a framer), the term founder lives on, and is more popular than framer. Shouldn't your beef be with the shortening of founding father to merely "founder?" I've seen a lot of that lately.

The founders this, and the founders that. Could be simple shorthand, but could also be a nefarious leftist plot.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:17 PM  

@81-Why don't you point to your vast experience to enlighten me.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:18 PM  

You're young and, SJW-like, seem to have little experience of anything.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:18 PM  

I don't have to; it already existed: "founding fathers." You are probably too young - most SJWs are young - to remember when that was the only term used or to have noted when leftist academia began to replace it with framers, sometime in the early to mid-80s, as near as I can tell.

Now there is a reason to distinguish between founding fathers and framers, but that reason is not the SJWs or leftist Academia's reason.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:19 PM  

I already have, Tuble; not my fault you cannot grasp it. "Gegen der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter Selbst vergebens."

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:20 PM  

I'd be content if in the least you drop the pretence that it's a nonsense term. That was cheating, in furtherance of your case for newspeak. Which may or may not be true, and which I'm willing to believe, though I haven't seen evidence. Or do you not realize that something can be both a leftist plot and not nonsense?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:23 PM  

My case _against_ newspeak, dumb ass. The substitution of framers for founding fathers _was_ newspeak.

And you have just added to the body of evidence that you are, in fact, an SJW.

And I'm not going to bother explaining further why it is nonsense. You have been given enough evidence. If you refuse to see it, it is because of your core SJWism.

Anonymous Saracen III November 19, 2016 4:24 PM  

I have been watching Ben Shapiro for a while, not that I agree with or care about his politics.
He is smart, eloquent and passionate, and I believe fundamentally honest. He has however two enormous blind spots, understandable in one so young: his religion and his new fatherhood.

Watching him stand up for Ms Fields, at the time I thought "He is having his buttons pushed and thrown under the bus, because in 5 years when he acquires some seasoning he will be a direct threat to the senior players on the Left". In the interview quoted above he is giving his honest opinion.

Blogger rcocean November 19, 2016 4:25 PM  

Yep, the phrase "founding fathers" started early in the 19th century and continued well in the 1980s. I'm not that old, and never heard the phrase "founders" or "framers" until then. About that time, "Chairman" or "Chairwoman" was replaced by "Chair" - which I thought was incredibly bizarre.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:27 PM  

Refusal to say either "framers" or use other forms of gender-neutral speech probably cost me a full quarter of a point of GPA in law school. But, fuck 'em all, anyway.

Blogger Wishing Star November 19, 2016 4:31 PM  

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Well that is plain. Americans abandoned the spirit and letter of that passage. The founders appear to be in line with white nationalist.

Blogger rcocean November 19, 2016 4:31 PM  

Jefferson's "all men are created equal" meant that Americans colonists were the equal of Englishmen, and average people were the equal of Lords and Kings. It nothing to do with thinking blacks were the equal of whites or that even the French were equal to Englishman.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:31 PM  

@85-You continue to ignore the fact that Founding Father and Framer (of the Constitution) don't mean the same thing. There were anri-federalist founding fathers, you know. Let's assume for the moment that the term framer was applied to the writers of the Constitution and popularized by leftists in order to trick people into dropping the term founding fathers and forgetting that the nation was in fact founded by men. (I don't know whether that's actually the case.) That doesn't make it a nonsense term.

I said above that the term's gender neutrality is incidental. Of course it wouldn't be to a leftist, if he was in on the plot. But it is to the basic meaning of the word, and whether or not I care to use it. I'm not concerned whether I'm playing into their hands in this case, considering it's a useful term. It's incidental for the simple fact that there is no masculine form of the word "author" in English, so far as I'm aware. I'd happily use one.

Blogger jandolin November 19, 2016 4:32 PM  

Who cares what the neocons think?

A brilliant fulmination against Eliot Cohen.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-cares-what-the-neocons-think-18427

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:34 PM  

"Don't they just bring taller ladders?"

"For every fifty foot wall there is a fifty-one foot ladder." --virtually every anti-American, pro-barbarian migration activist of the 21st century.
"For every fifty-one foot ladder there is a .50 caliber machine gun." --me

Blogger EscapeVelocity November 19, 2016 4:35 PM  

Ben Shapiro's denial of Christendom's existence (or even it's right to exist) marks his hostility to it. It's the same as the denial of Israel's existence as a Jewish State, often referred to as a "Zionist Entity"

But as an aside, looks like Ive managed to pound the word Christendom into Ben Shapiro's head.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:35 PM  

Let's not. Instead let's just assume what you've given substantial evidence for, that you're a very young SJW and not worth any more of my time right now.

Blogger Mighty Lou November 19, 2016 4:37 PM  

Ben "Shitsmearo".

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:38 PM  

@88-You're not going to bother explaining further? You haven't explained at all. All you've done is say that it was meant to replace founding fathers as part of an leftist linguistic plot. However, that doesn't mean it's nonsense. Leftist use sense to get over on us all the time. They couldn't have gotten so powerful otherwise.

"Framer" is another word for writer or author. Look it up. Not all of the Founding fathers were in on writing the Constitution. Look it up. Therefore, "framer," in the sense of author of the Constitution, is not nonsensical.

Just because you don't like the use a word has been put to does not make it nonsense.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 4:40 PM  

Here's your fucking racial equality. Rep. Danny Davis' grandson shot dead over shoes in Chicago:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/19/congressman-danny-davis-grandson-fatally-shot-over-shoes-in-chicago.html

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:40 PM  

@98-You've spent enough time being unresponsive to me, yes. Ad hominems have diminishing returns.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:41 PM  

"It nothing to do with thinking blacks were the equal of whites or that even the French were equal to Englishman."

We already had French present, at least up in Maine, and, so far as I know, we never legally distinguished between them and the rest of us, as groups, post revolution.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:41 PM  

There's not point in being responsive to you, Tuble; you're both an idiot and an SJW.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:44 PM  

@88-I meant your case for the origin of the term framers (or the origin of its popularity) AS newspeak. Try to consider other possible meanings for people's writing before calling them "dumbass," please.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:45 PM  

@104-Which conveniently is what a person incapable of responding might say.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 4:49 PM  

Tublecane, you've lost. Accept defeat. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:49 PM  

It is true, or partially so; I am incapable of responding in any way sufficient to get through your impenetrably dense, juvenile, SJW skull.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:50 PM  

I'm going to go ahead and say it was hasty of me to say the term's gender neutrality is incidental. It's incidental to me, but since I don't know where it came from, exactly, and why it's as popular as it is, maybe that was its biggest selling point. The persistence of the term "founder" without mentioning fathers speaks against that, as does its obvious non-leftist utility. But maybe.

It would be easy for you to say you were wrong to call it a nonsense term, which it manifestly isn't.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:52 PM  

@107-You explain to me how framer is a nonsense term and I will.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:53 PM  

What parts of "not worth my time," and "impenetrably thick skull" are you having trouble with, Tuble?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:55 PM  

@108-Weird that you keep trying to do so by calling me an SJW, which if I were would be the worst way possible. It's also a bad way to do so because I'm not.

However, it is useful for convincing yourself and signaling to others.

Blogger Artisanal Toad November 19, 2016 4:55 PM  

@47 Tom

It's not necessary to shoot them with guns, just take their clothes away and shoot their photos. Being forced to work naked will also make staff meetings rare and very short, even after letting them wear their clothes again.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 4:56 PM  

@111-I thought you stopped already. Why are you still non-responding?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 4:57 PM  

Because at this point ridiculing you is funny and fun, both, Tuble.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 19, 2016 4:57 PM  

The bottom line for me with all these guys is this: we don't need them. The right -- even the "constitutional right" or whatever he wants to call it -- has plenty of smart and insightful people who didn't jump on a chair and grab their skirts at the sight of Trump and then abandon every conservative principle they ever claimed allegiance to in trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. (If it doesn't have such people, that should be indictment enough in itself.)

These guys are like an NFL punter who was pretty reliable in college, but he's been shanking them a lot since entering the pros, and in the last big game he just handed the ball to an opposing player for an easy walk-in score, so his team needed a last-second Hail Mary to overcome it for the win. You don't say, "Well, he used to be good, and when he gets over this tendency to throw games, maybe he'll be good again." You fire his ass and replace him, easy as that.

Let the Shapiros, Drehers, Becks, and all those like them go get honest employment that doesn't involve selling out America to the left. Thanks to the guy they said was the devil, there will be many jobs opening up. I recommend something in fruit picking or animal slaughter.

Blogger VD November 19, 2016 4:59 PM  

He is smart, eloquent and passionate, and I believe fundamentally honest.

You're wrong. He is not honest. Not at all. And I've known him since he was a little kid parroting Republican talking points on WND.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 5:01 PM  

@115-So you don't have time to respond to my argument, but you do have time to continue to say you don't have time. Sounds more like you're ridiculing yourself.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 5:01 PM  

@107-You explain to me how framer is a nonsense term and I will.

You've lost the rhetorical battle. Accept it. Otherwise, you're dancing in clown-shoes for our amusement.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 5:05 PM  

@119-But I'm interested in the dialectic. There is a place in the world for dialectics, you know. It's not all rhetoric. I don't see any sign that says "no dialectic allowed" on this site.

He doesn't have to engage me, of course. Just let it be known that he is wrong.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 5:07 PM  

LOL!

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 5:08 PM  

@119-I don't mind being a clown for you, by the way. I have literally zero shame in losing a rhetorical battle because some guy kept calling me an SJW. Because I know I'm not. I just want to make sure on some level he knows he's wrong, which I suspect is the case.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 5:09 PM  

GMAO!

Anonymous Crossphased November 19, 2016 5:29 PM  

There's squid ink all over this thread now.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 5:32 PM  


More like Spirit Cooking

With diarrhea

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 5:38 PM  

@Snidely

Podesta the Molesta begs for more.

Anonymous Francois November 19, 2016 5:41 PM  

"and start defending the posterity that the Constitution was written to defend."

I keep looking for that place in the Constitution, in the notes on the Constitutional convention and in the memoirs of the founders at the Constitution where they discuss this most important idea of "our posterity".

It doesn't exist.

Instead, all I find is statement after statement and re-affirmation after re-affirmation that the United States of America is a land of laws, not men.

The notion that a 1791 naturalization act is the defining idea of America is a remarkable and far flung piece of ignorance.

The real question is this: Why didn't the founders make an explicit statement in the constitution about what "The posterity" is?

I know why.

Do you?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 19, 2016 5:48 PM  

"We hate the left", yes, because the left hated us first.
From 1920 Ukraine to Current Year North Korea, the left hated us first. That's what cucks can't see or don't want to see.

Or are paid not to Notice.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 5:51 PM  

The real question is this: Why didn't the founders make an explicit statement in the constitution about what "The posterity" is?

I know why.


Because they knew rules-lawyer like you would shit all over the place with nothing of worth to add, and they had no time or inclination to care about your bovine feces?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 19, 2016 5:53 PM  

"Don't they just bring taller ladders?"

Yeah, we know about that

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 19, 2016 5:58 PM  

Let the Shapiros, Drehers, Becks, and all those like them go get honest employment that doesn't involve selling out America to the left.

That would be a new experience for them. Probably good for them. Definitely good for the rest of us.

Anonymous BGKB November 19, 2016 5:59 PM  

Hammer, wood, and nails ready, Mr. Kratman.

One rainbow feather boa with paracord stands in the core, ready for the Friday night 10mp timeslot.

But, fuck 'em all, anyway. That would limit the show to cable. Just in time to replace Game of Thrones.

Anonymous Francois November 19, 2016 6:04 PM  

"Because they knew rules-lawyer like you would shit all over the place with nothing of worth to add, and they had no time or inclination to care about your bovine feces?"

Well, of course that's not true since the founders were often very explicit in their meaning. In fact very precise.

Here's the thing. Their "Posterity" was not whites or English or Christians. Their posterity was Americans. The Americans whom they gave specific instructions on how to change their words, how to change laws and how to change America.

The constitution and the Declaration of Independence does not mention whites for the simple reason that it was far from their mind.

More important, that anyone would enshrine the founding generation with a sort of "forever wisdom", let alone insist that America was always to be what it was, is cornered into defending all of the constitution; defending all the provisions that the founding generation placed into the constitution and passed in its first congress.

So, VD, please make a case for southern slavery and defend it regularly.

Anonymous Crossphased November 19, 2016 6:14 PM  

Posterity is physical descendants. Like your wife's child.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 6:19 PM  

@127-The preamble to the Constitution is rhetorical, just like the Declaration. Vox's use of "posterity" is a good counterbalance for the mania over "all men are created equal." Not as good as it could be, though, because the latter is ridiculously famous.

There is no "defining idea of America," by the way. But things like actual laws from way back when are evidence of what was in men's minds. Better evidence than contextless high-flown rhetoric, anyway.

Even including the tendentious Lincolnian interpretation of the Declaration, you'll find the evidence which can be twisted to support Invite the World and other tenets of contemporary social justice outweighed 99 to 1, if that.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 6:20 PM  

So, VD, please make a case for southern slavery and defend it regularly.

Not pretending to be VD, but here's the case against you:

You're a retard.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable November 19, 2016 6:21 PM  

The constitution and the Declaration of Independence does not mention whites for the simple reason that it was far from their mind.

Yes, because the idea that anyone else might be in view never occurred to them.

Blogger pyrrhus November 19, 2016 6:22 PM  

@96 Don't you think a .50 would be serious overkill?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 6:23 PM  

@133-*Often* very explicit? Like in the Declaration?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 6:27 PM  

@133-"Their posterity was Americans"

Yeah, and naturally they assumed Americans would consist of Cholos in low riders and knife-weilding berserkers from Somaliland.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 6:28 PM  

@Francoise
Tue es une batarde idiote. Les mots des Peres Foundateurs ne sont pas muitables. Ils sont qu'ils sont. Leur posterite sont leurs fils et leur petit-fils, a travers les ages. C'est tres simple, et les mots n'etaint jamais en bdoubt d'avant l'annee actuel.

Blogger pyrrhus November 19, 2016 6:30 PM  

@48 I think that in a nation with millions of blacks, most of them slaves, the word "white" would be a point of distinction known to everyone. Hence the language in the statute....

Anonymous Carl Le Cocu November 19, 2016 6:37 PM  

C'est l'année en cours!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 6:37 PM  

Nous sommes en train de l'annee actuel en cours!

Blogger Retrenched November 19, 2016 6:44 PM  

Somewhere in the afterlife...

Gwen Ifill: So you see Mr. Madison, the electoral college is an outdated and undemocratic institution that unfairly disenfranchises people of--

Madison: Whoa, wait, who the hell let all these women, slaves and foreigners vote?

Blogger OneWingedShark November 19, 2016 6:47 PM  

Wyrd wrote:It does have theological basis though. Consider these:
- Acts 10 (especially verses 34 & 35)
- Romans 5:12-26; and 3:23


Spare me your Churchianity.


If you'd bothered to read them, you would see that there's a commonality-of-man in them -- moreover, if you open up to the very beginning there's only two humans God makes: Adam and Eve... and if that's not enough for you then consider the Bible explicitly claiming that the whole earth was populated by the sons of Noah (and their wives).

Now, considering these shared genealogies, how is it possible to claim that men aren't created equal in the only sense that matters? (God's POV, that is; and He is no respecter of persons.)

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 6:50 PM  

...how is it possible to claim that men aren't created equal in the only sense that matters?

Men are created equally via mating between a father and a father. After that, all bets are off.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 6:52 PM  

a father and a father

Oops, a father and a mother, rather. I'm not that progressive unless we're talking about progressive rock.

Blogger Stilicho November 19, 2016 6:57 PM  

Francoise, you simpleton, you should actually read the constitution, you know that document that explicitly counted negro slaves as 3/4 of a person for apportionment purposes. It was a hotly debated topic at the time.

Blogger James Dixon November 19, 2016 7:12 PM  

> The real question is this: Why didn't the founders make an explicit statement in the constitution about what "The posterity" is?

Because everyone knew what it meant. Just like "natural born citizen" or "well regulated".

Blogger Jon M November 19, 2016 7:17 PM  

The alt-right is an army of Christian Cincinnatuses, and that scares the tepid right and standard left more than anything.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 7:35 PM  

@138:

If terminal ballistics were the only factor, yes, but the .50 also has superior effective range and nearly twice the graze.

Anonymous Francois November 19, 2016 7:36 PM  

"Yeah, and naturally they assumed Americans would consist of Cholos in low riders and knife-weilding berserkers from Somalilandk"

It doesn't matter what they assumed because they outlined exactly how their posterity could create the America it desired...which of course they have done.

Blogger jandolin November 19, 2016 7:37 PM  

When the founding fathers mentioned posterity they were referring to the (((neocons))) who would use American military power to destroy strong Arab states that pose a threat to Israel under the rhetoric of spreading freedom and democracy.

Anonymous Francois November 19, 2016 7:38 PM  

"Francoise, you simpleton, you should actually read the constitution, you know that document that explicitly counted negro slaves as 3/4 of a person for apportionment purposes. It was a hotly debated topic at the time."

Yes....and they settled on 3/5 not 3/4.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 7:44 PM  

By the way, Tuble, there _is_ a sense in which "framers" isn't a nonsense term. "What's that?" you ask. Well, if one is an SJW, or even an Academic lefty proto-SJW of the early 80s, and one wishes to undermine the historical truth ("Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.") that our country was set up by white males, to impliedly give women of the day a place in matters to which they were not and are not entitled, then of _course_ it is sensible, not nonsense at all, to use a word that supports your goal.

Of course it's still a fucking lie and nonsense to anyone who doesn't have that goal.

Anybody keeping count of how many bits of evidence that's he's an SJW Tuble has given up so far?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 7:45 PM  

"destroy strong Arab states"

In what parallel universe do these exist?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 19, 2016 7:55 PM  

Francois wrote:It doesn't matter what they assumed because they outlined exactly how their posterity could create the America it desired...which of course they have done.
Strange, no-one ever asked me.
If on the other hand, you meant the America that (((some people))) desire, you might have a point. Besides the one on top of your head I mean.
But you don't mean that, because that thought is literally unthinkable to you.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 8:19 PM  

@153-"It doesn't matter what they assumed"

Of course not. Why would it? They're only the ones who assumed it; we're the ones who are alive now, so we win.

"because they outlined exactly how their posterity could create the America it desired"

Where? In the document no one follows?

"which of course they have done"

They and millions of interlopers, my ancestors included. But we know heritage America went wrong, and we live with that. What's at issue is what the original Americans believed. They did not create a Nation of Immigrants, an egalitarian paradise, or whatever ignoramuses imagine.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 8:40 PM  

@156-You could have made exactly the point you just did by leaving it at gender neutrality. Whether or not the term was promulgated for that quality, it is at least true. But it's not true that "framer" is nonsense. Assuming leftists used it for the purposes you ascribe to them, they didn't invent a new word, like "flagreflr" or "pfoofadah." They picked a preexisting word, which fits the idea of "writer of Constitution" aptly. Just because it's used by your enemies doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Do you also have scorn for the term Signer, for those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Are you going to argue "signer" is a nonsense term, too?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 8:41 PM  

@156-Also, what about poor Patrick Henry? Are you going to leave him stranded with those bloody federalists by implication?

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 9:02 PM  

@156-As I said above, I don't know when the term "framer" for writer of the Constitution was popularized, or why. But I do know that the connection between the law and the idea of a frame is old. Very old. For instance, one of the inspirations for the Constitution was William Penn's Frame of Government for Pennsylvania, from the 17th century.

So if the left used it for nefarious purposes, they did not pull it out of thin air.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 9:09 PM  

They didn't pull the word "gay" out of thin air when they pervert it to mean homosexual, either, dumb-ass; but it's a nonsense prostitution of the word nonetheless, especially as they're among the least _gay_ people in the world, meaning, once again, that their use of the word is nonsense.

Anonymous Pennywise November 19, 2016 9:18 PM  

The Naturalization Act of 1790 is no longer the standard bearer, nor should it be. Congress was granted the liberty to change its terms for future generations.

And, tublecane, the "original" Americans are Europeans, Africans, and tribal groups, some of which who came here as immigrants and some of which who came here as "workers", compliments of the "invade the world, invite the world" philosophy of Europeans.

Blogger M Cephas November 19, 2016 9:31 PM  

Some have argued that you can't restore Christendom to America because it is not founded on Christianity.

They bring up the "Treaty of Tripoli", Article 11, which states:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries".

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 9:31 PM  

@163-The meaning of "gay" was perverted (haha), but is by no means nonsense, either. Its association with immorality, dissipation, centuries before it was applied to homos. But a central part of the homo strategy was to sell themselves as Good Time Charlies, so they took advantage.

"Framer" is neither nonsense nor was it perverted. Using it for writers of law preserves the same sense it has in the frame of a house, for instance: a structure which supports and holds something together.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 9:35 PM  

Sorry, that should be it was associated with immorality, dissipation, etc. centuries before it was applied to homos.

Anonymous Avalanche November 19, 2016 9:38 PM  

@133 "The constitution and the Declaration of Independence does not mention whites for the simple reason that it was far from their mind."

Yes, they ALSO didn't write into them that they wanted to naturalize ONLY those folks who wear clothes in public. (Oh, and be oxygen-breathers!)

One only mentions something when there is a specific need to make it didactically clear (as: against lawyers and their weaseling). (Sorry, actual weasels, no offense intended.) Alas, that our forebears could NEVER have imagined the horrors we face today! (Else they WOULD have written it in - as they DID in the 1790 law!)

Most people when making agreements -- or writing Constitutions -- make certain assumptions. (WHY would the Founding Fathers ever have considered anyone EXCEPT White men to write them into the law by description (as they did with the 1790 law!)? "Everyone knew" who they meant!

PORTIA: A pound of that same merchant’s flesh is thine. The court awards it, and the law doth give it.
...
SHYLOCK: Most learnèd judge, a sentence! Come, prepare.
PORTIA: Tarry a little. There is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood.
The words expressly are "a pound of flesh."
Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh,
But in the cutting it if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are by the laws of Venice confiscate
Unto the state of Venice.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 9:39 PM  

P.S. It shouldn't surprise anyone that a word which meant "carefree" and given to pleasure could end up meaning sexually promiscuous, which fits homos perfectly.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 9:47 PM  

Nah, no sense in risking breaking the blog, so:

SJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJWSJW

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky November 19, 2016 9:54 PM  

It is apparent that Ben Shapiro is a small-minded man who is fighting the last war. Too bad for Ben. He's not much beyond a confuser at this point, one to be avoided.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 9:58 PM  

@171-You asked above if anyone's keeping a tally on the bits of evidence tying me to SJWism. All they'd have to do is count the number of times I've disagreed with you, because that's your measure.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 9:58 PM  

"Yes, they ALSO didn't write into them that they wanted to naturalize ONLY those folks who wear clothes in public. (Oh, and be oxygen-breathers!)"

No, Ava, he has a point...sort of...or half of one. We can't know what they had in mind, see comment above, but we can think of them as people, albeit unusually capable people. People, being people, they'll worry about some things and not others. They'll make something clear when they need to and realize that; not when they're not sure, or haven't realized it. Why, after all, didn't they provide a definition of what "the executive power" is? Well...it was known. They may not have mentioned whites because they couldn't or, at least, didn't imagine anything else that wasn't either white or a warrior stock marrying in on the distaff side, which they could have seen and didn't need to imagine, or could imagine it but didn't have sufficient consensus, or could imagine it but figured, "Well, hell; everybody _knows_..." or something else.

I suspect that they didn't intend to let in free blacks under any circumstances, since those, the home grown version, were already making slavery problematic. I suspect they had no issue with whites taking indian girls as brides (and, indeed, that may have been unavoidable as long as we had a shortage of females, which we often did, at least in places).

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 9:59 PM  

No, tuble, not everything you've said marks you as an SJW, just many of the things you've said and many you've implied.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 10:11 PM  

@175-By many of the things I said and implied you mean things I said which you twisted beyond recognition after you marked me as an SJW because I disagreed with you.

The first instance I remember was when you asked me what kind of man wouldn't go on a murder spree, including infants, and I responded a man who doesn't like killing babies. Which for no good reason you decided meant I believe you have to like something to do it. Which doesn't follow, is ridiculous, and is reading my words in bad faith.

You also said "framer" is my preferred term over "founding father," which is nowhere in evidence. I only prefer it in such cases where it's useful to distinguish between founding fathers in general and writers of the Constitution in particular. Because they are not interchangeable, given the fact that lots and lots of founders, some of the most famous, had nothing to do with the Constitution. More bad faith on your part.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 10:18 PM  

I don't think it's bad form to assume people are shills, disruptors, trolls, or just plain frontrunners, by the way. I don't really care, because I know I'm not an SJW, and there are a lot of conversational saboteurs out there. Not much downside to false accusations, at least on a board like this. I just don't like it when it derails arguments.

I do get annoyed when people accuse me of autism, however. That hasn't happened in a while. I assume now that I've brought it up, someone will.

Blogger Stilicho November 19, 2016 10:18 PM  

Ah Francoise, you caught my typo. Thanks. Of course, you also revealed yourself as a liar at the same time. Couldn't stop yourself, could you? That's gottta sting a bit...

Blogger Stilicho November 19, 2016 10:18 PM  

Ah Francoise, you caught my typo. Thanks. Of course, you also revealed yourself as a liar at the same time. Couldn't stop yourself, could you? That's gottta sting a bit...

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 10:19 PM  

I have no idea how "frontrunners" got autocorrected into that post.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 10:32 PM  

It does follow. It is not ridiculous. And it marked you as an SJW, which mark you have succeeded in carving deeping and making brighter since.

Just give it up, son; it's far too late now for you to present yourself as anything but an SJW in drag.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 10:44 PM  

@181-No, what didn't follow was your deduction. There isn't any reason to think a person believes you have to like something to do it based on them offering men who don't like to kill babies as an example of the kind if man who wouldn't kill the infant relatives of his enemies.

I won't ask you to explain how you made that leap, because you'd refuse. You jumped to SJWism because you didn't like the cut of my jib, or something.

I haven't carved a mark deeper; I've merely continued to disagree with you. Your confirmation bias has done the rest of the work, you old fart.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 10:47 PM  

It is too late for you, maybe, but I don't care if you think I'm an SJW, really. I don't know why I continue to respond. Perhaps the same reason you keep responding to me.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 11:22 PM  

You're young. Maybe when you grow up you'll understand the way you marked yourself.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 19, 2016 11:25 PM  

Speaking of enemies of Christendom, the SJW unpope Francis gasses on about migrants and names two notoriously progtard American bishops (Joseph Tobin and Blase Cupich) as cardinals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/world/europe/pope-francis-inducts-cardinals.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/a-chicago-archbishop-is-becoming-a-cardinal-and-its-a-big-deal/cabb5e97-1087-46a8-80d9-c3e1ea3f9813

Blogger weka November 19, 2016 11:32 PM  

Lemme see.

1. A constitution does not make a nation. France has had six or seven (counting the imperial periods). England and New Zealand don't have one.

2. A people make a nation. Immigrants can assimilate over a period of generations.

3. A diverse nation is not a nation: it is a series of ethnicities not currently at war.

4. Neocons and SJWs are pretty much the same pissant cowards.

@Tublecane, Kratman was once drafted into international law negotiations. He became an author for a reason. Stop quoting the constitution and start thinking of the main question: is America a nation? New Zealand is. Australia is. But we have a majority ethnicity and limit immigration.
Has the USA under the neocons and their socialist masters? I think not.

Anonymous Wyrd November 19, 2016 11:43 PM  

Somebody please rip Tublecane's stillsuit. He is most tiresome and his water should be claimed by his tribe.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 11:46 PM  

@186-"Kratman was once drafted into international law negotiations"

He could've been crowned Emperor of the Universe, but that wouldn't make "framers" a nonsense term.

"He became an author for a reason."

Not for his unerring ability to spot SJWs.

"Stop quoting the Constitution"

When did I do that? Aside from one word in the preamble?

Why are you asking me those questions? Are you confusing me with someone else.

Anonymous tublecane November 19, 2016 11:55 PM  

@184-I already know how I marked myself in your mind: I disagreed with you, and didn't have a reputation already built up. Then I disagreed more, which reinforced it.

Maybe the second or third time I ever engaged you you said I had already discredited myself on another thread. That being the one with your ridiculous leap converning baby killing. Obviously you stopped reading me in good faith very, very quickly. My guess is because you were emotionally triggered on the thread where you brought up someone murdering your wife, not exactly out of the blue but without much prelude.

Blogger EscapeVelocity November 20, 2016 12:28 AM  

@VD

One of the funny things about Shapiro, is that he railed against Cuckservatism, before and after the 2012 election. That Romney was too nice, wouldnt take the gloves off, played by the Marquis de Queensbury rules (and the assumption that the Left were fundamentally decent people that just disagreed on policy).

Then along comes Trump and all the sudden he goes all wobbly. (After having promoted Trump in 2012 as a Presidential candidate alternative).

What it boils down to is not that he thought Trump wasnt a conservative. (We can all see the conservative magnificience Trump's staffing unfolding before our eyes) but that Trump was a Euro-Christian Nationalist...and Ben went straight to the Jewish Tribal-wagon circling.

Anonymous tublecane November 20, 2016 12:46 AM  

@190-He went wobbly for Michelle Fields' boobs.

Blogger Shimshon November 20, 2016 1:27 AM  

If Ben were a candidate Trump would've had a hard time who deserved "Lyin'" more.

The exchange Trump had in his interview with Bannon back during the primaries was interesting. The duplicitous Ted really bothered him. Bannon tried to persuade him of Ted's not-so-badness. Trump was having none of it. Trump himself was not kind to Carson, for example, but he didn't lie to manipulate turnout.

Blogger Ezekiel November 20, 2016 2:29 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Godfrey wrote:Israel has a wall.

Don't they just bring taller ladders?


Well, they dig tunnels... which the Israelis fill with water.

They're lucky. Try digging a tunnel into Egypt and they'll gas it.

Blogger Shimshon November 20, 2016 3:33 AM  

@193 We are kind.

Blogger VD November 20, 2016 6:07 AM  

Good Lord, shut the fuck up, Tublecane. This is why you get accused of autism. Because you deserve it.

Seriously, do you really think this is all about you? Do you really think that anyone gives a damn what you think about Tom Kratman or anyone else.

Stop sperging. The Kratman is fine.

Blogger VD November 20, 2016 6:10 AM  

"The constitution and the Declaration of Independence does not mention whites for the simple reason that it was far from their mind."

The Declaration of Independence specifically mentions "British brethren", "consanguinity", "foreign mercenaries", and "Indian Savages". They not only mention white people, they specifically refer to America as being British.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 20, 2016 7:24 AM  

Oooohhh...is _autism_ his problem?

Note to self; spend some time thinking about the ways in which autism may mimic SJWism. 3rd priority, no more.

Anonymous Francois November 20, 2016 10:49 AM  

"The Declaration of Independence specifically mentions "British brethren", "consanguinity", "foreign mercenaries", and "Indian Savages". They not only mention white people, they specifically refer to America as being British."

One would think you'd recognize rhetoric when you see it.

In any case, where is the mention of white men?

Finally, you seem to believe that America is and should be what the founders described and ascribed in 1791. The endorsement of slavery in the constitution, a document with greater legal authority than an act by Congress, ought then to be on the top of your list in terms of what makes us "American"...the holding of slaves or at least allowing the holding of slaves. But you don't seem to be embracing this.

Hypocrite? Selectivity? Cherry picking?

Finally.....Article Five.

Anonymous Francois November 20, 2016 10:51 AM  

"Ah Francoise, you caught my typo. Thanks. Of course, you also revealed yourself as a liar at the same time. Couldn't stop yourself, could you? That's gottta sting a bit..."

3/5...Not 3/4, Stilcho.

1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts