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

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

"Muh Constitution," he cucked, cuckingly

Alex Rawls has absolutely no idea what the U.S. Constitution is or for whom it was written:
The CONSTITUTION does not define a white ethnostate. It is no contradiction of the constitution to welcome many of those from other races that share a commitment to liberty under law and to Christian morality (which most religions other than Islam do in large degree).
Alex is absolutely and utterly wrong. The Constitution doesn't define a white ethnostate, it clearly establishes a BRITISH ethnostate. It exists solely to defend the rights and liberties of the genetic descendants of the Founders and no one else. It does not welcome anyone and it does not indicate any interest in any other race or nation regardless of their commitment to anything, much less "liberty under law" or "Christian morality".

The purpose of the Constitution is laid out in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them.

The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.

Labels: ,

124 Comments:

Blogger Matt January 10, 2017 4:42 PM  

Here, Here!

Blogger Viisaus January 10, 2017 4:43 PM  

It was the pagan Roman Empire, not the United States of America, that could claim to be the first great "proposition nation" of history. As this 2nd century AD Greek rhetorician put it:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst205/readings/RomanOration.html

"You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire... everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, [Aristides, for example, retained his citizenship in the Anatolian city of Smyrna while simultaneously possessing Roman citizenship] while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia.... No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common "world democracy" under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director .... You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans, ... and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high opints of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you.... Yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people....Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful wihtout delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind...."

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 10, 2017 4:46 PM  

Assume that the proposition nation can exist. Then there is no need for anyone to move to the US, because they can just decide to live under the US Constitution wherever they are, because proposition.

Because if all it takes to become an "American" is deciding to do so, on the way to our magic dirt, it's just a logical step that they can decide to do so and stay on their own dirt, tragic or not.

That's my proposition of the day.

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 4:50 PM  

@3: Heh heh, right on. As Mister Langston Hughes famously said,

"This is my theme for English B."

Blogger Ransom Smith January 10, 2017 4:51 PM  

If and when the white nations finally uncuck themselves, we can return to a better time.

When whites spent time conquering other whites.

We're coming for you Canada.

Blogger S. Thermite January 10, 2017 4:53 PM  

Heh, had wondered if the Dark Lord was going to let Mr. Rawls's late-night histrionics slide. Clearly someone didn't read the book like the rest of us "lemmings" did.

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 4:53 PM  

Sorry, it's "my page" not "my theme", which is the title, not the line.

Still, Langston Hughes is pretty funny and astute, even if he's not _really_ a great poet, or an ally. But he's a great belle-lettrist, as it were, and we're better off that he walked the earth.

Ne'er the less, the point of the OP and the #3 gloss still stand.

Anonymous Ghost Who Walks January 10, 2017 4:55 PM  

Heed as well, John Jay's famous statement on this blessing (as he put it).

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 4:56 PM  

"had wondered if the Dark Lord was going to let Mr. Rawls's late-night histrionics slide"

The really bad part is, Alex Rawls is not even the stupidest guy named Rawls who ever lived.

That honor would go to......

Anyone? Bueller?

Blogger pyrrhus January 10, 2017 4:57 PM  

I think this ridiculous opinion is common to the whole Rawls family, based on some of the J.Rawls novels. Apparently, Rawls thinks that Christianity requires universal citizenship....

OpenID elijahrhodes January 10, 2017 4:58 PM  

I heard a mic drop after reading that.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 10, 2017 5:02 PM  

A nobody doesn't even rise to the equivalence of a Trigglypuff

Anonymous Mark Auld January 10, 2017 5:04 PM  

The proposition nation folks are welcome to start 1 UP ...ELSEWHERE. The African continent or Mongolia come to mind.

Mongolia come to mind.

OpenID elijahrhodes January 10, 2017 5:06 PM  

Incidentally, my family on my father's side were British settlers who came to New England in the 1600s, so I think I count as posterity. My English heritage also probably explains why I am predisposed to limited government, maximum freedom, and general mayhem.

Anonymous BBGKB January 10, 2017 5:17 PM  

welcome many of those from other races that share a commitment to liberty under law and to Christian morality

They want the free stuff paid for by whitey, but not freedom.

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 5:18 PM  

"why I am predisposed to limited government"

'Limited government' is a relative idea. For better or worse, we live in a country the size of a continent, and if your idea of limited government and general mayhem is in earnest, then you deserve all those f*cking Somalians, and more.

You'd be far better off with a renewed emphasis on states' rights. Limited government as an idea with a standard interpretation is, as Orwell once said, an idea so stupid that only an intellectual would believe it. It's almost as stupid as libertarianism, but not quite. That one's really quite a humdinger, tough to beat.

Anonymous Harker January 10, 2017 5:22 PM  

If there was no post-1776 white immigration, then the percentage of blacks in this country would be much higher. The U.S. circa 2017 could look like South Africa.

Anonymous Matt January 10, 2017 5:24 PM  

I like the proposition nation idea. I really do. But as a matter of plain fact we just simply aren't one, we have never have been one, and we can never be one under anything resembling the present American government.

The question to ask proposition nation people is just "Ok, what happens to people to reject the proposition?" They don't get kicked out. They still get to vote. If they're non-citizens, their chances of becoming citizens are not even negatively affected. You can't have a proposition nation if nobody actually has to agree with the proposition.

OpenID elijahrhodes January 10, 2017 5:24 PM  

@acushla Sperg much?

Blogger tz January 10, 2017 5:28 PM  

The constitution doesn't define any ethnostate. It enumerates the powers of the branches of government and certain rights explicitly.
It was designed for those who were citizens of the 13 colonies, which was not at all diverse.

welcome many of those from other races that share a commitment to liberty under law and to Christian morality (which most religions other than Islam do in large degree).

What other races? The Constitution is opensource and all the information is there. If any human group could do the constitution, there would be at least one more example. Even the war between the states, the seceded South did not adopt the original Constitution.

Christian morality is even more rare. If you throw out sexual morality and not rendering to Caesar your soul, maybe. How many non-Christians are as morally aware as Stefan Molyneux. I can make a few examples of hard or soft deists, or Unitarians among the founding fathers, but they took Christian morals as a given, didn't try to minimalize it.

There are more Churchians than Christians (think the Hillary Archipelago - they are concentrated but a majority). They don't want the Constitution as written, they want immigrants that hate everything the constitution stands for. They want big, liberal, progressive, socialist government.

The various ethnic groups still hold and prove Vox's point. The Original and now current Mormons in Utah are descended from the original English stock, and there's not a group that believes more religiously in the Constitution. Number two are general sons of the South that want something pre-Lincoln and generally a minimalist government and see the Constitution as a template. There are vast red areas that are close to the Constitution, at least in spirit if not detail.

The original government allowed for very limited immigration. If I look at my family, I may be the only one of dozens if not hundreds that really desire America 1.0. Most that are sort-of conservative don't understand anything about the constitution. The rest are flaming liberals. The only counter is most "Englishmen" in the blue areas hate the Constitution more.

If you wished to create a proposition nation based on the Constitution, it would have to be along the lines of Galt's Gulch where you would have to fully understand things to enter and throw out any opponent.

That's why I hope for a #Cal(Coast)Exit - I can think of no way to turn the proposition nation of the people's democracy of California into something compatible with my values. So it is either partition, deportation, or something far worse.

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 5:29 PM  

"@acushla Sperg much?"

Nope. You?

Blogger Jourdan January 10, 2017 5:29 PM  

This is more right than it is wrong, and it certainly is the case that Americans envisioned their NATION as an Anglo-American people with a particular history and who sat uneasily aside an African-American people who shared CITIZENSHIP with their government until circa 1965 and the Liberal Revolution.

However, the Const does explicitly award to the new Federal govt under Art I, Sect 8 the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," which can only mean that the Constitution, its drafters and the adopting state legislation fully understood that the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized.

This doesn't turn the U.S. into a "Proposition Nation" as Rawls and many others believe, but it also quite clearly also does not limit the intended scope of the Constitution solely to the framers and their then-current population's posterity.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 10, 2017 5:31 PM  

Actions are revealed preference. Immigrants can come to the USA from anywhere and vocally profess their devotion to the system as it is when they arrive.

They then set about changing it to "fit" them better, and if they get above some threshold of concentration they eventually reproduce the exact conditions from where they came, only with social-welfare extortion.

Methinks pretty much everyone is an immigrant from Somalia, given how they all behave like pirates holding their neighbors for ransom.

People only do the "when in Rome, behave like Romans" when they are a tiny minority surrounded by "Romans."

Is there anywhere in the USA that is still like that? Not where I live, that's for sure. The USA (as a geographic entity) is already overrun. Partition is coming, maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually.

Blogger tz January 10, 2017 5:34 PM  

Put differently, with Stefan Molyneux, I really, really, wish human biodiversity was not true. But it is. Each nation has a national temperament. It is at best solipsism and at worse total stupid naivete for a Swede to assume an Afghan will play nice with their culture and welfare state.

Now there might be 3-sigmas in country X that fit the temperament of country Y, but realize the rarity, and difficulties.

Proposition? If anyone suggests it and doesn't immediately agree that 95% or more of the US Government is unconstitutional, they don't know or understand the proposition and probably couldn't.

Blogger praetorian January 10, 2017 5:44 PM  

The really bad part is, Alex Rawls is not even the stupidest guy named Rawls who ever lived.

Let us consider justice through a veil of stupidity...

Blogger Cail Corishev January 10, 2017 5:51 PM  

that share a commitment to [...] Christian morality (which most religions other than Islam do in large degree).

As usual, Cuckservatism and Churchianity overlap to a large degree with each other and with bone-deep ignorance of the things they claim to hold dearest.

Anonymous acushla January 10, 2017 5:53 PM  

There is no "proposition," and there never was. There was a certain cohort of people who came from a certain place and time, who for better or worse discovered one of the greatest pieces of real estate on earth, which was defended only by sparsely-populated stone-age retards, and who began to, with astounding rapidity, transform said real estate into one of the most astounding civilizations ever seen. Their "proposition" was not a proposition at all, it was simply the way in which they chose to govern themselves, in accordance with their unusual and fairly unique disposition.

The rest of the people who showed up later on did not believe in this imaginary "proposition," they were simply desperadoes and opportunists looking to get their claws into a good thing while supplies last. A bunch of them were very useful, some of them were not; but as long as the influx was European, most of them were indeed useful, and even the useless ones eventually grew into being useful (being European, and sharing the general phenotype and cultural disposition).

But guess what? Getting your claws into the good thing is no longer admirable, as there is no longer enough good thing to go around, and the people looking to enjoy that which was already built, but just not by them, do not share the phenotype nor the disposition of those who originally built the place. Put simply, they pretty much just want our stuff. (And our women, too, but that's a thing for another day.)

Confucian rectification of names: you can't go wrong when you start from there.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 10, 2017 5:59 PM  

Roman citizenship was very difficult to get.

Blogger Madame Ringading January 10, 2017 6:01 PM  

@5
As a Canadian, I would honestly say this would be a mercy killing.

It would be worth it to see Justin Trudeau in irons and some "Laurentian Elites" reassigned to garbage duties in the streets.

Anonymous kagi January 10, 2017 6:01 PM  

"Roman citizenship was very difficult to get."

Until it wasn't. History fail.

Blogger Cail Corishev January 10, 2017 6:03 PM  

"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

It would help if more than a few people today knew the meaning of the word "posterity." I think most have a vague sense that it has to do with our future wealth and well-being as a nation, when the actual meaning -- and certainly the meaning intended here -- is "descendants." They were trying to create a nation that would keep their descendants free; it had nothing to do with the rest of the world except to be a guard against it.

Blogger VD January 10, 2017 6:11 PM  

However, the Const does explicitly award to the new Federal govt under Art I, Sect 8 the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," which can only mean that the Constitution, its drafters and the adopting state legislation fully understood that the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized.

It did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 10, 2017 6:16 PM  

Reading a Sailer thread about some murder I find out that America is a white settler state that needs to be annihilated and still this cuck scolds us. What an idiot

Anonymous kagi January 10, 2017 6:16 PM  

"It did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously."

That isn't a strong argument, and after all, you're well known for strong arguments. "Obviously" is one of those land-mine words like "therefore" which should be avoided when possible.

Will only get into this more deeply if you feel inclined to do so. Hmm, maybe I'll learn a thing or two.

Blogger Viisaus January 10, 2017 6:47 PM  

30 # "Until it wasn't. History fail."

Indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana

"The Constitutio Antoniniana (Latin for: "Constitution [or Edict] of Antoninus") (also called the Edict of Caracalla or the Antonine Constitution) was an edict issued in 212,[1] by the Roman Emperor Caracalla declaring that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given theoretical Roman citizenship and that all free women in the Empire were to be given the same rights as Roman women.
...

The Roman jurist Ulpian's Digest stated, "All persons throughout the Roman world were made Roman citizens by an edict of the Emperor Antoninus Caracas" (D. 1.5.17)."

Blogger Viisaus January 10, 2017 6:51 PM  

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the pioneer of racist ideology, was very pissed at Caracalla for that:

http://www.hschamberlain.net/grundlagen/division1_chapter2.html

"And now other foreigners usurped supreme power, this time men full of passion but devoid of understanding, African half-breeds, soldier Emperors, who saw in the Roman State nothing more than a gigantic barracks, and had no idea why Rome in particular should be the permanent headquarters. The second of them, Caracalla, even extended the Roman franchise to all the inhabitants of the Empire: thereby Rome ceased to be Rome. For exactly a thousand years the citizens of Rome (with whom those of the other cities of Italy and of other specially deserving States had gradually been put on an equal footing) had enjoyed certain privileges, but they had gained them by burdensome responsibility as well as by restless, incomparably successful, hard work; from now onward Rome was everywhere, that is, nowhere. Wherever the Emperor happened to be was the centre of the Roman Empire. Diocletian transferred his residence to Sirmium, Constantine to Byzantium, and even when a separate Western Roman Empire arose, the imperial capital was Ravenna or Milan, Paris, Aachen, Vienna, never again Rome. The extension of the franchise to all had another result: there were no longer any citizens. Caracalla,* the murderous, pseudo-Punic savage, used to be commended for his action and even to-day he has his admirers (see Leopold von Ranke, [I]Weltgeschichte[/I], ii. 195)."

Blogger VFM #7634 January 10, 2017 6:55 PM  

If there was no post-1776 white immigration, then the percentage of blacks in this country would be much higher. The U.S. circa 2017 could look like South Africa.

@17 Harker
If we allowed in no white OR black immigrants, my guess is that we'd probably be more like Brazil, not South Africa. (Rather, a Brazil where those who call themselves "white" actually are white and not quadroons.)

Black birth rates aren't all that higher than ours, and never were except between about 1960 and 1995. Native-born blacks are most likely actually lower.

BTW, according to the CDC, 15% of black births are now to foreign-born mothers. The black problem would most likely be in recession right now were it not for immigration.

Anonymous BBGKB January 10, 2017 6:59 PM  

If you thought US Leftists are the party of free stuff https://www.amren.com/news/2017/01/germany-green-party-pledges-pay-free-sex-prostitutes-anyone-needs-sexual-assistance-cant-afford/

Blogger VD January 10, 2017 7:01 PM  

That isn't a strong argument, and after all, you're well known for strong arguments.

Read it again. There is nothing weak about it. The fact that the Constitution turned out to have exploitable flaws does not alter what its original purpose was, especially given that it has observably failed in that regard.

Blogger Matamoros January 10, 2017 7:06 PM  

@31 posterity

Unfortunately, Cail, you immediately run into the "we'se all God's chillen" crowd (cut to Kumbaya). "Don't we all bleed red. God loves all his chillens, red, and yello, black and white...."

I agree with Vox that you have to hammer them with rhetoric to get around their emotionalist rhetoric and the guilt it stirs.

Blogger JJ from AZ January 10, 2017 7:12 PM  

"It did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously."

A contract, and that is what the Constitution is, that provides for its own system of amendment is not meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the Preamble states,

Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People, as a whole. While this population was mostly of British descent, not all of it was. The Dutch, the Germans, the Irish, the Scots and French were all represented and all fought to free our nation from the yoke of the British Crown.

However, as noted, the Constitution only speaks to immigration in that it gives sole power to define the bounds of naturalization to the Congress. Nowhere does the document speak to race, except as to the Afiricans slaves. Free blacks were full citizens and depending on their state, could vote.

Congress never once sought to limit immigration until it began to fear Chinese immigration in the mid 1800's.

To the contrary, immigration, from all of Europe was mostly encouraged. Most of these were Irish and German, but in no way was British citizenship sought or preferred. Just as today, the rich and powerful needed cheap labor at the expense of the poor. Those men, the founders owned, and insured, and relied upon the ships that brought each successive wave of immigrants to this nation. The Constitutions's purpose was to make sure they could do so efficiently.

Finally, where the Constitution does speak to the issue of immigrants beyond Section 8, the 14th Amendment states clearly that ALL citizens born or naturalized are citizens.

Anonymous kagi January 10, 2017 7:20 PM  

@VD: Fair enough. But, (not looking to score a fencing point, just looking for common ground) "not a strong argument" is to my mind not the same thing as a "weak" argument, though you may disagree. I don't consider your argument weak, I think it simply lacks dimension and scope. That isn't a sign of weakness at all, it means grounds for further consideration.

I am not all that interested in the strict logic of the point, as I distrust sheer logic in a vacuum devoid of natural human dirt; I consider things like linguistics, the shape and direction of historical developments, realistic ethnography, and other such hooey to be relevant. I'm more interested in the teleology and the holistic outcomes, and if you don't wish to discuss those things on those grounds, then I defer.

I think a rather profitable exchange would arise if you were to acknowledge more grounds than you now do, but I know you're a busy man and if you don't feel like it, well, c'est ca.

Blogger cheddarman January 10, 2017 7:24 PM  

I would like to be able to nail down the precise meaning of the word "posterity" to the genetic offspring of the founders. A cuckservative is naturally going to try to expand the definition of posterity to encompass non-genetic "intellectual descendants" of the founders. It is their nature.

I guess i should did up a copy of "a dictionary of the English Language"by Samuel Johnson, first published in 1755, for a definition, and look to see if the men who attended the constitutional convention defined posterity elsewhere as it relates to the preamble f the constitution

Blogger cheddarman January 10, 2017 7:35 PM  

From "A Dictionary of the English Language" published in 1755 by Samuel Johnson

posterity - descendants, succeeding generations. Latin root word "posteritas"

so the burden of proof is on the cuck to prove that posterity means something other than genetic descendants

Blogger DrAndroSF January 10, 2017 7:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger DrAndroSF January 10, 2017 7:41 PM  

The first immigration and citizenship act, passed in 1790 by the founding generation, specified "free White persons of good character" as possible citizens. A very clear declaration of intent, certainly not limited to Brits but certainly excluding non-Europeans.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable January 10, 2017 7:51 PM  

I would like to be able to nail down the precise meaning of the word "posterity"

The default understanding of the word favors us. Any figurative spin on the meaning of "posterity" requires evidence. If they really meant it allegorically, there would be some proof of that.

More tellingly, the nationalities of the founders ought to be documented. If they were all Brits, that's pretty clear cut. If there was a half-Jew and a half-Lebanese in there, that's another story.

You or I may know the answer to that question. I bet the average "proposition nation" proponent has never thought about it.

Blogger Yves Vannes January 10, 2017 8:00 PM  

The founders and their descendants for the next century plus were of course open to American citizenship for anyone from anywhere. That's why it took until 1924 to grant citizenship to all of the Native American tribes and why it took until 1948 to grant full suffrage.

Blogger JJ from AZ January 10, 2017 8:03 PM  

cheddarman: From "A Dictionary of the English Language" published in 1755 by Samuel Johnson

Afterages: (Page 96) Successive times; posterity.

OED: Posterity: All future generations of people.

Latin : Posteritas: 1. the future, future time, futurity, after-ages; 2. after-generations, posterity; 3. of animals, offspring.

We the People.... for ourselves (the People) and our Posterity (the People's posterity), do ordain... Not .... We the Founders.... for ourselves (the Founders) and our Posterity (the Founder's descendants) do ordain...

When the Constitution use the term "people" it means the people (as a whole). That is why the right to keep and bear arms is NOT a collective right, as liberals claim, but rather, an individual right.

Blogger tz January 10, 2017 8:04 PM  

Posterity: The asses that come after us?

Suffrage was very limited at the beginning and was not part of citizenship.

The constitution is merely a piece of paper, it cannot protect itself from men who crave wealth and power (starting with Hamilton). Only men of honor and fortitude can do that. It is torn not by violence but seduction. Some good is held back by the principles, so they are bent or broken, then evil takes over.

That is why the Left is crazy afraid, because they applauded Obama's usurpations, and now Trump will ascend to the same seat of the same power. If they come to their senses, they will want to reduce the power of government, but I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous Henry Havelock January 10, 2017 8:08 PM  

@41

While this population was mostly of British descent, not all of it was. The Dutch, the Germans, the Irish, the Scots and French were all represented and all fought to free our nation from the yoke of the British Crown.

The Irish and the Scots are and were British. Irishmen getting angry about being called 'British' is a post-1922 affectation. It's usage to refer to all of the Isles is at least as old as Pliny the Elder in Naturalis Historia, and given that it derives from Brythonic Celtic is likely of much greater antiquity. This is elementary stuff.

Blogger tublecane January 10, 2017 8:12 PM  

@18-I don't like the idea of a proposition nation, first of all because most propositions are stupid, limited, or full of blind spots. Mostly, though, because what happens if people change their minds? Or, more likely, what happens if they forget?

Take Oliver Wendell Holmes (please). He knew better, but in order to make the best rhetorical argument in his dissenting opinion on the Lochner case, he famously said something like "the 14th amendment did not enact Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." Which I don't want think anyone claimed, but what principles were behind the 14th amendment, if not Spencer's? I don't know, and we're not really informed by our history books. They just tell us Holmes was right, because progress.

Holmes himself has been overleaped several times over. So that the new understanding he poisoned us with has been forgotten, as well. And we keep churning out new propositions all the time. It's easy, because all you have to do is be ignorant, then fill in your unknowledge with non-arguments like the Spencer reference.

Anonymous Vin January 10, 2017 8:30 PM  

As a direct descendant of one of the Mayflower settlers (Thomas Rogers) you can all get the hell out.

You can come back in, but you have to come back LEGALLY

Anonymous Jack January 10, 2017 8:32 PM  

@46 There were already significant numbers of Germans in the country by 1790, and smaller numbers of other European ethnic groups as well. There was concern about whether they would assimilate and "become American" i.e. speak English and adopt British customs, but there was no consideration of whether or not they could be citizens. The Founders wanted America to be British in its essential characteristics, but they recognized that other European groups of similar racial stock were capable of adopting these characteristics.

Anonymous Anonymous January 10, 2017 8:53 PM  

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

www.BoycottBitches.com

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

Blogger weka January 10, 2017 9:06 PM  

No. The Laurentian elite should be hanged, drawn and quartered, cruel and unusual though that is now. Pour encourager Les autres

Blogger rumpole5 January 10, 2017 9:07 PM  

I like very much that you emphsize the "us and our progeny" language. However, does not that term "us" refer to "We the people of the United States"? I assure you that most of my German plain people anabaptist ancestors, who emigrated to the United States in the 1730s and before, were not English. They spoke German at home and in Church right up to World War I. The closly related Amish and German speaking Mennonites still refer to other Americans as "English". (So I guess that they still do not consider themselves "English")
Moreover, Article 1, Section 2 of the same Constitution describes slaves as "other persons". Therefore, the slaves would also be included in the "We the people" language, and in the subsequent word "us".
Finally, the very first congress of the USA afforded nonBritish persons the right to immigrate and become citizens. That congress was composed of many of the same men who had just penned the constitution, so it is logical to infer that they did not intend in any way to limit the application of the Constitution to British only when they had just written it.

Given the wording of the whole constitution, contemporary with its preamble, the composition of the people of the United States when the Constitution was written, and the susequent acts of its authors, in congress, contemplating non British immigration and citizenship, I am not convinced by your "us and our progeny" = British argument.

Blogger dienw January 10, 2017 9:14 PM  

@tz
I just quickly read through the 1777 Articles of Confederation; and I am coming to the conclusion that the "Founders" really conducted a revolution overriding the original founders of the U.S. Government: so to modify your statement: The Articles of Confederation is merely a piece of paper, it cannot protect itself from men who crave wealth and power. Only men of honor and fortitude can do that. It is torn not by violence but seduction. Some good is held back by the principles, so they are bent or broken, then evil takes over.

Anonymous JAG January 10, 2017 9:16 PM  

OT - from Cernovich:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cernovich/status/818996344098471937

KeK

Blogger dienw January 10, 2017 9:25 PM  

If the writers of the Constitution just solely meant their genetic descendants, then those who came later are mere peons to be used for the purposes the established genetic class had for them; be it cheap labor, cannon fodder for the genetic elites' domestic and foreign wars, or overtaxed, cash, milch cows to provide for the desired lifestyles of the genetically privileged; the law and the courts would rightly be a tiered system distinguishing between the genetic master class and the immigrant class. How long do you think that would have lasted?

Naturalization should be seen as a form of adoption into a nation; wherein, the newly adopted and his descendants possess the same rights and liberties as those of the founders and their descendants.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl January 10, 2017 9:37 PM  

@46, @52

If I remember correctly, German was spoken as a first language by about 1/4 of the original American population. A lot of Hessians stayed behind, but a lot of those "Germans" were also from Hanover and Austria, as well as Austria's Slavic domains (Serbs, Croatians, Czechs, etc.), and Prussia.

Largely this was due to British alliances, BUT they all had to swear allegiance and fealty to the British crown, learn English, customs, etc. before migrating to British colonies. Bernard Bailyn's "People of British North America" is a great source for all this.

Regardless, the British argument still stands - we could parse it into an Anglo-German ethnicity with Classical Greek and Roman underpinnings, hahaha.

Also, immigration was a trickle before the 1840s. The Founding Fathers would never have envisioned millions of immigrants.

On that, I was thinking of Greece and Italy too - they didn't migrate to the US in the 1790s - 1850s in huge numbers. Instead, they revolted and formed their own nations. That's how a "proposition" should work. If Namibians want democracy, elections, etc., they should fight their own damned battles. Namibia for Namibians, not America for Namibians.

Blogger Lazarus January 10, 2017 9:48 PM  

JAG wrote:OT - from Cernovich:

If true, it is not just KEK, or TOP KEK but KEK ULTRA.

The Coen bros. movie, Burn after Reading, portrayed the CIA as clueless dweebs who could not figure out what was going on.

Maybe it was a documentary.?

Anonymous JAG January 10, 2017 9:51 PM  

JAG wrote:OT - from Cernovich:


KeK


Just to follow up on this as it explodes in real time, lots of resignations should follow. Brennan, Klapper, Blitzer, Franken, McCain, and more all should resign in shame.

Anonymous JAG January 10, 2017 9:53 PM  

Lazarus wrote:JAG wrote:OT - from Cernovich:

If true, it is not just KEK, or TOP KEK but KEK ULTRA.

The Coen bros. movie, Burn after Reading, portrayed the CIA as clueless dweebs who could not figure out what was going on.

Maybe it was a documentary.?


I'm almost afraid that I'm dreaming because of the nature of this.

FINAL... GOD LEVEL... BAZILLION!!!!11!1 KeK

If this all shakes out, then it is the world record, best troll in internet history.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 10, 2017 10:08 PM  

@63 I just saw this on Zerohedge too. This is genuinely epic.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 10, 2017 10:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 10, 2017 10:09 PM  

OT: NBC news clowns chatting about Obama's farewell address talked about how he will continue to "be engaged," and that the mantle of rebuilding the Democrat Party will be his gig.

Brenda Walker, on VDare, wrote about the 900 state-level legislative seats lost by Dems in Obama's 2nd term. A blind man can see his presidency was a catastrophe for their party.

We must rejoice that our adversaries are This Phenomenally Stupid.

Blogger Bogey January 10, 2017 10:10 PM  

We should end all immigration for the time being. Even those that would fall under the "genetic descendants of the Founders" have a different view than most born in the United States. Look at Totalbiscuit AKA cynicalbrit, I believe he's looking for dual citizenship or citizenship yet he doesn't believe in free speech. Not really a fellow I want voting in any American election.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 10, 2017 10:15 PM  

All made possible by the stupidity and desperation of one of the original cuckservatives - Rick Wilson.

Anonymous JAG January 10, 2017 10:20 PM  

Is there anybody that can alert Vox? This is too good for him to miss out on as it happens in real time. And I agree with Cernovich, this is going down in history. I had a moment of Palpatinian mirth.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 10, 2017 10:23 PM  

Too early to call it? The day the mainstream media died - January 10, 2017.

Anonymous Godfrey January 10, 2017 10:24 PM  

These guys just don't get it. The constitution is dead... and the alt-right is the consequence.

20 years ago I was talking about "The Constitution" not realizing it was dead even then. I was a absurd blind fool. The Regressives have been torturing and slowly murdering it for a 100+ years. It's a corpse. It's survival time for Western civilization now. There are no rules. Until someone can convince me otherwise, there is only the will to survive and a dead piece of paper isn't going to protect you.

Blogger Lazarus January 10, 2017 10:36 PM  

Godfrey wrote:Until someone can convince me otherwise, there is only the will to survive and a dead piece of paper isn't going to protect you.

Dubya Bush was ahead of his time.

Anonymous Mathias January 10, 2017 10:37 PM  

@71,

The phrase "The Constitution is Dead" belies a misunderstanding what the founders meant by that word. It means "Who constitutes the nation, and what are their laws?" The "Constution" (piece of paper) is not the Constitution in reality, it is merely evidence that the people constituting the Nation being formed on the land of that period had come together to agree on a set of high laws. As long as the blood of the founders and the original America still flows, the Constitution, that is, the people who truly constitute the Nation, still lives. As long as we are still around, we can always come up with another piece of paper. Probably will, in fact, and we will put ourselves and all the lessons we have learned and all that we are into it.

Blogger Johnny January 10, 2017 11:02 PM  

If you want to be real about it they did not get into covering race and covered religion only slightly because they assumed policies going forward would reflect the culture of the day. A population of people who had to be coerced into tolerating different versions of Christianity is not going to get into allowing large numbers of the followers of Islam into their border. Or any other strong belief system for that matter. And hell, the Chinese were all over in China and so on. What they expected and got was mostly northern Europeans at first, and then some of the more southern European people.

Blogger Cicatrizatic January 10, 2017 11:11 PM  

Even if you grant the absurdity of the "proposition nation" concept for the sake of argument, more absurdities follow in the attempt to administer such a political order:

For current citizens, including natural born ones, shouldn't there be a continuing test of their commitment to principles of 'liberty'? How are the current citizens in any way committed to these 'principles'? Many existing citizens are obviously not.

Shouldn't new citizens be filtered for their commitment to these principles? How do we know they are committed to this proposition simply by virtue of coming here? Most of them vote for policies and politicians that are directly opposed to classical liberalism, or whatever it is that the proposition nation is supposed to represent.

The idea is not only historically wrong, it would be impossible to administer.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 10, 2017 11:22 PM  

@JAG
"OT - from Cernovich"
The CIA fell for a ridiculous hoax thought up by some /pol/ ack and fed to Rick Wilson, then they added a Russian spy angle to it to make it sexier? Why do we call these "intelligence" agencies, again? Of course, the fake news lapped it up, too. Hilarious.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 10, 2017 11:24 PM  

You can't have a proposition nation if nobody actually has to agree with the proposition.

Ding, ding, ding!!! Doubly so if a majority aren't actually capable of agreeing to it.

Though, if we were to take the space alien, just-got-here/naive-observer perspective, there is a proposition, and people are expected to agree to it. Said proposition being "Elitist Liberals should always be in charge and everyone else should vote for them."

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 10, 2017 11:50 PM  

Nother OT Orban calls for crackdown on Soros funded organizations in the wake of Trump election. Shouldn't have tried to turban the Orban, Georgie.

Anonymous rw95 January 11, 2017 12:06 AM  

You are very much correct, Vox.
And so therefore you know that you are NOT an American.
So fuck off and kill yourself you degenerate mongrel.

Blogger tublecane January 11, 2017 1:08 AM  

@73-"Constitution" in that sense we don't normally capitalize, and it does not mean the people, though they're an essential element. It refers to the political order, the customs, the tradition, the history, and everything that makes a polity. You can have the same people and lose the constitution, because their have fallen out of their habits and lost touch with what once bound them together.

I would say the surviving descendants of original Americans overwhelmingly have forgotten or never knew what constituted this nation as founded. Can they be taught? I don't know, even if knowledgeable and virtuous people had total control of the culture. Which of course they don't.

Not to say a new order couldn't be forged. We know the "legacy Americans" and associated peoples are capable of it, because they did it once before. Western civilization may not be capable of it anymore.

Anonymous chesidex January 11, 2017 1:12 AM  

Yeah the 'posterity-British only' argument isn't airtight at all. Of course the founders' vision was far closer to that than say some multi-racial shangri-la-topia but the vagaries are undeniable. There's also an undertone of New Atlantis about some of the key founders (not surprising given their masonic backgrounds) which is what put America on her prosperous road and the goodwill it received from other Europeans.

My own guess is that they (Founding Fathers) would've been happy enough with pre-1965 USA (before everything went nuts) but people will argue either way.

Blogger John Wright January 11, 2017 1:24 AM  

"Alex is absolutely and utterly wrong. The Constitution doesn't define a white ethnostate, it clearly establishes a BRITISH ethnostate"

To the contrary, he is basically correct and you are utterly wrong.

The terms of the Constitution clearly do the opposite of what you say, and say nothing about ethnicity one way or the other.

Preserving rights "for one's posterity" is a legal formula repudiating feudal legal theories which presented all land as belonging to the king and hence rights of other kinds existed as a grant of the state, and reverted upon the death of the possessor.

That is, they were not necessarily passed to the posterity.

The wording here repudiates that conception of rights. There is similar wording in the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, Anglo-American law, and the legal theory current at the time.

To leap to the conclusion that speaking of the posterity of the Americans meant to establish an "ethnostate" exclusive to the British introduces an anachronism, and ignores the construction anyone at the time reading the document would have put on the words.

It is a legal document. The words have specific and technical meanings.

Your interpretation is as amateurish as someone who wants to uphold geocentrism to a modern astronomer.

"The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant."

Actually, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is part of the original Constitution and reflects the original intent. This grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization and removes that power from the states.

By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document.

This means your argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document.

Actually, the Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section I of Amendment 14, and there is a line of case law as long as the spine of the Midgard Serpent flowing from it. It is in the Constitution.

Have you read even one of the court opinions you are airily dismissing? Which legal protections are extended to visitors, trespassers, sojourners and so on follow the same reasoning and the same legal theory, grounding in the natural rights of man and grounded ultimately in Christian canon law, as the Declaration and the Constitution itself.

You should read Ann Coulter's take on the matter.

She is as opposed to unlimited immigration as are you, and as am I, but she grounds her public statements in correct statements of the law, so she does not issue flatly incorrect statements and declare them to be certain and sure.

She does her homework.

I've studied law. Do you want to hear a theory about game design where I say it is perfectly that there is no such thing as victory conditions in any game whatsoever?

Blogger tublecane January 11, 2017 1:31 AM  

@82-The preamble isn't law. It's political rhetoric, intended to help get the law ratified. It does help clarify what the people who wrote and passed it thought of it.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 11, 2017 1:39 AM  

The preamble isn't law. It's political rhetoric...

If we lived in a world where that was actually a practical difference, there would be so much more sweetness and light.

Blogger tublecane January 11, 2017 1:47 AM  

@84-We do live in that world. The preamble isn't like regular law. Same status as the Declaration, which they call "organic law," which means nothing. Law-law, on the other hand, which has the actual force of law, is another matter.

Of course, judges can use it in their interpretations, which in a sense lends it the force of law.

Anonymous Mathias January 11, 2017 1:54 AM  

@80

Your point about laws, customs, etc... Is valid in the short term, but it has problems in the long term. Remember that Politics is downstream from Culture, and Culture is fundamentally an expression of genetics. If you were to take absolutely everything away from us, all of our accomplishments, resources, and knowledge and dumped us on an empty habitable world, and traveled forward 5000 years, you would find a Civilization most familiar when you looked again. The things you mention are an expression of our genetics . Ultimately, wherever we are, there is our Constitution. I think the experience the Europeans are having with the Saracens should be evidence enough of that. Sooner or later. I think that was Stanley Kubriks point in the movie "A Clockwork Orange".

Anonymous tublecane January 11, 2017 1:58 AM  

@82-This argument, that the Constitution provides for a naturalization process --> which means the descendants of original Americans could make themselves a minority in their own country --> which means the U.S. isn't an ethnostate...I don't get it.

It's like saying because the Constitution provides an amendment process, and an amendment negating the Constitution could conceivably be passed, therefore the Constitution was intended to be self-destructing. Huh?

Just because it was possible to populate the country with non-non-Anglo ethnics through the naturalization process doesn't mean that was the intention. In fact, don't you think it's possible that they wanted the opposite to happen? Or is that too far-fetched?

Fathers who give their daughters freedom when they go away to college don't want them to have a train run on them by the football team's offensive line. Even if that's what she chose to do, and it wouldn't have happened but for the father subsidizing her time there and giving her enough rope to hang herself. (Not that I'd know how to control your daughter on campus these days, anyway, besides money.)

Anonymous tublecane January 11, 2017 2:08 AM  

@86-Constitutions *are* short-term, compared to genetics. Check back in 5,000 years and you may find a civilization, but not the same as ours. And maybe you'll find none, because they destroyed themselves the way we seem bent on doing currently.

How many centuries of Anglo-Saxon, or whatever you want to call it, tradition did it take to build up to the people that wrote the U.S. Constitution? Where is that culture now? Gone with the wind. Is that all because of swarthy Others? No, it's mostly due to WASPs, who totally lost it and turned into at best self-parodies in the previous century. Constitutions are delicate things.

There's genetic potential, then there's actuality.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 11, 2017 2:51 AM  

@82 Preserving rights "for one's posterity" is a legal formula repudiating feudal legal theories which presented all land as belonging to the king and hence rights of other kinds existed as a grant of the state, and reverted upon the death of the possessor.

The Founders accomplished this by outlawing titles of nobility in the Constitution. Yet they still made clear that the purpose of the nation was, in part, to protect the liberty of their posterity.

Since immigration to the United States was allowed and even addressed in the Constitution, you make a valid point that "posterity" includes more than the actual descendants of residents of the US at that time.

To get a better idea of what the Founders meant by "posterity," one relevant place to look is in the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed shortly after the Constitution was ratified. The people who built this country were willing to allow some immigration by free white people. Not blacks, not Indians, not Arabs or Turks. Their idea of tolerance and diversity was an English and Scottish nation with a few Germans and Dutch scattered here and there.

Anonymous Mathias January 11, 2017 2:52 AM  

@87

Build up? European culture overall has experienced relatively few changes over the past 2.5 millenia, and most of the changes have to do with the form of the government, which I consider a product of a culture rather the defining aspect of it. This effects the official rules of how things are done, but the entire point of culture and society is that those rules really only become relevant when the standing (informal) culture or relations break down. Really, our President is a King in all but name and two fundamental powers, and our relations may have these nice labels to them that sound better than "peasant" or "lord", but the day-to-day realities of power and culture have not changed between our modern day analogues of these things. How many Centuries did European culture take to develop to this point? Well, since the Roman Republic (SPQR) and the Greek city-states go back to antiquity, I can safely say that our culture has existed in its "current" (Classical Culture) form for the past 3500 years, and that form has remained fairly static during that time, Kings vs Representatives and (Germanic/Hunnish) barbarian invasions nonwithstanding. The biggest change/development was the Magna Charta, and that was more of an inevitable consequence of the abuses of a King who's official justification was that a King was above the law, this itself an inevitable consequence of a monarchy that lasts longer than 3 generations. It would probably take a few generations for things to get restarted, but if you really want a real life example, it only took a couple decades for the Muslims to grow confident and numerous enough to assert their basic culture in Europe. Genetics does not waste time or dally.

Anonymous tublecane January 11, 2017 3:13 AM  

@89-European culture in general is one thing, and I have nothing against the idea of a thousands-year span of unified Western Civilization. But what we're talking about is much, much more particular than that. The idea that an ancient Greek city state, any ancient Greek city state, had anywhere near the same constitution as the modern U.S. is ridiculous, even if there's some cultural continuity.

Saying the current form of our culture goes back 3,500 years, and has remained fairly static during that time, is one step removed from saying we're all part of the Family of Man, and every culture is equal. You must learn some historical discrimination.

Anonymous Mathias January 11, 2017 4:39 AM  

@90

What? Certainly not, the claim is that all those of European heritage are relatively closely related, and that since a few millenia ago, Western Culture is almost universally derived from the Greeks and the Romans, and the groundwork that they laid down has driven the European Gestalt ever since. Hell, you could consider the various European nations as a sort of franchise system for it, called Western Civilization. That is NOT to say that each nation does not have it's own genetic and cultural flavor, but it's like comparing Chocolate ice cream to Vanilla. Both are ice cream, and taste well together, and are made the same way. I dare you to find a Western nation that does not consider the likes of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato to be the fathers of Western thought. This is what I mean by "static", we are still honoring the same ancestors! There is also the European custom of sending their daughters to neighboring European nations to find husbands, which has promoted the mixing of the bloodlines of various European nations for the last 700 years! Furthermore, there are a number of great men in our history that ALL Europeans are descended from. Thusly there is a common set of bloodlines and a common set of long-persisting cultural thoughts/ideas for the West, regardless of (admittedly quite stark) national variation. I fail to see how you get "We are exactly the same as non-Europeans" from this.

Also, the United States does not have the Constitution of Greece is disingenuous because the US government is explicitly modeled as a syncretic form of Greek and Roman Government, with English/Germanic common law acting as an alternate foundation for legal interpretation. It does not have the entire thing, but it certainly incorporated the most workable and important parts of it. You think the USA invented the concept of Free Speech and freedom of thought? Socrates would like to have a word with you. Indeed, if you were to take a Greek or a Roman from that period and drop them into Modern Washington DC, you would have a very hard time convincing them they were not somewhere along the Mediterranean sea without taking them out of the city. They certainly would recognize the presence of foreigners, the architecture, and the corruption. Hell, given that the modern English vocabulary is 40% Latin derived (there is that ancient culture persisting again), its likely that within a few days they would find the locals somewhat intelligible. I firmly believe that they would find the political issues of the day mostly unchanged with what they grappled with long ago, and that they would feel quite at home here. The United States IS the third Rome, really, in the same way that the Holy Roman Empire/Catholic Rule was the second Rome (Ol' Adolf really should have called it the 4th Reich.)

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 4:44 AM  

To the contrary, he is basically correct and you are utterly wrong.

The terms of the Constitution clearly do the opposite of what you say, and say nothing about ethnicity one way or the other.

Preserving rights "for one's posterity" is a legal formula repudiating feudal legal theories which presented all land as belonging to the king and hence rights of other kinds existed as a grant of the state, and reverted upon the death of the possessor.

That is, they were not necessarily passed to the posterity.


This is hopelessly and utterly wrong. Yes, you're a lawyer. And lawyers like you have destroyed a) the Constitution, b) the nation, and are now in the process of destroying c) the state with the very sort of reasoning you have exhibited here.

Abortion became a "right" the same way the nation became a "proposition", through lawyers like you playing games with definitions and altering the very clear meaning of words.

It is wildly incorrect to claim that a statement about the posterity of a certain group of British people, who are specifically named with their sanguinary connection to their British brethren in the Declaration of Independence, says nothing about ethnicity.

This means your argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document.

That is not my argument. You're confusing objectives with means. The Founding Fathers foolishly decided to allow Congress to expand the franchise of citizenship beyond the nation and their descendants, but that doesn't change the clearly stated purpose of the Preamble. Again, the fact that there were flaws in their plan doesn't change the purpose of the plan.

And now we see the consequences of those flaws.

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 4:46 AM  

Since immigration to the United States was allowed and even addressed in the Constitution, you make a valid point that "posterity" includes more than the actual descendants of residents of the US at that time.

That's not a valid point. It is obviously an erroneous point that confuses the objective with the implementation. They thought allowing some white Christian immigrants would help them defend the nation and secure the blessings of liberty to it. They were wrong.

Anonymous Mathias January 11, 2017 4:54 AM  

@92

The idea of a "Professional Legal Council" in the USA is about 9 decades old at this point, in our 400~ years of history, popping up after the large Jewish migrations from Russia. Before then, people mostly presented themselves in legal matters in a court, and all legal business was done in the common language of the day, instead of this bullshit "legalese" with words that have definitions that only (((lawers))) know because they made the whole fucking thing up a century ago in contravention to European American legal tradition. The whole thing is a racket designed to deny European Americans the ability to competently function in their own damn legal system without paying the (((lawyer))) tax.

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 4:55 AM  

I've studied law. Do you want to hear a theory about game design where I say it is perfectly that there is no such thing as victory conditions in any game whatsoever?

I've won, at trial or by settlement, every civil court case in which I've been involved. Can you say the same?

I'll be happy to debate this subject with you at a Brainstorm if you like. I've beaten professors of economics on economics and professors of biology on biology, so the idea of debating a lawyer about the Constitution isn't exactly intimidating to me.

Anonymous tublecane January 11, 2017 5:11 AM  

@91-Take a look at actual ancient Greece, not the idea of Greece upon which our founders in some vague sense modelled our republic. The difference is night and day. We use some of their words, but our civilization is almost nothing like theirs. We don't think or act the way they did. I feel silly for having to say this.

Read books like "Republics: Ancient and Modern" by Paul A. Rahe for perspective.

Same goes for Rome, though we are more Roman than we are

Anonymous Mathias January 11, 2017 5:27 AM  

@96

Are you genuinely claiming that the men who founded America where not VERY well educated on ancient culture? That they did not have a clear picture of who the Greeks and Romans were and how they lived? Especially after the Roman Church spent the prior millenia carefully preserving that knowledge? I find this claim risible. Back then, the first education that the sons of wealthy men and those who were entering the Clergy would receive (those who were not autodictats like Washington, that is) was the Trivium! Bet you a dollar that the likes of Jefferson and Adams could have given Rahe a run for his money.

OpenID troogs January 11, 2017 5:39 AM  

When people criticize the Alt Right for being "white nationalist", what they mean is the above post by Vox.

In the minds of 99% of Americans, "British Ethnostate", "White Ethnostate" and "White Nationalism" are the same thing.

Blogger Lovekraft January 11, 2017 6:09 AM  

@95 VD: "I'll be happy to debate this subject with you at a Brainstorm if you like."

We have the momentum and the moral push to expose them. And everyone is watching. Distraction, evasion and violence is the standard SJW tactic, so pinning them down to a debate would be a major achievement.

Blogger Alec Rawls January 11, 2017 6:17 AM  

Oh I'm a "cuck" now? Vox, champion of politically incorrect speech, is descending here into the most puerile enforcement of his own brand of politically correct speech. Let me pull your fat from the fire my friend.

By all means start with the Preamble to the white man's Constitution, that great white achievement which any white identity movement (necessary when all the non-white groups have established identity movements for the purpose of attacking whites) must take as its touchstone.

"To secure the blessings of liberty." That is the American concept of republicanism, according to John Adams. Liberty under law. A majority that fails to protect liberty is a tyrannical majority, absolutely no better in the philosophy of the founders than the autocracy of a king. And Vox wants to deny it? Why? What dead end are you headed up, Mr. Day?

Posterity, good word. Does NOT refer only to one's own children, but as with the synonymous "legacy" also has the broader meaning of WHAT WE LEAVE BEHIND. Of course that very much does mean our children, but the founders of this country were very self-consciously leaving behind much more than a genetic legacy.

"Novus Ordo Seclorum": a new order of the ages. That is the motto the founders selected for the Great Seal of the United States. THAT is how they saw their legacy, their posterity, as a new WORLD, enabled by these mechanisms of government they had invented to secure liberty against tyranny: separation of powers, majority rule viewed not as a good in itself but as the first line of defense against tyranny, backed up by an armed population, and freedom of speech and assembly, etcetera.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: "The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." The founders very much wanted to bring more people in, and a limiting criterion for immigration urged by Madison at the Constitutional Convention was commitment to the American concept of republicanism: "to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us."

Of course they were imagining whites, and when it came time to establish rules they named whites. Who imagined at that time that anyone but a white person would or could embrace these white-invented republican principles? But the criterion of commitment to republican principles is not itself racial, and neither of the rest of the Constitution. If some members of other races turn out to embrace republican principles they could be allowed in.

...Continued below...

Blogger Alec Rawls January 11, 2017 6:18 AM  

That doesn't mean any foreigners white or not have any right to come in, and it is certainly legitimate to continue to doubt that any non-white group will ever be as prone as whites to embrace republican principles, and to keep non-white numbers limited on that grounds. Even post-14th Amendment, foreigners have no rights and can be excluded on racial, religious or any other grounds, regardless of whether citizens can be treated differently on those same grounds.

We are a proposition nation not in the positive sense that any foreigners who embrace our republican values have any claim to be allowed to come here, but in the negative sense that all who do not embrace our republican values ought to be kept out. Until Obama that criterion was a nominally enforced as all naturalized citizens had to swear allegiance to our Constitution, and it needs to be enforced anew, and with much more vigor, which would keep all orthodox Muslims out of the country.

Vox seems to be reading "proposition nation" as some particular term of art, referring to some particular proposition that he rejects. So I would like to ask him to clarify his position. Does he have any problem with recognizing Madison's negative test for immigrants, that if they do not embrace America's republican values they can't come in, as a proposition? Because that is the actual proposition that the founders put forward as their criterion for immigration: nobody has a right to come here, and you definitely should not be allowed in if you don't satisfy THIS.

Because if VOX has a problem with that proposition then I don't know what is left. He will have gutted everything, and be left with a "white" identity movement that does not identify in any way with the world-changing white achievement Novus Ordo Seclorum, in which case he must be irrelevant, a nothing.

Vox is not a nothing. He is important, with much wisdom about race, but it seems to me he is making some serious wrong turns, dead end turns. A white identity group that shuns the central white achievement of republican liberty? Who is going to follow that vacuity? One in a thousand? And only one in a thousand is even going to hear of Vox in the first place so one in a million. No future there.

Make Vox great again. Urge him away from his separation of white identity from the centerpiece of white achievement.

Blogger Stilicho January 11, 2017 6:42 AM  

That such cuckery is even possible is due to the fact that there is the Constitution as written and the imaginary (((constitution))) used by the courts to enact their whims.

There, I just saved you a semester in Con Law class.

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 7:07 AM  

You're not only cucking, Alex, you're babbling. History is what it is. Consequences be damned. The facts are what they are.

We are not a proposition nation. We are also not a proposition bear or a proposition fish. No such thing exists or ever has existed.

You've made the fundamental mistake of confusing rhetoric with reality.

Anonymous the management January 11, 2017 7:25 AM  

VD wrote:This is hopelessly and utterly wrong. Yes, you're a lawyer. And lawyers like you have destroyed a) the Constitution, b) the nation, and are now in the process of destroying c) the state with the very sort of reasoning you have exhibited here.

Abortion became a "right" the same way the nation became a "proposition", through lawyers like you playing games with definitions and altering the very clear meaning of words.


Excellent points, VD, Mathias, and Stilicho above. The U.S. legal system is a nightmare of straining at gnats while swallowing camels, very Jewish and Pharisaical in nature.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 11, 2017 8:00 AM  

The begining of the end for Rome. Until the edict Roman citizenship was awefull.

Blogger Joe Doakes January 11, 2017 9:17 AM  

The Founders were White men from Britain. They intended the Constitution to be a limitation on the power of government, but only as to themselves and their posterity, defined as descendants in their own personal blood-lines.

The Constitution was not intended to limit the power of government over slaves, of course, because they were property. And not over women, because wives are neither White Men nor descendants. And not new arrivals, wherever nation they came from, because they're not blood-line descendants either. As to all those other people, the Constitution was not intended to limit the power of government. It simply doesn't apply to them.

Fair enough. But let's examine the implications. By intentionally excluding those other people from the protections of the Constitution, and by failing to make a different provision for their protection from government, the Founders left them completely unprotected from government. The Founders must have intended the power of government over those others to be unlimited, unfettered, even broader than that enjoyed by King George (who was restrained by the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights).

In effect, the Founders and their blood-lines set themselves up as nobility, only lightly touched by the power of government; all others were left as peasants, having no rights at all.

That analysis places an enormous amount of importance on the word 'posterity.' Are we certain we're not taking one word too seriously?

Did the Founders leave other contemporaneous writings that more fully explaining that was their intent, such as The Federalist Papers, for instance, or private correspondence or perhaps minutes of meetings?

If not, we should consider the possibility that myopic obsession over the logical implications of one word could be leading us to an erroneous conclusion.

Joe: Doakes, sui juris

Blogger Joe Doakes January 11, 2017 9:40 AM  

I think I made a mistake in my earlier analysis.

The Constitution not only limited the power of the federal government, the Constitution actually created the federal government.

Since the Constitution only applies to the blood-line descendants of the Founders, then the federal government created by the Constitution has power over the blood-line descendants of the Founders, power that's limited by the Constitution.

I am not a blood-line descendant of any of the Founders. The Constitution does not apply to me and neither does the federal government created by that Constitution, and certainly not any of the laws adopted by the federal government, such as the income tax.

The descendants of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton owe federal income tax. The Doakes do not.

You know what, Vox, I'm warming up to this theory.

Blogger JohnofAustria January 11, 2017 10:10 AM  

If republican freedom is a central white achievement, (and demonstrably no-one else has done it) then what reason do we have to believe that other peoples can live in a way that protects and nurtures it? Voting records and trends sure don't support that belief.

Blogger JohnofAustria January 11, 2017 10:15 AM  

@ Joe Doakes, why are you restricting your argument to the FF? You're obviously placing a non-existent restriction on "posterity" where you know it doesn't exist. Making your attempt at ad absurdum irrelevant.

Blogger SteelPalm January 11, 2017 10:41 AM  

Vox, I'm on your side, but both John Wright and Alec Rawls (who I had never heard of previously) made very strong counter-arguments that made me question my agreement with you, and which deserve more serious, fuller responses.

And as someone who uses the word posterity himself and has come across it in dozens of books from before that era, it is used as often with a non-genetic meaning as with actual descendants.

Blogger Joe Doakes January 11, 2017 11:17 AM  

John of Austria, perhaps you missed this line in Vox's post, above: "It exists solely to defend the rights and liberties of the genetic descendants of the Founders and no one else."

I concede that he uses the phrase 'genetic descendants' whereas I use the word 'blood-line' but I'd argue that difference doesn't change the outcome.

I'm not making an argument to logical absurdity; Vox explicitly made that claim.

Anonymous DF January 11, 2017 11:33 AM  

@94 "The idea of a "Professional Legal Council" in the USA is about 9 decades old at this point, etc."

First I have ever come across this assertion. Mathias, can you point me to further reading on this?

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 11:46 AM  

And as someone who uses the word posterity himself and has come across it in dozens of books from before that era, it is used as often with a non-genetic meaning as with actual descendants.

Define "posterity" as the human race if you like. The fact that you're STILL willing to argue about it in light of current events reminds me of libertarians arguing for open borders now.

Blogger JohnofAustria January 11, 2017 11:51 AM  

@Joe Doakes, thanks for responding, but I think it's again incorrect to read that as "only the guys who actually wrote the constitution" in light of them serving explicitly in the place of their respective states. I'll admit Vox can clarify that point more, but it's generally a given that the Founders were speaking as/for the British people of their states. Which has a long tradition in their homeland.

Blogger Joe Doakes January 11, 2017 12:17 PM  

John of Austria, I'm willing to accept your enlargement: "posterity" means the genetic descendants of the people who were present in the states when their representatives adopted the Constitution.

That still means I, as a descendant of people who were not present, am not the intended beneficiary of the Constitution that limited the power of the federal government which it created.

The result for me is either (a) I am wholly unaffected by your federal government, or (b) I am entirely at the mercy of its whims, having no protections at all.

I choose (A) and will let the IRS know that as a free man and sovereign citizen of the North American Continent but not subject to the laws of the United States, I will henceforth not be filing an income tax return. Sounds like a slam-dunk case, to me.

Joe: Doakes, sui juris

Blogger Hal Gore January 11, 2017 12:28 PM  

19. elijahrhodes

That's a big hat you have. Any cattle?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft January 11, 2017 12:41 PM  

@115. Under your inane definitions A and B, you ought to realize you have:
A: No right to choose, as well as
B: Your A option does not exist, seeing as your are within its borders, and are either protected by it or a vassal of it. You claim exception to its protection, therefore,
C: By your own claim, you are a vassal of the USA.

Blogger SteelPalm January 11, 2017 3:18 PM  

@114 Define "posterity" as the human race if you like. The fact that you're STILL willing to argue about it in light of current events reminds me of libertarians arguing for open borders now.

I'm not arguing anything. I even explicitly noted that my views are undecided on the matter.

I instead noted that John Wright and Alec Rawls had strong responses that deserve a full dialectic reply in kind, not rhetorical dismissal.

And Vox, I'm sure you're aware that my views are pretty damn anti-immigrant, as I would prefer a complete moratorium on it.

@113

He can't back it up. It's a fallacious, intentionally vague rhetorical claim.

Lawyers formed powerful organizations as soon as the US was founded. And there was no significant alteration in that quarter during the 20s.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 11, 2017 4:47 PM  

@114 But Statue of Liberty poem. Checkmate, bigot.

Blogger VD January 11, 2017 8:23 PM  

I instead noted that John Wright and Alec Rawls had strong responses that deserve a full dialectic reply in kind, not rhetorical dismissal.

I disagree. I consider their responses to be both observably incorrect as well as logically nonsensical, which is why I don't feel they merit addressing.

Examine both of them again more closely.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor January 11, 2017 11:31 PM  

The Constitution does read "our Posterity" - not merely "Posterity." If the Founders had intended "Posterity" to have a generic meaning the word "our" would not have been in there.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 12, 2017 6:24 AM  

Sorry, Vox, but from every position except 20:20 hindsight, John's right. You can argue that the Constitution was grievously deficient in not limiting itself to the descendants of British rebels, but to attribute to the founders, or to states which ratified it, or to the people of the states, themselves, opinions, limitations, and qualification that are simply not in evidence is, itself, an effective dangling of penumbras to a degree a lefty could only stand back and admire.

Note that the founders didn't ratify it, they only argued it and wrote it. Thus, what they meant is important but of no particular precedence over what the states and people did and were. About a third of them, exclusive of blacks - I think we have no argument there that the founders intended equal rights for them - were not English. About half of those were non-British (that read expansively, to include the bloody Harps). If they'd intended to disenfranchise, exclude, or disadvantage such large numbers, one would have expected them to at least have made mention of it, to say nothing of mobilizing for the predictable war.

Even accepting that "Our posterity," means the descendants of the then citizens only, given the numbers of non-Brits in the United States at the time, it simply cannot be Brit only. And, yes, there are non-British names among the ratifiers in the states.

Even if you wish to limit it to the constitutional convention, who were Washington's descendants, his posterity? He had none, by blood, and I don't recall that he adopted Martha's children from her previous marriage either.

And there are the Federalist papers, which, together with the Declaration, the events leading up to the war, the war, itself, and the failure of the Confederation, are our legislative history. In none of the seven uses of the word, therein, is posterity used in any obviously restrictive fashion.

And then, as John mentioned, there is the naturalization clause, which certainly had no ethnocentric provision to it. About the only such provision you can find is the slave trade clause, and that was fairly obviously not aimed at Swedes.

Argue that it was a mistake and needs to be amended to restrict citizenship to the 100% pure descendants of British colonial rebels - should there be any, a matter for some doubt - if you wish, if, indeed, you think so, but your case for it, back then, is quite poor.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts