ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 27, 2017

No more cucking, cucky

Back in mid-2015, Hateful Heretic explained, to conservatives, what cuckservatism is, and why it is a complete dead end. It remains every bit as true and relevant today.
A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.

The Platonic form of the cuckservative is the UK's David Cameron, who famously proclaimed that it is England that needs to adapt to Islam and not the other way around. A cuckold is a perfect metaphor for this mewling, loathsome stain of a man.

It's not just one thing. It's not just McConnell selling out his base to lap up donations from Ex-Im Bank beneficiaries. It's not just ¡Jeb! brazenly declaring that Americans need to be replaced by Mexicans because they're a more moral and noble people than us. It's not just Sean Hannity defending Israeli spies. It's not just George W Bush throwing hard-earned American treasure at the HIV-infested toilet of Africa. It's not just Rand Paul's stated desire to return the franchise to millions of black felons who will overwhelmingly use it to vote for more gibsmedat funded by whites.

The idea of amnesty---namely that I, a hard-working, responsible American with no arrest record at all, owe welfare payments, free education, and other "bennies" to foreigners who have no legal right to be here---is rage-inducing enough. Seeing my ostensible defenders in the government bend over backward to make the left like them and justify turning America into a Third World country makes me want to bite my own face off.

The idea that conservatives shouldn't even talk about race is one more way we're cucked. See, the left talks about race all the time. They are explicitly and deliberately organized as a racial grievance party. Each passing year, they become more overtly and brazenly dedicated to punishing and expropriating whites in order to deliver gibsmedat to blacks and Hispanics. And when we complain about the way things are going, we get scolded for being "racist." Holder is right. We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race. We're terrified of speaking out about how black America's problems are most certainly not the fault of the white middle class. We're terrified of talking about what the vast majority of Arabs actually believe. We go into paroxysms of terror if the subject of just why all those Latin American countries are socialist comes up. And God forbid anyone ever, EVER say the two words "white interests" except to say how evil and illegitimate they are.
The Alt-Right is a conscious, even contemptuous, rejection of cuckservatism. It is not cowardly. It is not terrified. It is not defeatist. It is committed to the truth. It is committed to science. It is committed to the lessons of history. And it is committed to the idea that Western Civilization is a better place to live than any other societal ordering of men, including the various dyscivilizational notions created by utopians from communists to libertarians.

That's why, if you have any regard for Western Civilization at all, you should be on board with both the Trump Train and the Alt-Right Revolution. Stop cowering. Stop cucking. Embrace truth and tribe, and start winning.

Pat Buchanan explains that this comes down to a simple distinction, between America as a legitimate nation of real people and America as an ahistorical, abstract, imaginary idea:
Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?

Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.

It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.

Two decades ago, the Old Right and the neocons engaged in a ferocious debate over what America was and is.

Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans?

Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?

The Old Right contended that America existed even before the Revolution, and that this new nation, this new people, wrote its own birth certificate, the Constitution. Before Washington, Madison and Hamilton ever went to Philadelphia, America existed.

What forced the premature birth of the nation — was the Revolution.

We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson’s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who no longer deserved our loyalty or love.

The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.
The cuckservatives and Alt-Lite and neocons and melting potists are all, at heart, statists. They openly claim that the State, the political entity, the government, that was created in 1776, (or 1789 if you prefer) is the nation. The Old Right, and now the Alt-Right, know better. We know that it is We the People, the Posterity of the Founders, who are the nation.

The state is not the nation. The state can never be the nation, or the concepts of nation-state and multinational state and multicultural state would not exist.

Cuckservatism and conservatism, like liberalism and progressivism, requires the adherent to believe things he knows not to be true. That's why they always - ALWAYS - end up playing fast-and-loose with definitions and resorting to obvious absurdities when pressed. Their intellectual foundations are built on sand.

Labels: , ,

100 Comments:

Blogger JACIII January 27, 2017 5:53 AM  

I'm so tired of winning.


not.

Blogger Dexter January 27, 2017 5:58 AM  

We aren't winning until the left and the cuck traitors are crushed.

Blogger JACIII January 27, 2017 6:00 AM  

People are waking up, more than I ever thought possible, to these republicuck CONgress critters and seeing our past, mealy mouthed presidents for the sorry sons of bitches they were.

We heard a lot of "We can't do that because x,y,z...", when the truth was "We can't do that because I'm a PUSSY."

The Trumpian contrast is stunning. Audacity wins.

Anonymous Mister M January 27, 2017 6:17 AM  

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

Blogger Wolfman at Large January 27, 2017 6:18 AM  

Stop whining start winning! As the God-Emperor wills!

Blogger David Power January 27, 2017 6:18 AM  

The Platonic form of the cuckservative is the UK's David Cameron, who famously proclaimed that it is England that needs to adapt to Islam and not the other way around."

On leaving office Cameron was asked - What was your greatest achievement? - his answer - "legalising gay marriage".

No doubt he will go to his death still believing he's a conservative.

Blogger Sillon Bono January 27, 2017 6:23 AM  

Now that the God emperor is leading by example the disgust and revulsion these chaps cause in me is reaching nauseating levels.

Wouldn't they just shut the fuck up.

(So far God Emperor is delivering, but I'm still waiting for more PC crushing, PC has to be crushed so much people look like idiots when they try to go PC)

Anonymous Takin' a Look January 27, 2017 6:25 AM  

Relevant from Vox's own backyard.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qUVwcEyck3I

The locals and tourists are sick of the invaders, they contribute nothing.

Blogger Stilicho January 27, 2017 6:26 AM  

La nation, c'est moi

Anonymous simplytimothy January 27, 2017 6:27 AM  

This. The Anerican alt right predates the American revolution of 1776.

I don't know this, but I suspect the "who we are" argument was won in the merits by the Americans while the neocons "won" by their patented point,shreik, disqualify sop.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore January 27, 2017 6:30 AM  

"Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?"

MLK does not belong. He was a socialist. He, and the movement of which he was a part failed miserably. It destroyed the Black community. Integration was a catastrophic disaster which was worsened by Great Society. Additionally, it formed the politics of popular Black culture which, in effect, made the Black community a colony under the control of White liberals.

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 6:42 AM  

VD: We know that it is We the People, the Posterity of the Founders (Pre 1776), who are the nation.

You have to be a descendant of the Pre 1776 founders to qualify as part of the Nation?

Some percentage of heritage? One drop rule?

Immigrants can't join the nation?

Blogger Ken Prescott January 27, 2017 6:47 AM  

Still waiting for the executive order banning pre-shredded cheese.

MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN!

(Yes, I know, it's so bad it's a Dad joke...)

Anonymous Opus January 27, 2017 6:48 AM  

When I had a Twitter account and before I self-censored myself by resigning therefrom (you can go to prison for the wrong tweet in England - no 1st Amendment) I Tweeted that David Cameron was Marxist, but I realised that although he surely is a Marxist, that was unconvincing Rhetoric if only because everyone else will merely see him as a Patrician Tory. The term Cuckservative gets far closer to my meaning.

How I cringed when Cameron, at the time of the 2012 Olympics was pictured sitting on the edge of his seat watching on T.V. our black girl winner in some event (probably synchronized shop-lifting) and how he invited to Downing Street our Gold Medalist Marathonist a Somalian who neither lives nor works in England - our seventy or so white medalists ignored. One friend of mine assuring me (in all seriousness) that he thought that all of our medal winners were black. Don't get me onto Queer Marriage. Brexit, a political miscalculation of staggering ineptitude (from his point of view) would appear to be his legacy.

Blogger Silly But True January 27, 2017 6:52 AM  

#Gibsmedat winning.

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 7:02 AM  

VD: The cuckservatives and Alt-Lite and neocons and melting potists are all, at heart, statists. They openly claim that the State, the political entity, the government, that was created in 1776, (or 1789 if you prefer) is the nation.

That misrepresents the position.

The nation did exist prior to the state. The nation constituted a federal state.

Reagan:
We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.

That nation instituted a government with provisions for how people outside the nation could become citizens under that government.

A nation could say that no one could join the nation. Or, it could allow people to join the nation.

The nation which instituted the federal government of the United States of America chose the latter.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 7:10 AM  

@16 That assumes they join the nation, rather than attempting to modify or supplant it. Nation also implies a cultural bloc; without that, it's an imperial state.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 7:10 AM  

Sorry, "necessarily* implies a cultural bloc.

Blogger Stilicho January 27, 2017 7:18 AM  

Unfortunately, and predictably, too many immigrants chose to join the state at the expense of the nation.

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 7:20 AM  

That nation instituted a government with provisions for how people outside the nation could become citizens under that government. A nation could say that no one could join the nation. Or, it could allow people to join the nation.

No, it can't, any more than it can allow two men to marry. Words mean things. A "nation" is not a voluntary creation. A nation is an extended genetic family. What you are describing is an artificial emulation of a nation, and we are presently seeing the consequences of the difference between a real nation and an artificial imitation.

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 7:33 AM  

wreckage wrote:

@17 That assumes they ...



If "that assumes" refers to something like "that plan will will work out if", then yes, you don't want to allow people into the club so that you're supplanted. Or at least I don't, I don't think the people here do, nor do most Americans.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother January 27, 2017 7:42 AM  

It amazes me that conservatives and people who say they know American history think that the nation and the government are the same thing. It's right there in the name. The government of the United States. Even more correct is "these" United States. The government is a separate entity from the nation.

The government was not created ex nihilo. It was created by something: We the People created it through their agents, the states.

Anonymous Slen January 27, 2017 7:43 AM  

“If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.”
― Carl von Clausewitz

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 7:49 AM  

It amazes me that conservatives and people who say they know American history think that the nation and the government are the same thing.

Cuckservatism and conservatism, like liberalism and progressivism, requires the adherent to believe things he knows not to be true. That's why they always - ALWAYS - end up playing fast-and-loose with definitions and resorting to obvious absurdities when pressed. Their intellectual foundations are built on sand.

Blogger Michael Maier January 27, 2017 7:53 AM  

Al From Bay Shore wrote:"Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?"

MLK does not belong. He was a socialist. He, and the movement of which he was a part failed miserably. It destroyed the Black community. Integration was a catastrophic disaster which was worsened by Great Society. Additionally, it formed the politics of popular Black culture which, in effect, made the Black community a colony under the control of White liberals.


Agreed. I'd rather never hear that sick bastard's name again.

Blogger William Meisheid January 27, 2017 7:54 AM  

I am reminded of one important calling that being a Christian demands of me and it is being willing to stand in the gap in defense of what is right an true, to be the watchman sounding the alarm that the enemy is at the gates, to be the first line of defense, even if it means standing alone (see Ezekiel 33).

This is how I see the Alt-Right. It serves the function of God's watchman on the wall, willing to stand in the gap and defend Christian Western Civilization from those who would destroy it to make way for their godless utopia, their Brave New World of Big Brother control, to make the masses fodder to feed the enrichment of the privileged few.

It is no accident that Jesus inverted the leadership pyramid and the PTB rail against the servant aspect of leadership he exemplified. It is obvious to even the casual observer that Obama was first and foremost about Obama. By way of contrast, Trump is first and foremost about the people of America. While he is not perfect, he does effectively model the inverted pyramid of Jesus, replacing the one who considered himself the capstone where everything was about him.

That is why, I believe the Alt-Right is growing and will continue to prosper, because it is serving the long-needed biblical function of the watchman standing in the gap, willingly self-sacrificial if need be, but a stalwart, a Horatio at the bridge, a Gandalf standing against against the Balrog, who says to the enemy, "You shalt not pass!"

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 7:55 AM  

@21 I agree. You'll find that Vox and co argue that ultimately kin-selection is a stronger long-term force than philosophy; such that people will vote for the "ancien regime" to be supplanted, provided it's "their folk" doing the supplanting.

I don't like it, but I can't think of a strong argument against it, and even as a somewhat Libertarian I would say that the state of play until Trump has been a total blindness to ethnicity; and that's NOT a virtue, especially when once a political caste begins to attempt a multi-ethnic State. That's been tried, repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly; the closest thing to success has been the UK, which DIDN'T alter demographics but government.... and even that has suffered actual, continual, low-grade civil war since its inception.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 7:58 AM  

And further to my own point, the UK ended up with continual outbreaks of civil war after uniting the government of, but not displacing the populations of, several different tribes of Celts (the Welsh, Irish, Scots, and the Breton populations within the "anglo-saxon" English, are all celtic).

Blogger tuberman January 27, 2017 7:59 AM  

I was a big fan of Pat Buchanan in the 1990's, he is a good entry level for the Alt-Right.

Blogger Cail Corishev January 27, 2017 8:00 AM  

There are so many stories, especially in SF, where a man is stranded somehow among foreigners, either human or alien. He gets to know them, gains their respect, falls in love, even works into a position of leadership. Then something happens that gives him a chance to go back to his people -- and he goes. He gives up a great life where he's a big deal, to go back to being one of the crowd of his own people.

I used to think those stories didn't made sense. Why would a man do that? But, I've never been cut off from my people before. The more I learn about race and nationality, the more I understand what the people writing those stories all took for granted -- a man in a foreign land is never really home in the way that a native is. He may be grateful to his new home, respect its laws and customs, even come to love it, but it will never be his in the same way it is theirs.

So no, a man can't just "join" a nation, not really. He can go through all the motions and act as much like a native as possible, and perhaps be accepted over time, but not the same as a native. And the more foreigners like him there are, the less incentive he will have to do that.

It's not an accident that "native" and "nation" derive from the same word: "natus" in Latin, which means "born."

Blogger Nathan January 27, 2017 8:02 AM  

Vox,

First of all, this:

"The state is not the nation. The state can never be the nation, or the concepts of nation-state and multinational state and multicultural state would not exist."

...is devastating and masterful. You are right.

Second, I left the following comment on the thread where you discuss quote the guy from Dreher's "White Tribe" post. That one is a bit old, and so am posting it here to since this thread seems related and I'm hoping for some engagement on my questions:

"Vox,

Re: "an Anglo-American state" vs civil nationalism, why is it that we are now at the point where the distinctions among Europeans (i.e. British vs. German vs. Swedish vs. Irish vs. Polish) no longer matter? They were different tribes right? Or do these distinctions still matter, but because of the "common enemy" they are in the background for now? If white is now a "tribe" in America, is it stable? Is there the possibility of that "tribe" being expanded in any way that does not wholly sync with skin color and race? Perhaps due to another common enemy or something else?"

...hoping I will be honored to receive a response from you.

Thanks!

+Nathan

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 8:04 AM  

VD wrote:


Words mean things. A "nation" is not a voluntary creation. A nation is an extended genetic family.


Words have usage.

Your usage here isn't consistent with The Founders being a nation, and it's not consistent with the usage of most Americans today. In fact, of most Americans at any time in my life.

So as not to argue over ownership of the label, I'd rather actually talk about distinctions between concepts.

Relation by descendancy from the founders is a meaningful concept, and if that's what you mean by the nation, fine.

But just as the usual concept of family allows for people adopted into the family, for most people, the concept of nation most Americans have allows adopted members as well. In both cases it is "artificial" in terms of being made by men, but doesn't diminish the allegiance they feel to the people of their family.

People can have or not have allegiance to people with the same blood, and they can have or not have allegiance to people with different blood.

Blogger Duke Norfolk January 27, 2017 8:05 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:people who say they know American history think that the nation and the government are the same thing.

The percentage of people these days who understand the difference between nation and state (or government, etc) is vanishingly small. Hey, I was that way until far too recently, and I'm 53!

But then what do we expect when we're indoctrinated in schools and most dictionaries don't get it right.

Blogger rumpole5 January 27, 2017 8:06 AM  

Two of the few exceptional judges I have worked with, (maybe five?), are both black. However, over the years I have noticed that any enterprise (except, curiously, barbeque resturants and some black owned construction services) that acquires a critical mass of African Americans is doomed to failure. A store or Burger King, or McDonalds or whatever is probably going to close when you add one melanonin-rich face too many.

A corollary is that a disastrous. and peculiar verdict will almost certainly be rendered by an all female jury. That effect, however, can be prevented by including even one man in a jury's number. Whatever it is that women jurors do to arrive at their bizarre conclusions, they will not do under the scrutiny of a man.

Anonymous Teapartydoc January 27, 2017 8:08 AM  

Of all of the positions held by the right this is probably the most important one. It is the one concept that most distinguishes us from the French Revolution, where from the beginning the state and the nation were brought into equivalence in the Third estate, the National Assembly, and the city of Paris. This concept, that the nation is prior to the state, is absent in almost all political analysis that one reads anywhere. For the most part the analysis runs that the nation is the state and then the state is used as a stand-in for the nation and then the state is afforded unlimited powers on this basis. It is the primary error that the French made in What is the Third Estate by abbe Sieyes. In it he actually says that the Third Estate is the nation.
It's funny, but the most common fallacy in use by the left is that of equivocation, and they use it so often and with such facility that we often miss it when they do it. Such is the case here.
It might be a good idea to deny just about every definition involving any equivalence made by any leftist or even by any moderate at any time in order to keep things straight.
I'm going to go a little further. After defining the Third as the nation and drawing in enough nobles and clergy to then cause the king to make the entire Estates General sit together, the key to all of the debates of the National Assembly thereafter was how to justify the fact that these men who had been sent to Versailles to discuss taxes were going to now take over and run the country. The debate that went on between the lines of the actual speeches and in the coffee house was between Montesquieu and Rousseau. In similar debate in America Montesquieu won. In France it was Rousseau. Again the fallacy of equivocation was in play. Rousseau had explicitly said that the General Will could not be delegated, and yet the deputies of the National Assembly declared that their actions were the General Will.
The ensuing disaster was all a result of fallacious thinking.

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 8:21 AM  

Your usage here isn't consistent with The Founders being a nation, and it's not consistent with the usage of most Americans today. In fact, of most Americans at any time in my life.

So what? MPAI. They can all believe that gravity works at 1 meter per second on Planet Earth too. They're wrong. The fact that the propagandists have been successful doesn't mean that the propaganda is true.

If you were correct, then we would not see the manifold problems we are witnessing today. Your artificial concept of nation is false, has always been false, and the falsehoods are becoming apparent to everyone.

People bought into the free trade myth for even longer. That myth, too, is now seen for the falsehood that it is due to the evidence now being observable.

But just as the usual concept of family allows for people adopted into the family, for most people, the concept of nation most Americans have allows adopted members as well. In both cases it is "artificial" in terms of being made by men, but doesn't diminish the allegiance they feel to the people of their family.

Who the fuck cares if they feel allegience or not? The slave often feels allegiance to his master, but that doesn't make him a free man. Blood matters. Get a transfusion from an adopted family member with a differing blood type and discover how little his allegiance, love, and feeling of belonging is relevant.

Re: "an Anglo-American state" vs civil nationalism, why is it that we are now at the point where the distinctions among Europeans (i.e. British vs. German vs. Swedish vs. Irish vs. Polish) no longer matter? They were different tribes right? Or do these distinctions still matter, but because of the "common enemy" they are in the background for now? If white is now a "tribe" in America, is it stable? Is there the possibility of that "tribe" being expanded in any way that does not wholly sync with skin color and race?

Genetic intermingling and cultural assimilation have reduced - not eliminated - those distinctions. Yes. They still matter, only less. White is more of a proto-tribe in America and it is far from stable. No, there is no possibility of that, because the level of integration required to fully blend tribes eliminates serious distinctions between them.

How is it possible that you do not understand that to integrate is to destroy the original? The original American nation is largely destroyed and replaced. And you wish to even destroy its successor with something even further from it, but insist that all three remain the same, because they carry the same LABEL?

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 8:23 AM  

Words have usage.

Have you ever voted Republican? Are you now willing to admit that you are a Nazi?

Words have usage.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable January 27, 2017 8:24 AM  

Re: "an Anglo-American state" vs civil nationalism, why is it that we are now at the point where the distinctions among Europeans (i.e. British vs. German vs. Swedish vs. Irish vs. Polish) no longer matter? They were different tribes right? Or do these distinctions still matter, but because of the "common enemy" they are in the background for now?

An interesting analog for your situation is found in the Old Testament. Nominally, Israel was a nation since everyone in it was descended from Jacob, Abraham's grandson. But in fact there were 12 (or 13, depending upon how you count) tribes within Israel. These tribes fought amongst themselves all the time, though they banded together to fight others.

The Euro-tribes are indeed different from one another, but close enough genetically and culturally to have mingled more than whites have with other races. I suspect there is sufficient commonality currently between Germanic-Americans, Anglo-Americans and other Euro-Americans to make a stand against the various Third-World "Americans" and their agenda despite the fact that they are demonstrably different "tribes".

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 8:36 AM  

VD wrote:Words have usage.

Have you ever voted Republican? Are you now willing to admit that you are a Nazi?


I am willing to admit that the Left will call me a nazi for voting Republican. That is their usage.

It wouldn't be consistent with my usage, however. I'm not a German Supremacist.

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 8:41 AM  

It wouldn't be consistent with my usage, however. I'm not a German Supremacist.

So what? By your own contention, the common usage is the only one that is relevant. So, do you admit that in California, for example, you are a Nazi?

You are a linguistic and conceptual relativist. As I observed, cuckservatives and conservatives always - ALWAYS - end up playing fast-and-loose with definitions and resorting to obvious absurdities when pressed. Their intellectual foundations are built on sand.

TL;DR: shut up, Nazi.

Blogger Gaiseric January 27, 2017 8:48 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Even more correct is "these" United States.
That hasn't been more correct since Lincoln's War.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Aaron Burr not killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel and seen his political credibility and credit plummet as a result. Would a still credible Aaron Burr have been enough to bump the Federalist secession movement into actual action? Can you imagine what would have happened if in the early 1800s New England had formed a separate Federalist state and left the rest of these United States alone to pursue freedom? No Civil War. No WWI or 2 (or at least no American participation in them.) Or maybe not. Maybe we'd have had several wars with New England. Those idiots never could leave anyone else alone.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr January 27, 2017 8:49 AM  

My Naval War College course on strategy made a very sharp distinction between a nation and a state. A narion is a group of people with a common history, language, and culture. A state is a sovereign political entity.

Big differences. Germany was a nation for centuries, but a German state is less than 150 years old. Ditto for Italy.

And the American nation (or nations, I can defend the existence of two) definitely predates the Revolution. That separation caused the Revolution.

Anonymous kfg January 27, 2017 8:50 AM  

" . . . the political entity, the government, that was created in 1776 . . ."

The nation was declared on April 19, 1775.

Blogger Michael Neal January 27, 2017 8:52 AM  

"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Translation: Be a smart alpha leader and get shit done and don't take any crap but keep your morality intact and observe my commandments.

Most conservatives now argue we should not be shrewd because that is impolite or mean, to just be gentle as doves and passive without any shrewdness.

Blogger Gaiseric January 27, 2017 9:02 AM  

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:And the American nation (or nations, I can defend the existence of two) definitely predates the Revolution. That separation caused the Revolution.
I think you can easily get three. The New England Puritans, the aristocratic plantation southerners and their hangers-on, and the feisty Borderers and Scots-Irish.

As the country expanded, it picked up other nations over time; the Cajuns, el Norte in parts of Texas and the American southwest, etc. And if you count the existence of unassimilated foreigners living in our borders and holding American paperwork, then who knows hoa many nations you get. But few would call those "American" nations except by geography.

Anonymous ZhukovG January 27, 2017 9:09 AM  

@Al, I have often wondered if the Civil Right Movement wasn’t a deliberate attempt to stick a knife in the Harlem Renaissance.

Blogger Nathan January 27, 2017 9:14 AM  

Vox,

"How is it possible that you do not understand that to integrate is to destroy the original? The original American nation is largely destroyed and replaced. And you wish to even destroy its successor with something even further from it, but insist that all three remain the same, because they carry the same LABEL?"

A lot of this is me just working this out, thinking out loud, etc. No, I don't want to destroy all the distinctions. I am interested in seeing cordial and peaceful relationships though between tribes, as much as possible, anticipating Rev. 7. All this cannot happen without the impact and influence of Christ. I'm also interested in persons who thoughtfully marry others of different races, even as I realize the precariousness of this.

Thanks for the reply.

Anonymous kfg January 27, 2017 9:15 AM  

" . . . who knows hoa many nations you get."

Ask that question in Hawaii.

Blogger Antony January 27, 2017 9:25 AM  

As the aweful David Cameron was mentioned, a new vid of him has surfaced, apparently speaking at a Freemasons meeting, about why we should have muslims in possitions of power ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5gbv5owaH8&feature=em-share_video_user

Blogger dc.sunsets January 27, 2017 9:30 AM  

So no, a man can't just "join" a nation, not really. He can go through all the motions and act as much like a native as possible, and perhaps be accepted over time, but not the same as a native. And the more foreigners like him there are, the less incentive he will have to do that.

The melting pot conceit grows from the notion that humans are different from Nature. The behavior of an Otter or an Osprey is determined by the subtleties of its DNA, but humans are "all the same" and somehow choose their behavior from momma's tit forward.

As an adoptee, I can say with certainty that this is lauaghably idiotic. Adoptees *never* integrate with their adoptive families. Any appearance of doing so is a testament to the human aptitude for MIMICRY.

"When in Rome" only applies when one is so outnumbered that the hard-coded survival instinct of humans invokes "don't stick out" herding behavior. The moment enough zebras are found in the herd of horses that they no longer "stick out," this DNA-coded behavior ends and the full set of Zebra-unique behaviors emerge.

This is the basis of tribalism. It is as much a part of human biology as is breathing. Watching idealists deny human nature never gets old, because denial of reality itself seems to be hardwired.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 9:34 AM  

When we talk about the "different-ness" of Europeans, remember that many of the Euro nations are celtic, all descend from Indo-European folklore/religion/language, all were historically Christian (which is Indo-European, and as such had some commonality with the paganism that preceded it), and all had extensive experience over generations, of the same forms of government and law.

They even share the same civic/secular "mythology"; that being the veneration of the Greeks, Romans, and early forms of Democracy.

So of "culture, history, language, race", they share substantial but not total #1, #2, and #4

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 27, 2017 9:35 AM  

Duke Norfolk
Stg58/Animal Mother

Have you watched Mark Dice?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oHwaSs0HsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63h59hFcX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1rNqjXTwBw

and so much more stuff to laugh, cringe, WTF, marvel, ...

Anonymous PinochetsChopperPilot January 27, 2017 9:41 AM  

Although it quotes at length from other, your synthesis of the issues is brilliant. Probably one of your best posts.

People on both sides constantly say and signal things they know not to be true, yet curiously, almost always live a life and make personal choices based upon what they REALLY know is true. That's why there is (proportionate to levels of federal or municipal interference) "white neighborhoods" and "black" ones. White schools, black schools, black churches, movies that blacks go to that whites won't, and everything else under the sun. Same for every other race. The only single unifying thing seems to be that NO ONE likes to be any where near blacks.

Blogger Gaiseric January 27, 2017 9:47 AM  

@47 Nathan

It's usually a case of solipsism (if it involves you personally) or pedantry (if it doesn't) to lose sight of the big picture by getting lost in exploring the ramifications of the exceptions. The whole discussion upthread about adoption into the nation, and stuff—yeah, sure, of course that happens. But it's irrelevant because the exceptional individual of some other cultural background who is accepted and adopted into the host culture doesn't fundamentally change the host culture. It's mass immigration in sufficient numbers that they set up rival cultural poles that compete with the host culture that is the issue under discussion.

So Tom Kratman has remarked here before that he's married to a Hispanic wife. So what? The fact that I don't want the US to be inundated under a flood of Mexican and Central American invaders doesn't mean that I care that he's married to a Hispanic wife. The atomized example is not the big picture. Nobody cares who Kratman marries. That's his affair, not ours. The same is true for any cross-national marriages.

But in a healthy culture, those examples do not create schwerpunkts or cultural beachheads. In societies that practice exogamous marriage, those who marry in often hyper-correct and are more culturally strict in their adoption of the local culture in order to fit in. Only in weak, sick, and dying cultures do we see big enclaves of competing cultures established side by side, and the inevitable result of such is conflict. Not necessarily violent, depending on what the cultures are, but the potential always exists.

And those who come from other cultural traditions can, at times, bring with them new practices that the natives like and eventually adopt. Texas, for example, was settled by the Scots-Irish and other Borderer people, who mostly came from Tennessee and whatnot in the early 1800s. The ethnic Mexican population of the area was not high, and they were genetically insignificant for the most part, except in the absolute most southerly part of the State, which was ceded to the US as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and wasn't settled by Anglo-Texians until after that point, really. That doesn't mean that Texans didn't adopt Spanish vaquero traditions to emerge as the quintessential American cowboy, and that Texas cuisine, even in the heavily Anglo population doesn't feature tacos and frijoles and stuff like that. Cultural syncretism isn't necessarily a bad thing, and America isn't lesser because the American cowboy is ultimately the continuation of a Spanish tradition rather than the traditional southern cowherder tradition of walking alongside your herd with a stick which we inherited from our Anglo-Saxon forebears.

And to your point about what Revelations and other scriptures tell us what to expect; well, no matter how much I love Western civilization and found that it suits me quite well, that doesn't mean that it's perfect and doesn't have its flaws. Someday I can expect the perfect civilization, ruled by Christ himself at the head, but I don't worry too much about trying to create that ahead of time using human means—that's not far from the heresy of Babel, after all. I think that in the meantime, differing cultures coexisting peacefully and separated by well-defined borders which help to keep that coexistence peaceful, is the best we can do. It's obviously better than we are doing, but it's something that we can at least aspire to.

Anonymous kfg January 27, 2017 9:52 AM  

"Not necessarily violent, depending on what the cultures are, but . . ."

. . .Islam's borders always seem to be rather bloody. Maybe it's just coincidence.

Blogger Nathan January 27, 2017 9:55 AM  

Gaiseric,

Thanks for the wrong reply. Will read later. Off to lazer tag with the boys for the day.

Vox,

One more thought. You say: "to integrate is to destroy the original...." I simply want to think all of this through logically. Of course to fixate on "white" is to minimize the Englishness, Germanness, Irishness, etc. of the other originals. It goes both ways, right? In sum, of course it all needs to be on a continuum, whether you are a "one blood" literal Adam and Eve Christian or a pure atheist materialist who thinks in terms of evolution. So, when you have the "mixing", this needs to be kept in mind, right? If you "race mix" in marriage, you either do so by taking a short leap or a longer leap across the continnum (yes, I know we should think in terms of branches and trees here, but the main point I make is relative distance of persons from one another in terms of their genetic differences).

Just want a fuller picture, to think things through. In general, again, I find myself very sympathetic to everything you are doing.

+Nathan

Blogger Gaiseric January 27, 2017 9:56 AM  

Yet the border between Canada and the US isn't. And the border between Scotland and England is USUALLY peaceful, although certainly there have been moments in the past when it wasn't. There's a big caveat to that claim depending on which cultures in question we're referring to.

Blogger wreckage January 27, 2017 9:57 AM  

@53, beautifully put. Thankyou.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 27, 2017 10:03 AM  

@Al from Bay Shore

...and nobody ssecretly despuses blacks to the exteent that white leftists do. When in a candid convetsation with one who thnks you are one also, it's amazing how they imply that the Jin Crie laws didn't go far enough due to inherent inferiority of blacks. But they won't adnmit it directly because of their philosophy of universalist, while at the same time advocating anri-universalist class-based policies.

Blogger Stephen Carter January 27, 2017 10:03 AM  

As for your freedom, gibsmedat!

Blogger Buybuydandavis January 27, 2017 10:11 AM  

VD wrote:
The fact that the propagandists have been successful doesn't mean that the propaganda is true.
...
Who the fuck cares if they feel allegience or not?
... Blood matters.


If they feel allegiance, *they* care. Caring is the essence of allegiance. Who do you care about? Who don't you care about?

That caring implies action. That is what makes it the relevant concept for a nation. If they care about other things more than blood, those other things are what is predictive of their actions, not the blood.

Grandma was a third generation German, entirely German genetically, having kids in the 30s in the US. I don't think those 3 generations of Germans in the US were German agents. Their allegiance was to the US, and many of them were likely shooting at the guys in German uniforms. They were shooting at all those fellows with the same kind of blood.

The nation concept, as a useful concept, is about an in group of allegiance. That may or may not correlate with blood, and it may or may not be actually about blood.

You can wish it was about blood. You can bemoan that people aren't as motivated by blood as you'd like. But if those are their motivations, there is nothing "false" about them.

VD: If you were correct, then we would not see the manifold problems we are witnessing today.

Simply does not follow. You can let all sorts of people into your family and have it blow up in your face.

That it is blowing up in our face now is not surprising. The "adoptees" were selected for that purpose.

Blogger Wanda Sherratt January 27, 2017 10:15 AM  

Mark Steyn has a clip of an appearance on the Sean Hannity show from August 2015, and he identified exactly what turned me against Official Conservatism and to the Alt-Right:

Trump is saying 'We're tired of being told reasons why you can't do things!' His immigration plan - people keep coming up with this thing, Sean: 'Oh, no, it would require constitutional amendments, it's pie-in-the-sky, it can't be done. Nothing can be done. Nothing can EVER be done.'

I felt that conservatism had become a coffin, a narrow little place for Right to stay very still while the savages danced through the graveyard.

Anonymous It's 2015+2 January 27, 2017 10:15 AM  

@60

Except that this feeling of allegiance is more likely to occur if there is reason for it to occur. The more of "them" already here, the less likely they are going to be motivated to place their allegiance with the host nation. Sure exceptions always occur. That's not the point.

Blogger Avalanche January 27, 2017 10:24 AM  

227 "and even as a somewhat Libertarian I would say that the state of play until Trump has been a total blindness to ethnicity;"

It's an enforced blindness to ONLY WHITE ethnicity! Every other ethnicity gets feted and praised and given tons of (White) money and excuses for their crimes (esp. directed against Whites) and so on. I'm praying that Trump has -- or will gain -- clear sight!


Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 27, 2017 10:27 AM  

Cucks never challenge on the moral level of conflict, and they scold those who do challenge.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 27, 2017 10:28 AM  

@VD
"...but insist that all three remain the same, because they carry the same LABEL?"

A certain ethnic group (and much of the Left in general) possesses nearly unlimited faith in the primacy of language over reality.

Blogger Avalanche January 27, 2017 10:31 AM  

@32 "just as the usual concept of family allows for people adopted into the family,"

And yet, if you look at many, many "cross-cultural" (i.e., OUTside the blood ties) adoptions, they quite often 'put the lie' to your claim. A White friend's Korean "son" grew up, got "radicalized," and now hates his White family. White adopters struggle to provide "an authentic african (etc.) experience" to their adopted negro or chinese children.

IF adoption fixed this (if it could EVER fix this!) -- then why would there EVER be a "let me teach you about YOUR people, child-I-am-pretending-is-mine!"?

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 10:35 AM  

That caring implies action. That is what makes it the relevant concept for a nation. If they care about other things more than blood, those other things are what is predictive of their actions, not the blood.

You're literally too stupid to debate. There is no further reason to communicate with you.

Simply does not follow. You can let all sorts of people into your family and have it blow up in your face

As I said, you're far too short for this ride. It absolutely follows. It was predicted and it happened. Anyhow, that's enough from you on this thread. My tolerance for low IQs and illogic on this subject is limited.

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 10:37 AM  

I haven't played fast and loose with anything.

Yes, you most certainly have, although I will admit the possibility that you're dumb enough to not realize that you have. As I said, you're done in this thread.

Blogger Avalanche January 27, 2017 10:38 AM  

@44 "Most conservatives now argue we should not be shrewd because that is impolite or mean, to just be gentle as doves and passive without any shrewdness."

BUNNIES!!
{gag}

Anonymous kfg January 27, 2017 10:39 AM  

@65: " . . . possesses nearly unlimited faith in the primacy of language over reality."

They are the useful idiots of the Ministry of Truth. They understand what's going on, but they don't understand why, so they often get the arrow of causality aimed the wrong way 'round.

They do tend to make it up in volume, however.

Blogger HanSolo January 27, 2017 10:40 AM  

Hannity and others are too cucked for Israel but Hannity was perhaps the most prominent defender and advocate for Trump among MSM types so have to give him lots of credit for that.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 27, 2017 10:41 AM  

@dc.sunsets
"The melting pot conceit grows from the notion that humans are different from Nature...As an adoptee, I can say with certainty that this is lauaghably idiotic."

Well put. Of course, at a more specific level, the "Melting Pot" conceit grows from a 1908 play by (((Israel Zangwill))), himself an ardent Zionist. Every. Single. Time.

Sometimes it's useful to look beyond the seeming content of the idea, and ask "What purpose does this serve? And for whom?"

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 10:44 AM  

IF adoption fixed this (if it could EVER fix this!) -- then why would there EVER be a "let me teach you about YOUR people, child-I-am-pretending-is-mine!"?

Exactly. A adoptive family is a family in the same way that social justice is justice. That doesn't mean there isn't genuinely love and commitment between parent and adopted child, that doesn't mean that the relationship can't be a very positive thing for both parties, but the bond is not, and never will be, exactly the same as the blood bond.

As always, an amount of dishonesty is required of the cuckservative position. Interestingly enough, there is seldom any pretense that a step-mother is exactly the same as a mother, or that a step-father is exactly the same as a father. And I say this as one whose closest family member in the entire extended family was my step-grandfather.

I know as well as anyone possibly can the substantive difference between family and pseudo-family, so spare me the sob stories and cuckish rhetoric.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 27, 2017 10:53 AM  

@Gaiseric
"It's usually a case of solipsism (if it involves you personally) or pedantry (if it doesn't) to lose sight of the big picture by getting lost in exploring the ramifications of the exceptions."

And often it's deliberate sophistry. After all, when we're looking at issues involving human populations, and of statistical truth. The are no clean, bright lines. It's not geometry. Someone who chooses to focus on anecdotal exceptions is either laboring under significant cognitive limitations, is engaging in deliberate sophistry, or has been indoctrinated into suppressing normal reasoning processes when questions important to the narrative arise.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 27, 2017 11:02 AM  

@Nathan
"...longer leap across the continuum (yes, I know we should think in terms of branches and trees here,"

Actually, clusters (and subclusters) on a continuum works as a model, too. As a snapshot, that is-- not over time.

Anonymous Opus January 27, 2017 11:12 AM  

Cameron, I now recall and I am not sure why he was so, was very keen on adoption. My observation is as VD and DC that no matter how hard the adoptive family tries and no matter how willing the adoptee there is always going to be that yawning gap.

Consider: the grandparents who for whatever reason end up adopting their grand child - every one knows the true position (usually family shame - I saw this up close in legal practice). Or again: a romantic interest of mine (little slut) had been adopted by the nicest and best of working class families - clearly they could not have children and yet even if their adopted daughter had not been the seriously bad news that she was there was that something which separated them as if they were playing at families. I also recall that I met a black girl up in Wisconsin who nice enough though she was explained that she was the first black female to have been adopted in America by a white family - that of course is even crazier. The worst example is of a friend of mine whose family (in England) adopted a black girl. To show though surely unconsciously that he was not a morally bankrupt racist my friend married this rather unattractive black girl. Mercifully no children were produced and she quickly went Lezzie. They divorced - that was for him surely the narrowest of escapes and all because of his stupid virtue-signalling parents.

It is very sad of course but there it is and nothing no matter ones wishful thinking can be done any more than one can improve the lot of those who are born short without mutual deception.

Cameron's great failing was that he wanted to be everything to everyone (unless of course you were white and hetero and male) and ended up being nothing to nobody (sic erat though in the Odysseus sense).

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey January 27, 2017 11:15 AM  

@kfg
"They are the useful idiots of the Ministry of Truth."

Yup. Fun fact: while most of "1984" was based on Orwell's experience with Communism, the "Ministry of Truth" was based on the British Ministry of Information, where he worked during WW2, producing propaganda.

Anonymous Henry Havelock January 27, 2017 11:15 AM  

@49 That's a Conservative party meeting. You can see the squiggly tree logo over his left shoulder at the start of the video.

Now, granted, a Tory party meeting probably has most of the same personnel as a Freemasons meeting...

Anonymous Henry Havelock January 27, 2017 11:28 AM  

@77 Cameron thought white, hetero males were just super if they'd been at school or university with him or were chums of chums. Not for nothing was the tiny clique of poshboys who made up his government known as "the chumocracy."

Identifying and appointing the best is a vanishingly rare skill in leadership circles. Managerialism and affirmative action have hollowed out the "elite" class and turned them into an inward-looking nepotistic circle of back scratching mediocrities. Before I set out on my own I sat on a lot of interview panels. Middle management contains a lot of bullshitters. But without fail interviews for director-level and above would be a parade of transparent charlatans, spineless yes-men and congenital retards.

I'd say that Cameron's main failing was that he was an empty suit. A cut-price PR man with little talent and fewer convictions.

Anonymous BBigGayKoranBurner January 27, 2017 11:31 AM  

It's not just George W Bush throwing hard-earned American treasure at the HIV-infested toilet of Africa.

That gave us drug resistant HIV in return.

some black owned construction services) that acquires a critical mass of African Americans is doomed to failure.

The trick is they get the contract via affirmative action and have other businesses do the work.

Blogger Avalanche January 27, 2017 11:50 AM  

OT; question for Vox: I subscribed to Bloomsberg Businessweek a few months ago (spent useless airline miles). I'm beginning to think (reading their "Opening Remarks" and noticing the "stories" they choose to print) that this magazine seems pretty nearly entirely cucked. The facts seem okay (e.g., "some Chinese firm bought the Rubbermaid parent co.; changes will follow." 'kay.) But, the off-hand/back-hand slaps at Trump seem (to my beginner's eye) to be just cucking or (((faux-conservative))) (or just wrong).

I've got "The Return of the Great Depression," but decided to read "Cuckservatives" first (and then "SJWAL" a second time).

Is Bloomberg's (paper-)'blog' cucking?

Anonymous MissAnthropy January 27, 2017 11:59 AM  

We can, and have, accommodated assimilable immigrants. This land was settled and built primarily by people of Anglo-Celtic origin, i.e. from the British Isles. It is an inextricable part of the demeanor, attitude, values, and legal concepts of the country. The most readily assimilable immigrants were those who came from the same British Isles, after that the cousins of northwest continental Europe, after that the more distant cousins of southern and eastern Europe, and after that assimilability rapidly drops off -- to the point of outright absurdity as we have seen in the wake of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Blogger VD January 27, 2017 12:02 PM  

Is Bloomberg's (paper-)'blog' cucking?

They're not cucking, they're the enemy.

Anonymous MissAnthropy January 27, 2017 12:10 PM  

And it is the prerogative of nations to alter the State when and if it no longer serves the nation. We are now witnessing the first flirtations with just that -- both here and elsewhere in the Western world. I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the nation which instituted the Federal government in 1789 never intended for those provisions by which foreigners could join the nation to be so broad as to admit the veritable human barnyard that is the modern concept of "America."

Blogger molonlabe28 January 27, 2017 12:17 PM  

I voted for Trump in spite of his being the GOP nominee, not because he was the GOP nominee.

What I regarded as the Vichy Republicans comprised a sizeable component of its members of Congress.

Over the last 2 years, I got very tired of hearing neocons promise that Trump "wasn't a conservative".

This is the best I have felt since 1980.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 27, 2017 12:19 PM  

MissAnthropy wrote:The most readily assimilable immigrants were those who came from the same British Isles, after that the cousins of northwest continental Europe, after that the more distant cousins of southern and eastern Europe, and after that assimilability rapidly drops off -- to the point of outright absurdity ...

Africans have been in these United States for 400 years or more, and free to assimilate since around 1865. How many have done so? It does appear that beyond some point, assimilation just doesn't happen.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 27, 2017 12:22 PM  

molonlabe28 wrote:Over the last 2 years, I got very tired of hearing neocons promise that Trump "wasn't a conservative".

Thank God they were right. Conservatives got us into this mess, they won't get us out of it.

Anonymous Clay January 27, 2017 12:31 PM  

Love your nation. http://ironandclay.net/2017/01/26/the-nation/

Anonymous Jack Amok January 27, 2017 12:37 PM  

A corollary is that a disastrous. and peculiar verdict will almost certainly be rendered by an all female jury. That effect, however, can be prevented by including even one man in a jury's number. Whatever it is that women jurors do to arrive at their bizarre conclusions, they will not do under the scrutiny of a man.

That was me a few years ago. All-female jury except for me. The prosecutor was incompetent, never actually presented evidence that the defendant had committed a crime. By any understanding of the prosecution having the burden of proof, we had to vote not guilty. The women had all sorts of goofy ideas they wanted to pursue though, but they'd usually drop them if I said anything negative. One middle aged harpy though did vote guilty in the end. Her reason? The guy looked like her ex-husband.

The oddest thing though, the younger women were the most sensible and logical. It was the older ones who were least able to follow a line of reasoning. Might have just been random chance.



Blogger Dirk Manly January 27, 2017 1:52 PM  

@Al from Bay Shore

...and nobody ssecretly despuses blacks to the exteent that white leftists do. When in a candid convetsation with one who thnks you are one also, it's amazing how they imply that the Jin Crie laws didn't go far enough due to inherent inferiority of blacks. But they won't adnmit it directly because of their philosophy of universalist, while at the same time advocating anri-universalist class-based policies.

Anonymous Owen January 27, 2017 2:37 PM  

@Jack Amok

"The oddest thing though, the younger women were the most sensible and logical. It was the older ones who were least able to follow a line of reasoning. Might have just been random chance."

The female of the species is crazy to begin with, but make them menopausal and all bets are well and truly out the window. The crazy Cat Lady phenomenon. One thing liberalism and feminism have accomplished is to produce legions of entitled women who suddenly realize they're over 40 and, as it turns out, they can't in fact "have it all." Not if "having it" includes fulfilling their biological imperatives, not without a great deal of effort and expense anyway. Maybe they could have spent those prime child bearing years doing something other than pursuing a Master's Degree in abject horseshit? Or at least not murdering the offspring they did manage to conceive.

The cognitive dissonance that ensues upon consideration of the fact that overemphasis on extending the academic years further and further into a woman's 20s or 30s, combined with the overemphasis on female careerism, is a cognitive dissonance that manifests in different ways. Some cannot admit that maybe the traditional women they mocked were right all along, so they double down and become the sort of childless menopausal harridans who attend protests in the nation's capital dressed as giant vaginas. These are weapons-grade Social Justice Warriors, so your account of their behavior during jury deliberation is sadly too believable.

Blogger WATYF January 27, 2017 2:38 PM  

That caring implies action. That is what makes it the relevant concept for a nation. If they care about other things more than blood, those other things are what is predictive of their actions, not the blood.

I'd actually like to know the response to this. If the blood and the not-blood act exactly alike because their allegiances are identical, then what difference does blood make in practice (not in theory) as it relates to the behavior and cohesiveness of a "nation"?

Sure, don't call it a "nation" if you want to be restrictive about the use of that word (the definition itself allows for things like "common culture", not just common blood), but whatever you call it, it obviously can include people of different blood who share the same allegiances and values and culture and who identify with each other.

The only reason this is relevant is because America isn't remotely one blood, not even the blood of the Founders. What percentage of the citizenry is 100% English? 5 percent? Maybe 10? How, in practice, is this going to help determine an American "nation" in a useful way? Where does the 95% that remains go? And where is the line drawn?

In other words, yes... a nation and a state are not the same thing because multi-national, obviously. Now that we've established that truism, what now? What "nations" (if we're only using the "by blood" definition of the word) get to be a part of the State of America (or whatever comes after it), and why? And at what point does their intermingling make them a single "nation" (even according to the "by blood" definition)?

WATYF

Blogger Gaiseric January 27, 2017 4:02 PM  

Y'all are sperging a bit about "blood." One of the outcomes of the outbreeding project that took place within the Hajnal line is that the sense of community extended beyond your immediate or even slightly extended family. "Blood" is your people, not just your cousins.

And for many, many generations, "American" has been an emerging identity. Nitpicking about whether your ancestors have the proper degree of Britishness to them is missing the point. Not very many people know their genealogy that well anyway.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 27, 2017 4:11 PM  

WATYF wrote:I'd actually like to know the response to this. If the blood and the not-blood act exactly alike because their allegiances are identical, then what difference does blood make in practice (not in theory) as it relates to the behavior and cohesiveness of a "nation"?


It's the difference between an ally and a teammate, between a neighbor and a cousin.

And at what point does their intermingling make them a single "nation" (even according to the "by blood" definition)?
You're trying to parse it way too closely. There will (probably) not be dna tests for participation in the next civil war.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 27, 2017 5:38 PM  

I'm sick of these Cucks going on about how we are a "nation of immigrants". The hell, you say. Every time I hear this, the person saying it is either 1st, 2nd, or possibly 3rd gen. And they still consider themselves immigrants. That proves they are not assimilated into the culture.

OpenID obaoghill January 27, 2017 6:09 PM  

No nation was formed by the Founding Fathers. Had the Constitution attempted to form a singular nation, the Constitution would never have been ratified. Those "states" at the time considered themselves independent of England AND each other and were not about to give up that independence. The words nation and national as applied to the government were actively removed from the Constitution during the 1787 convention. Throughout the Constitution, the United States are referred to in the plural BECAUSE they are NOT a singular nation, never were. Some claim after the War of Northern Aggression that the US changed to a singular entity BUT reference the 13th amendment (ratified after the war) in which the United States ARE STILL referred to in the plural, as in "their jurisdiction". The reason folks believe the US "is" a nation is the socialist pledge that was used to brainwash generations in order to remove state sovereignty and state allegiance. In 1787 the term state was equivalent to nation, as in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence "from the state of Great Britain". No the US are 50 nations organized in a Union, with very specific limited powers transferred from the States/People to the central government. The original Preamble of the Constitution listed the individual 13 states who formed it. After discussion that new states might join, it was changed to We the People BUT WE the People never acted in singular concert to ratify the Constitution. It was ratified by select groups within each State independent of the other states. Originally North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join and were treated as foreign nations for some purposes.

Anonymous kfg January 27, 2017 8:17 PM  

" . . . they are NOT a singular nation, never were."

Which is why, to this day, each state has a complete mechanism of government - and Federal "continuity of government" programs are a scam. Government of United States is quite redundantly robust. In most of the former US even the breakup will occur with no discontinuity in government. States will simply cease to recognize Federal authority.

"The reason folks believe the US "is" a nation is the socialist pledge that was used to brainwash generations in order to remove state sovereignty and state allegiance . . ."

George M. Cohan helped a lot.

"Originally North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join and were treated as foreign nations for some purposes."

As I have noted here a number of times before, Vermont refused to join until it was recognized as a sovereign nation. It was at war with New York and New Hampshire for independence.

Vermont has constitutional carry written into its own constitution and does not rely on the Federal. It does not recite the socialist pledge in its schools.

Blogger Nathan January 27, 2017 9:10 PM  

Gaiseric,

Sorry - not "wrong" reply, but *long* reply. That was very helpful. Good thoughts. Thanks.

+Nathan

Blogger Tom Kratman January 28, 2017 12:05 AM  

"Nobody cares who Kratman marries."

Some would appear to, though not you so far as I can recall.

I suppose what annoys me about that could be summed up in the question: "And just who the fuck are you, bottom feeding (possibly mostly) white trash, to object to my personal eugenics program?" I could turn it around and ask, "Who the fuck is anyone to object to Vox's or Spacebunny's personal eugenics program?"

Vox has commented before on how it is very easy to judge male intelligence just from looking at a man's face. I believe that's broadly true, and equally that it's not possible with women.

Except that it can be. Oh, no, you can't tell how bright a woman is from her face or anything physical. But what you _can_ tell to a considerable degree is what her female ancestry looked like, beauty tending to beget beauty, after all. And that will suggest rather strongly that, even if her genes do not express vast capability, there is an excellent chance that she is, so to speak, a "carrier." She is likely to be a carrier because beautiful women - I am thinking of the wife's lily white, blue eyed, red headed, French grandmother, whom the wife favors and who kept the shape of a slender young girl through 14 deliveries and to her death at age 97 - can use their looks to acquire considerable male talent, as the grandmother acquired the wife's grandfather. Now that was a man who, starting with capital of a machete and a horse, carved himself out a little 40 or so square KM (that's square kilometer) empire, for himself, and filled it with cattle. She's a carrier for that kind of intelligence, energy, and ruthlessness - because, yes, the conquistadors had nothing on her grandfather as far as any of that went.

Of course I knew none of the details when I asked her to marry me. What I did know was that beauty attracts talent and talent can be and very often is heritable.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts