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

Friday, February 17, 2017

Equality is not "the rights of Englishmen"

An article on Alexander Hamilton's opinion on immigration is revealing for what it shows about Jefferson and the false foundation he provides the civic nationalists for their pseudo-nationalism:
Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant, he was adamantly opposed to the open immigration policies that President Thomas Jefferson proposed in his first annual message to Congress in 1801. Although the incoming president had once opposed unlimited immigration, Jefferson now saw it as a way to secure the future political dominance of his own party over Hamilton's Federalists.

Hamilton, like most Federalists, was concerned about French influence on American politics. Although the French Revolution had descended into terror and led to the rise of Napoleon, Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party persisted in their attachment to the French. Hamilton feared that Jefferson's proposal for unlimited immigration would lead to the triumph of the radical principles of the French Revolution over those of the more moderate American Revolution.

Writing as "Lucius Crassus," Hamilton argued: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

Invoking Jefferson's own "Notes on Virginia," Hamilton observed that "foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners." He argued that "it is unlikely that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism."

He continued: "The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency."

Hamilton concluded: "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in [Jefferson's] message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."
As I have repeatedly noted, the openness of certain of the Founding Fathers to non-English immigration was not based on principle, and equality was very far from a core principle of the American Revolution, much less the "sacred" and primary principle that the civic nationalists falsely claim it to be.

Equality was not a core principle of the American Revolution at all, nor does the false and ahistorical conservative distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of result" have anything to do with the famous rhetorical phrase that Jefferson inserted in the Declaration of Independence. The equality to which Jefferson refers is actually the "liberté, égalité, fraternité" of the French Revolution for which he subsequently showed such enthusiasm. Equality is a French concept, not an American one, and is not among the Rights of Englishmen.

Moreover, the Congress rejected Jefferson's unprincipled and tactical call for open immigration, as it restricted naturalization to "free white men" and " further directed the clerk of the court to record the entry of all aliens into the United States" in the Naturalization Law of 1802.

Labels: ,

98 Comments:

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 11:04 AM  

If this is an honest interpretation, it reveals that the use of immigration to secure narrow political hegemony is not an invention of the current Democratic Party.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 11:06 AM  

This forces another realization: Once you pull one brick out of the libertarian foundation, the entire Jenga(tm) edifice of it collapses.

Blogger James Dixon February 17, 2017 11:07 AM  

> An article on Alexander Hamilton's opinion on immigration...

Something I'd wager the cast of "Hamilton" has never read.

Anonymous WinstonWebb February 17, 2017 11:08 AM  

I can't WAIT to quote certain pieces of that to all of the morons that learned everything they know about Alexander Hamilton from a certain multiculti Broadway musical.

Blogger pyrrhus February 17, 2017 11:10 AM  

I think that the decision 2000+ years ago to allow foreigners to settle in Rome was motivated by the same kind of political motives we see today....

Anonymous BBGKB February 17, 2017 11:12 AM  

An article on Alexander Hamilton's opinion on immigration...Something I'd wager the cast of "Hamilton" has never read

If you see someone with a Che shirt tell him its cool and ask him to look up on his phone the quote of Che with the keywords "dreamer meager wage frivolity drink work and saving"

Blogger Durandel Almiras February 17, 2017 11:12 AM  

as it restricted naturalization to "free white men"

Did "white men" mean what it does today? Or were Southern Europeans and the Irish not included in that definition back in 1802?

Blogger Salt February 17, 2017 11:14 AM  

Jefferson's policy failed like a $2 bill.

Blogger IrishFarmer February 17, 2017 11:17 AM  

Electing the voters has been going on almost from the beginning then. Thats disheartening.

Anonymous Soviet of Washington February 17, 2017 11:18 AM  

Links to the two most relevant Hamilton letters:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0280
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282

Anonymous BBGKB February 17, 2017 11:35 AM  

Electing the voters has been going on almost from the beginning then. Thats disheartening.

At least the founding fathers could speak freely in front of their TV sets & their homing pigeons didn't catch on fire.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/538379/samsung-warns-customers-not-discuss-personal-information-front-smart-tvs

Anonymous Gapeseed February 17, 2017 11:40 AM  

One could and should make the case that the country was radically different back then, needing labor and men to farm and develop the land while allowing the fledgling country to field combat forces sufficient to ward off predatory European powers and Indian tribes. None of those conditions exist today.

Anonymous Eduardo the Magnificent February 17, 2017 11:41 AM  

"See, Jefferson supported open immigration!"

"He also owned slaves"

"......"

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 17, 2017 11:44 AM  

@7 I wondered the same thing. My understanding is that for most of US history "white" meant NW protestant. If it was defined broadly to include all the white race, as currently defined, it was not very restrictive since it would have encompassed anyone realistically likely to immigrate in the 18th century. It was more a statement of not giving citizenship to non-white natives (blacks and Indians) than one of keeping out non-white immigrants.

Anonymous Lit Dog February 17, 2017 11:49 AM  

One wonders if VP Pence and the chuchians fawning over Broadway’s Black Hamilton might benefit from the history lesson VD provides in this post. I suppose most churchians are a lost cause, but perhaps a few more nasty incidents like Pence’s reception at the show might help him realize that cultural Marxist hate Whites, and their entertainment distorts White history.

Libertarians, even more so, could benefit from this post. Besides their underlying philosophy denigrating any White racial identity, they’re indoctrinated with a hatred for the Federalists and Hamilton. But reading these quotes of Hamilton might bring make them wonder if their philosophy wasn’t crafted by (((people))) with an anti-White agenda.

Anonymous Lodo February 17, 2017 11:52 AM  

"the false and ahistorical conservative distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of result"

There is nothing that is false about this distinction.

In fact, the only way that your rhetorical obsession with equality can be sustained is by suggesting there is no distinction between these two ideas.

"Equality of Opportunity" is a process-focused idea. "Equality of result" is a goal-focused idea.

Conflating the two reveals a lack of intelligence.

Blogger newanubis February 17, 2017 11:54 AM  

Well done JD.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 11:58 AM  

@7 @14 While I don't know when the term came into broad use, WASP most assuredly did not apply to Roman Catholics from Italy or anywhere else. Kennedy's election to POTUS was as big a deal then as Obummer was more recently.

Perhaps White was simply further qualified by "Anglo-Saxon Protestant."

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 12:06 PM  

I know it's troubling to those of us who may have Scottish or Irish ancestors, but unless I'm mistaken, as cities in the USA transitioned in who controlled them, the level of corruption from English ancestry to Irish ancestry did the same thing as when a city now transitions from dominant white to dominant black.

I really do find the concept of the Hajnal Line useful in its predictive value of public corruption.

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2017 12:10 PM  

13. Edwardo: My favorite response to those who spew "We're a nation of immigrants!" Yeah, we had slavery and child labor too.

Blogger Quintus Maximus February 17, 2017 12:14 PM  

'Equality' didn't exist as an english notion. This is very visible in the original settlements, such as Jamestown. The 'Gentleman' class were reserved for designing, and the lower classes were implementing the designs of Jamestown.

When John Smith locked the storeroom door in Jamestown, and declared 'he who will not work shall not eat' it caused a major ruckus, as the 'gentlemen' class were being shoved into the same lot with the workers (whether by necessity or other) because they were getting destroyed by the natives. I'd also note Smiths background. He wasn't of the english 'gentleman' class rather won his title by fighting in Romania. He was widely resented and reviled by the 'gentlemen' of the settlement. There are several rumors that his 'blackpowder' accident was NOT an accident. The archeologist I was talking to last Sunday about this compared the Lincolnshire England (where quite a number of the immigrants in Jamestown came from) to Berkeley in many ways.

Blogger rumpole5 February 17, 2017 12:19 PM  

As the progeny of the first wave of "plain people" Germans into North America in the eary 1700s (with a small injection of New England English) and of the secular Germans who arrived in the mid 1800s, I can attest that these two groups are distintly different from each other, and different from Americans with English surnames. We should limit ALL immigration until we can figure out who we are. (500 years MIGHT do it).

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 12:24 PM  

@22 Seconded.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 17, 2017 12:28 PM  

@22 Why put a time limit on the immigration ban? Is national suicide going to be desirable at some point?

Blogger Scott February 17, 2017 12:31 PM  

Multicultural immigration is great. It brings:
1) Higher crime rate, especially murder, rape and fraud
2) Increase in prison population
3) Increased dependence on government assistance
4) Lower achievement in schools

Now who wouldn't want that?

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 17, 2017 12:36 PM  

Something I'd wager the cast of "Hamilton" has never read.

As their main language is ebonics perhaps someone should do a well illustrated "We wuz kangz descended from Golden Dindu" edition of a Hamilton monograph to help them assimilate to the magic dirt by looking at the pictures on their sailfoams.

OpenID kbswift February 17, 2017 12:37 PM  

OT: The USA Today crossword is getting into the culture wars with today's 10 down clue: ___-right (white-supremacists et al.)

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2017 12:44 PM  

For the record, Hamilton was about as much an immigrant to America as Boston-born Ben Franklin was an immigrant to Philadelphia. He was born on a Caribbean colony owned by Denmark but adjacent to British-ruled islands, and economically controlled by Britons. Essentially, a colony of the British colonies next door. His parents were British subjects and his native tongue was English.

Blogger James Dixon February 17, 2017 12:45 PM  

> OT: The USA Today crossword is getting into the culture wars

USA Today has been converged for years. Why are you surprised?

Blogger tublecane February 17, 2017 12:49 PM  

@16-It's not a false distinction, but it's also not an important distinction. I'm inclined to say it ought to be irrelevant. It's also an impossible distinction to maintain in practice, I believe.

Blogger tublecane February 17, 2017 12:53 PM  

Has anyone hear read M.E. Bradford's A Better Guide Than Reason? I remember there being an analysis in there of the Declaration not from the usual quasi-Holy Writ perspective, but rather an analysis of its use of rhetoric. Including necessarily the equality nonsense.

It also contained a brutal takedown of neocon Henry Jaffe on Lincoln, as I recall.

Blogger VD February 17, 2017 12:55 PM  

There is nothing that is false about this distinction.

It is historically false. Jefferson was not referring to "equality of opportunity".

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr February 17, 2017 12:59 PM  

If you look at U.S. immigration policy, there's normally a 60-year cycle. 30 years with the border open, 30 years with it closed.

The problems we're having are due to the border opening in the mid-'50s...and being welded open when they should have shut in the 1980s. We can assimilate newcomers, but the process isn't instant and it CAN be overloaded. And probably has.

Anonymous Lodo February 17, 2017 1:08 PM  

"It is historically false. Jefferson was not referring to "equality of opportunity".

Which is why I referred to YOUR statement that a distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of result" is false.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 1:18 PM  

@33 I don't agree. I agree with the America 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 distinctions, and that when WASPs stopped controlling the national government (something enabled by 2.0) all hell broke loose.

That's not assimilation, unless you're talking the BORG.

Blogger Gaiseric February 17, 2017 1:19 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I know it's troubling to those of us who may have Scottish or Irish ancestors, but unless I'm mistaken, as cities in the USA transitioned in who controlled them, the level of corruption from English ancestry to Irish ancestry did the same thing as when a city now transitions from dominant white to dominant black.

I really do find the concept of the Hajnal Line useful in its predictive value of public corruption.

The Scottish and the Irish are not the same, though. The manorialism that produced the Hajnal Line traits did extend to the Lowland Scots and Ulster Scots, at least somewhat—although it didn't "take" as hard nor was it practiced as long as it was in, say, Essex. But Lowland Scots and Scots-Irish were always part of the American fabric, and had been since long before the Revolution.

Also, they were Protestant and the Irish were Catholic, which was a huge deal to the English colonists.

Blogger Gaiseric February 17, 2017 1:20 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@33 I don't agree. I agree with the America 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 distinctions, and that when WASPs stopped controlling the national government (something enabled by 2.0) all hell broke loose.

That's not assimilation, unless you're talking the BORG.

I've heard those terms tossed around for a few years here; what exactly do you mean by each of the American iterations, and what do you consider to be the break points?

Blogger Silly But True February 17, 2017 1:37 PM  

I'm trying to track down the microfiche archive, but apparently theNew York Times in its Oct. 25, 1791 editorial called Alexander Hamilton a white supremecist, retired game developer, and leader of the Alt-right.

Blogger Yorzhik February 17, 2017 1:38 PM  

The problem with immigration is that we in the US have welfare, and we let women and people that get money directly from the government vote. But both of those are our fault, not the immigrants.

What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms, and change the rules on who is allowed to vote. Then the number of immigrants will be based on who can produce the most regardless where they come from.

Blogger Jourdan February 17, 2017 1:39 PM  

I'm concerned that the InfoGalactic entry for the Rights of Englishmen nowhere sets forth what those rights are. It is also concerning that it denotes the holders of those rights as being "perceived." Is it all just a matter of perception, then?

Anonymous #8601 February 17, 2017 1:45 PM  

What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms, and change the rules on who is allowed to vote.

Easier said than done, doode.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 1:48 PM  

Here is an interesting thing about the Anglo Heritage, at least in my family. There has been very little intermarriage with other races over the past 400 years. I am 89.0625% Anglo, and my mother is pure Anglo.

On my mother's side, the early members arrived in North America in 1635 in Massachusetts & Rhode Island, and there has been virtually zero intermarriage with white people of other nationalities, much less intermarriage with nationalities of darker tones. Her ancestors came here primarily from 3 counties in England: Kent, Somerset, and Dorset.

On my father's side, I there was intermarrying in different branches 4, 5 and 6 generations back with respectively a female German, a female Cherokee, and a female Choctaw. So, my father was only 78.125% Anglo. NONE of my female ancestors married a non-Anglo, and only 3 of my male ancestors intermarried with other races. My fathers Anglo ancestors are almost all from Essex and Kent, and I have an ancestor that was on the Mayflower (Edward Doty), and one who was in the 1624 census at Jamestown, Virginia (John Harris).

Up until recent times, it seems that people in past generations primarily intermarried with others of the same race. I wonder if that holds true for all races.

By the way, this is why I think any white supremacist movement is destined to fail in the USA. I simply don't share the same attitudes, values, and world view of other white, non-Anglo peoples. Scandinavians, Germans, French, Italians, Irish, Slavics, etc. simply don't have the same values and trying to cram them into a single "white" category doesn't work long-term. Perhaps the blatant hostility of non-white peoples will force us into a temporary alliance, but it breaks down due to significant cultural differences among the various "white" races.

Personally, I find attitudes of many other white cultures to be offensive to my values, much less attitudes of non-white cultures. They are simply not compatible with the ideals of freedom, and limited government espoused by the Founders. Tom Jefferson was wrong. The Anglo values I still hold dear are not universal - not even among "white" people.

Anonymous Gapeseed February 17, 2017 1:51 PM  

I was listening to Kara Swisher's Recode podcast this week in which she interviewed Rolf Schrömgens, the German co-founder of hotel travel site Trivago. Swisher is an aggressive but bright SJW tech journalist who was trying to make a point about the downside of restricting immigration, and Schrömgens made an interesting genetic argument. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that Germans have a lot of things going for them but they are not entrepreneurial genetically, preferring to lionize big companies over startups. By contrast, Americans have developed a literal entrepreneurial DNA by drawing the bravest people from different genetic groups, with such traits passed down through generations. Given the subsidies given to immigrants where none existed prior, one has to wonder how much bravery is required today to emigrate to America versus prior times. Also, perhaps the relative lack of entrepreneurial spirit in the African-American* community is explained by the population enslaved en masse instead of choosing to come, with the unusually brave perhaps weeded out by slaveowners as being too difficult to handle? Or is that just culture? Or is culture genetic? (*Note - I use African-American rather than black because the Africans I have met here are extremely entrepreneurial).

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 1:52 PM  

@37, VD uses them often. My vision is
America 1.0 was the rule of WASPs from the mid-1700's to the end of the 19th century.
America 2.0 begins with the waves of Irish & Italian Catholics (and German & Scandinavian Protestants) in the last 19th/early 20th century.
America 3.0 is easy to date: The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.

America 3.0 is also characterized by a virtual takeover of the high institutions of the USA by Ashkenazim. How many Jews are on the SCOTUS now? How many WASPs? What percentage of Ivy League tenured professors were Jewish in 1917 vs 2017? That's pretty much all you need to know.

Clannish people practice group nepotism. Jews, Irish Catholics, Italians, blacks, Mestizos and Asians (East or South) all are examples of people who exhibit high levels of clannishness, and their homelands are stuffed with political corruption as I see it. The first thing they do once in an organization is bring in more of their own. Only morons and WASPs (or do I repeat myself) would invite the fox into the hen house.

Anonymous WinstonWebb February 17, 2017 1:53 PM  

...they’re indoctrinated with a hatred for the Federalists and Hamilton.

Fuck Hamilton. The bastard favored a large, centralized national bank. And he took his best his shot.

Then Aaron Burr did.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 1:56 PM  

@36, my adoptive parents were Orange Irish, and were the epitome otherwise of WASPs. You should have heard what they often said about Roman Catholics on St. Patrick's Day....(grin) And this was despite them being Daley Democrats in Chicago back in the 40's/50's.

So yes, I was inaccurate with my broad brush.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 2:00 PM  

@42 Personally, I find attitudes of many other white cultures to be offensive to my values, much less attitudes of non-white cultures. They are simply not compatible with the ideals of freedom, and limited government

This is what finally killed my anarcho-capitalist naivete. An-cap is utterly incompatible with people who won't play by the rules. "Fair play" is for suckers in the eyes of most of the world's people.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 17, 2017 2:00 PM  

What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms

While we're at it, let's just invent Star Trek-style replicators and wipe out all scarcity. Problem solved!

Except it wouldn't be, because people would still want to come to America, because Americans would find ways to make their replicators better, and come up with the best ideas for what to make with them, and so on. While most of the replicators sent to Africa would soon be smashed by people hoping to capture the demons living inside.

It's just not as simple as making America the least desirable place in the world to be a squatter in, as appealing as that may sound to some.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr February 17, 2017 2:00 PM  

@35: I never claimed assimilation was perfect. My main point is that historically, U.S. immigration policy was cyclic, with a 60-year period. Most of the problems we are having trace to this cycle being broken, with the immigration valve locked in the OPEN position for twice as long as it should have been.

Had things been left to the normal cycle, the immigration valve would have shut in the mid-1980s, and would be reopening about now.

Anonymous Canada Is Cucked February 17, 2017 2:09 PM  

Why are the cucks at Breitbart insisting that it's a good thing that Trump is NOT using 100,000 national guardsmen to deport illegals?

Anonymous Urban II February 17, 2017 2:15 PM  

Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant...

Liberals equivocate with the meaning of immigrant in order to cause confusion. Alexander Hamilton and the Piligrims, Puritans, Anglicans and so on "immigrated" only in the sense that they left Europe to live in the New World, but they didn't immigrate in any way that pertains to our current political climate. Simply put the Europeans who settled here defined the culture, shaped our traditions and eventually founded the United States of America did not immigrate to this new nation; they built it.

Blogger Gaiseric February 17, 2017 2:15 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@37, VD uses them often. My vision is

America 1.0 was the rule of WASPs from the mid-1700's to the end of the 19th century.

America 2.0 begins with the waves of Irish & Italian Catholics (and German & Scandinavian Protestants) in the last 19th/early 20th century.

America 3.0 is easy to date: The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.

America 3.0 is also characterized by a virtual takeover of the high institutions of the USA by Ashkenazim. How many Jews are on the SCOTUS now? How many WASPs? What percentage of Ivy League tenured professors were Jewish in 1917 vs 2017? That's pretty much all you need to know.

That's what I figured, more or less, but wanted to make sure I was interpreting from context the same thing y'all meant to say. I'd say the break-points are largely the Civil War, although it wasn't until that evolved into the Progressive Era that it REALLY took off, and the Hart-Cellar immigration act; although again, it took a few decades for it to really start to make a noticeable effect.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr February 17, 2017 2:16 PM  

And IIRC, Vox seems to have adjusted his thinking. As I understand it:

America 1.0 - Pre-1800. English, with a strong admixture of Scots and Scots-Irish. Some Germans and Dutch.

America 2.0 - The 1835-1865 immigration wave. Germans and Irish.

America 3.0 - The 1895-1925 immigration wave, Italians, other south Europeans, Poles, some Russians.

America 4.0 - 1955-present immigration wave. Mexicans and other Central Americans.

What gets interesting is examining the groups to determine how long it takes to assimilate. Even Vox concedes that the 1835-65 wave is no longer distinguishable from the original U.S. population. So we have an upper bound of 150 years.

The 1895-1925 wave? Iffy. To me, one of the tests of assimilation is when people would not even start to think of another place as "The Old Country". And the members of this group that I've met seem about a generation short of making that break.

Which implies a time to full assimilation of about 100 years.

Blogger pyrrhus February 17, 2017 2:25 PM  

There were anti-Irish riots in the 1840s, so apparently the very clannish Irish weren't regarded as anything resembling Englishmen. Then the Chinese and the Chinese Exclusion Act...Later we got the Southern Italians, also clannish, and 35% of them missed Italy so much that they ultimately went back there. Apparently, the cheap labor had a lot of trouble assimilating....

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 17, 2017 2:26 PM  

Canada Is Cucked wrote:Why are the cucks at Breitbart insisting that it's a good thing that Trump is NOT using 100,000 national guardsmen to deport illegals?

is there a link to that?

Anonymous Leonidas February 17, 2017 2:33 PM  

the openness of certain of the Founding Fathers to non-English immigration was not based on principle

Neither is the openness of the modern left to immigration. It, too, is based on the idea that they'll secure a majority for their own side of the political spectrum. Only after it's too late will they realize how little modern immigrants truly have in common with them.

Blogger Nick S February 17, 2017 2:37 PM  

...and you say you're not a teacher. Pffft!

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 17, 2017 2:46 PM  

probably even the most ardent pro-immigration founder meant European as in 'white Christian', not the type of immigration America is getting nowadays. France sided with the colonies during the revolutionary war, so it probably meant French immigration

Blogger Pteronarcyd February 17, 2017 3:15 PM  

"Equality was not a core principle of the American Revolution at all, nor does the false and ahistorical conservative distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of result" have anything to do with the famous rhetorical phrase that Jefferson inserted in the Declaration of Independence. The equality to which Jefferson refers is actually the "liberté, égalité, fraternité" of the French Revolution for which he subsequently showed such enthusiasm. Equality is a French concept, not an American one, and is not among the Rights of Englishmen."

Equality mentioned in our Declaration cannot be French egalitarianism, or the latter would be one of our founding principles. The equality being acknowledged is limited to that in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law.

Blogger MB February 17, 2017 3:26 PM  

Lodi, you are smarter than I. That is not fair. How do we remedy this for me and my kids?

Blogger MB February 17, 2017 3:29 PM  

Lodo
I told you I wasn't smart. I couldn't spell your name. Sorry.

Blogger Yorzhik February 17, 2017 3:31 PM  

@41 What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms, and change the rules on who is allowed to vote.

Easier said than done, doode.


Cail Corishev wrote:What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms

While we're at it, let's just invent Star Trek-style replicators and wipe out all scarcity. Problem solved!

Except it wouldn't be, because people would still want to come to America, because Americans would find ways to make their replicators better, and come up with the best ideas for what to make with them, and so on. While most of the replicators sent to Africa would soon be smashed by people hoping to capture the demons living inside.

It's just not as simple as making America the least desirable place in the world to be a squatter in, as appealing as that may sound to some.


No doubt. The country will have collapsed before the necessary changes could be made.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 17, 2017 3:40 PM  

I'm trying to track down the microfiche archive, but apparently the New York Times in its Oct. 25, 1791 editorial called Alexander Hamilton a white supremicist, retired game developer, and leader of the Alt-right.

Ding, ding, ding! Thread winner, right there.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 17, 2017 3:56 PM  

@49, from my redundant perspective, everything "normal" went out the door between 1964 and 1982. That period became the foundation of monetary, public and economic policies whose poisonous plants now sprout all around us.

This became the Greatest Mania of All Time. Manias in debt, manias in Utopian social engineering, manias in every asset class including Beanie Babies...the list goes on and on. Were Charles Mackay alive today, he'd have to devote an entire book, not just a new section of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions..., to this all by itself.

As Prechter wrote more than a decade ago, what we're living in is a period when the populace is swept up into the Jungian archetype of "flight," which is characterized by the casting off of all Earthly limits and being able to soar into the Heavens.

Take a good look at the last 10 years, 50 years and 100 years in stocks on an arithmetic scale. The delusion just screams.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 17, 2017 3:58 PM  

The thing is, to make equality an absolute you have to lie about the declaration and what says. Because the actual sentence in the DoI is inherently self-limiting. It says that all men are created equal, and then it goes on to stste in what intrinsically limited sense this is true; all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

No "free" anything in that very short list. No gimmedats. No gay wedding cakes. No affirmative action. It says you have a right to pursue, not attain.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 4:37 PM  

Urban II wrote:Although Alexander Hamilton was himself an immigrant...

Liberals equivocate with the meaning of immigrant in order to cause confusion. Alexander Hamilton and the Piligrims, Puritans, Anglicans and so on "immigrated" only in the sense that they left Europe to live in the New World, but they didn't immigrate in any way that pertains to our current political climate. Simply put the Europeans who settled here defined the culture, shaped our traditions and eventually founded the United States of America did not immigrate to this new nation; they built it.



DING DING DING DING DING DING.

We have a winner.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 4:59 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@42 Personally, I find attitudes of many other white cultures to be offensive to my values, much less attitudes of non-white cultures. They are simply not compatible with the ideals of freedom, and limited government

This is what finally killed my anarcho-capitalist naivete. An-cap is utterly incompatible with people who won't play by the rules. "Fair play" is for suckers in the eyes of most of the world's people.


The Anglo ideal as espoused by the Founder is EXPLICITLY dependant upon the Protestant Christian ethics of 1) the depravity of man, and 2) the priesthood of the believer.

1. The doctrine of the depravity of man says that all mean are evil BY NATURE, and thus limited government is necessary to guard against the inevitable abuses of power that will occur if government has too much say over our lives.

2. The Priesthood of the Believer explicitly rejects the authority of the Papal Church, declaring that each man is responsible to God directly. Far from releasing a man to engage in licentious hedonistic behavior, this disciplines the man to work hard because God judges him directly, and he can get direct guidance from God on how to live his life. Sins have consequences that cannot be bought off by some ritual a priest demands. Also, the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer is explicitly anti-collectivist. Each man stands or falls on his own, and cannot blame his failings on another. This led to the famed Protestant work ethic, and the underlying honesty of the society at large. Finally, this same doctrine was what Thomas Paine (although not a Christian himself) relied upon in his pamphlet "Common Sense" to argue against the divine right of Kings, and the authority of the individual to determine his own life. It the fundamental religious doctrine that underlies self-determination, while at the same time leaving the personal moral restrictions in place that secular humanism discards.

This is why the Protestant driven American rebellion was qualitatively different from the Catholic driven French Revolution. The American Revolution was demanding the freedom to pursue our lives responsibly before God - each man a priest. The French Revolution was a demand to be released of all responsibility, including moral responsibility before God. The first is a positive rebellion. The second is a negative rebellion. This is also why mainland Europe is far more collectivist than America even to this day.

Subsequent generations of immigrants from primarily Catholic nations brought their collectivist ideologies with them, and rather than pursuing rugged individuality, they asked to be treated as a class, and demanded collectivist solutions for their groups. They also, having grown up unmoored from any personal responsibility to God, brought crime, gangs, and many other bad habits. No one finds it odd that Michael Corleone in the Godfather movies can simultaneously order brutal crimes be committed and also swear off evil. The Catholic Priest is right there to absolve the individual of sin - something Protestants don't get. Hence, there is no direct responsibility before God to live a moral life.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 4:59 PM  


My point is not to convince non-believers. My point is that the religious undertones of society shaped the political environment in profound ways; ways which are entirely foreign to the waves of immigrants that came afterward. And Asian, African, and middle-eastern immigrants that do not even acknowledge the validity of a Christian God will be even worse than Catholic immigration in changing the nature of the country. At least with Catholics, there is still a common understanding of what sin is. At least they know they need to seek absolution from a Priest. Other cultures will not even agree on the nature of sin, and thus we have no common basis upon which to build a society at all. And naive secular humanists conflate all religions as being the same, ignoring the substantial and vast Gulf between the different religions, and how they affect the political and civic behavior of populations.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 17, 2017 5:25 PM  

... each man is responsible to God directly. Far from releasing a man to engage in licentious hedonistic behavior, this disciplines the man to work hard because God judges him directly, and he can get direct guidance from God on how to live his life. Sins have consequences that cannot be bought off by some ritual a priest demands. Also, the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer is explicitly anti-collectivist. Each man stands or falls on his own, and cannot blame his failings on another.
Strangely enough, this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 17, 2017 5:35 PM  

Harris wrote:This is why the Protestant driven American rebellion was qualitatively different from the Catholic driven French Revolution. The American Revolution was demanding the freedom to pursue our lives responsibly before God - each man a priest. The French Revolution was a demand to be released of all responsibility, including moral responsibility before God. The first is a positive rebellion. The second is a negative rebellion. This is also why mainland Europe is far more collectivist than America even to this day.
This is explicitly false. The French Revolution was a revolution against GOd himself, which is why the revolutionaries killed Christians, especially priests and nuns with such wild abandon. Insipred by the Protestants of England, Switzerland, and the Low Countries they engaged in a sweepeing campaign of de-Christianization, going so far as to remove crosses from graveyards. They desecrated Notre Dame, enthroning the goddess Liberty and Reason in the place of the altar. The First Republic slaughtered Christians by the thousands, and Robespierre was even worse.
Your statement shows you have no understanding of Catholicism, history or the French Revolution. That you try to drag Paine into your argument is ludicrous in the extreme.

Blogger Feather Blade February 17, 2017 5:47 PM  

Canada Is Cucked wrote:Why are the cucks at Breitbart insisting that it's a good thing that Trump is NOT using 100,000 national guardsmen to deport illegals?

According to a military relative of mine, it has something to do with law enforcement being outside the scope of the military's proper duties.

Anonymous BBGKB February 17, 2017 6:18 PM  

What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms, and change the rules on who is allowed to vote

Latrina's 21 crackbabies might have something to say about that in 1st grade level English.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy February 17, 2017 6:24 PM  

Feather Blade wrote:According to a military relative of mine, it has something to do with law enforcement being outside the scope of the military's proper duties.
Fighting off an invading foreign army damn well is one of their proper duties.

Anonymous BBGKB February 17, 2017 7:19 PM  

Why are the cucks at Breitbart insisting that it's a good thing that Trump is NOT using 100,000 national guardsmen to deport illegals?

Word is that it was a trick to find out who (((leaked))). With Trump telling different people different numbers of guards to be fielded.

https://i.imgtc.com/dly1FHg.jpg

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 17, 2017 7:20 PM  

(Late as usual, and not too much time. Going to work, and I haven't checked out the comments yet.)

From what I've been reading, the "rights of Englishmen" seems like a loose mythological legend, rooted in nothing concrete.

I checked up on the Magna Carta. The other day, I stated to a colleague:

he first version was annulled by Pope Innocent III, and though as time passed and it was renewed, more laws were added to it. Infogalactic states that a political myth followed along with the Magna Carta, that it protected ancient personal liberties, though studies have shown that it secured the rights and relationship between the monarch and the barons.

I'm wanting to see if there's anything more to the Rights of Englishmen. I can definitely tell a person what Englishmen were like in those days (personality wise). However, I'd like to iron out what "rights of Englismen" means.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 7:44 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Harris wrote:This is why the Protestant driven American rebellion was qualitatively different from the Catholic driven French Revolution. The American Revolution was demanding the freedom to pursue our lives responsibly before God - each man a priest. The French Revolution was a demand to be released of all responsibility, including moral responsibility before God. The first is a positive rebellion. The second is a negative rebellion. This is also why mainland Europe is far more collectivist than America even to this day.

This is explicitly false. The French Revolution was a revolution against GOd himself, which is why the revolutionaries killed Christians, especially priests and nuns with such wild abandon. Insipred by the Protestants of England, Switzerland, and the Low Countries they engaged in a sweepeing campaign of de-Christianization, going so far as to remove crosses from graveyards. They desecrated Notre Dame, enthroning the goddess Liberty and Reason in the place of the altar. The First Republic slaughtered Christians by the thousands, and Robespierre was even worse.

Your statement shows you have no understanding of Catholicism, history or the French Revolution. That you try to drag Paine into your argument is ludicrous in the extreme.



I think you misread my statement. I said the French revolution was a revolt against having any responsibility - which includes revolting against any responsibility to God. My point is that the habit developed over centuries of Catholicism created a collectivist mindset. When the French threw off God, that collectivist mindset didn't disappear. It was just re-purposed for the use of secular humanism.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 7:45 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:... each man is responsible to God directly. Far from releasing a man to engage in licentious hedonistic behavior, this disciplines the man to work hard because God judges him directly, and he can get direct guidance from God on how to live his life. Sins have consequences that cannot be bought off by some ritual a priest demands. Also, the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer is explicitly anti-collectivist. Each man stands or falls on his own, and cannot blame his failings on another.

Strangely enough, this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.


But doesn't actually practice...

Blogger Jourdan February 17, 2017 8:09 PM  

The idea that the President is going to mobilize the National Guard to detain and deport illegal aliens is absurd on its face. He couldn't even stop immigration from the seven dangerous nations in his E.O. on point. Wake up and smell the coffee, guys: we aren't getting out of this one through the ballot box.

Blogger Dave February 17, 2017 8:14 PM  

Uh, VD? Jefferson wrote the DoI almost 15 years before Robespierre. It's sorta hard to see how he could have been an influence.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 17, 2017 10:57 PM  

Equality mentioned in our Declaration cannot be French egalitarianism, or the latter would be one of our founding principles.

It draws from the same well, namely doing away with the existing aristocracy, and that absolutely is one of our founding principles.

It had nothing to do with claiming Turks, Jews, Arficans or Orientals were no different than Englishmen.

Given the subsidies given to immigrants where none existed prior, one has to wonder how much bravery is required today to emigrate to America versus prior times.

Absolutely. Not only are we drawing from different gene pools today, we're drawing from different parts of them too. Especially when it comes to the refugees, who are little more than cattle shunted around the world at the whim of globalists.

Also, perhaps the relative lack of entrepreneurial spirit in the African-American* community is explained by the population enslaved en masse instead of choosing to come,

Ding ding ding ding ding.

Grapeseed, If you haven't read The Hypomanic Edge by John Gardner, I'd highly recommend it.

Blogger Robert What? February 17, 2017 11:03 PM  

And they didn't even have to deal with third world Muslim savages.

Blogger Harris February 17, 2017 11:18 PM  

Yeah they did. Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli to deal with the Barbary Pirates.

Blogger DonReynolds February 17, 2017 11:34 PM  

Alexander Hamilton was NOT an immigrant of any kind.
He was born and raised in one of the SEVENTEEN British colonies that made up British America. He was fortunate to have been able to go to the colony of New York to attend Kings College in NYC, now known as Columbia University. As a college student, he got caught up in the excitement of the American revolution and served as an officer in the Continental Army. He was never an immigrant....nor were ANY of the colonists from the British Isles, when they traveled to British America.
From the very beginning of the colonial experience, British Subjects were guaranteed by the Crown that their status as citizens would remain unchanged by moving to the colonies in North America and the Caribbean.
During the American Revolution, thirteen of the seventeen British colonies severed their connection with the United Kingdom. Until 1783, these thirteen colonies were British America and was exactly the same as being in England.....with British money, laws, customs, language, church, and government administration. The Revolution was the partition of a country, both independent of the other.

Blogger DonReynolds February 17, 2017 11:44 PM  

The EQUALITY mentioned in the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with the French Revolution. Specifically, the Declaration was addressed to King George III and the equality was a direct poke in the eye to the King and a repudiation of the Divine Right of Kings, which George III certainly agreed with.
So the equal nonsense did not have the same meaning to the Founding Fathers as it does to the Leftist Liberals of today. The Founders did not believe in a classless society. They believed in owning Negro slaves, and a separate status for women, and American Indians, and indentured servants. They did not believe that Roman Catholic was equal to Protestant or that foreign citizens....from France, or Holland, or Spain were equal to those from England or Scotland. There was virtually nothing in the colonial experience that suggested even a rough notion of equality. Homosexuals? Yes, they were hanged in public....which had been the British policy since Henry II and continued in the Thirteen Colonies even after Independence. There was no fact of equality, no goal of equality, and there was no one who even thought it might be a good idea.

Blogger Pteronarcyd February 18, 2017 12:03 AM  

Yorzhik wrote:
"What we need to do is stop welfare in all its forms, and change the rules on who is allowed to vote."

Any ideas on an Constitution-compatible argument that would preclude welfare recipients from voting? The Declaration states we are founded upon natural law, and natural law prohibits one from imposing costs upon others. Parasitic welfare recipients certainly have a conflict of interest when they vote, and natural law trumps all forms of man-made law, even the Constitution.

Barring the ability to make a natural-law argument for disenfranchising parasitic citizens, how would we go about securing a Constitutional amendment to do so?

I think the best bet would be to formulate a natural law argument after securing a solidly conservative SCOTUS.

Anonymous Mr. Rational February 18, 2017 2:02 AM  

Napoleon 12pdr wrote:Even Vox concedes that the 1835-65 wave is no longer distinguishable from the original U.S. population. So we have an upper bound of 150 years.
The 160x-181x wave of Africans is still highly distinguishable and grossly un-assimilated.  Race matters.

one of the tests of assimilation is when people would not even start to think of another place as "The Old Country".
Good point.  Some are still pushing Afrocentric education to this day.

They need to go.  They don't have to go back to Africa, but they can't stay here.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 18, 2017 3:25 AM  

Maybe they haven't assimilated, but they have passed the 10 generation mark. Best to give them their own areas. I propose we give them Mississippi and parts of Louisiana, and give them a time period to relocate there.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 18, 2017 4:57 AM  

@40 Jourdan

I'm concerned that the InfoGalactic entry for the Rights of Englishmen nowhere sets forth what those rights are. It is also concerning that it denotes the holders of those rights as being "perceived." Is it all just a matter of perception, then?

That's what I'm saying. It just seems like a nebulous concept. Constitutionalism is easy to understand...because there's a constitution to refer to. But "rights of Englishmen?" I just don't know.

What I do know is the character of those Englishmen. The entire country was like a dysfunctional and abusive family since the 1500s, producing such hits as the Puritans.

“...the Puritans compressed whatever mirth and public joy they deemed allowable to human infirmity; thereby so far dispelling the customary cloud, that, for the space of a single holiday, they appeared scarcely more grave than most other communities at a period of general affliction.”

― Nathaniel Hawthorne

I'm not impressed with Judaized Puritans at all. And honestly, at this point, I don't think England was mature enough to take on the endeavor of colonizing America. They ran roughshod across the continent in a fashion that was destructive to the natives...for starters.

If the English way we're so great to begin with, it would have endured mightily to this day. Unfortunately, they've lost their colonies, and their rebellious descendants here in America are about to be eaten alive by all the people they imported.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 18, 2017 6:53 AM  

Nathaniel Hawthorne (and many others) lied about the Puritans. While our Puritan ancestors were drinking, dancing, and having a lot of sex, the Anglicans and other groups were being all hypocritical and gloomy. The accusations against the Puritans are pure projection. You can't be Judaized and gloomy at the same time; the phrase "Le Chaim!" is appropriate in all faiths that include Moses.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 18, 2017 6:55 AM  

As for English disfunction, well, England is really several distinct nations as is ably documented at the Unz Review. America was a chance for the nations of England to separate again... until the King put his foot down and the atheists of the Enlightenment put THEIR feet down.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 18, 2017 7:15 AM  

@Harris
"Catholic driven French Revolution"

Heh. That's like saying *Orthodox driven Russian Revolution."

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 18, 2017 7:32 AM  

@89

The accusations against the Puritans are pure projection.

Ah, yes. Let's not forget their wonderful victory over Merry Mount, the founding of that historical success that is Salem, and their banishment of Christmas, to name a few goodies.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 18, 2017 7:43 AM  

"Catholic driven French Revolution"

Heh. That's like saying *Orthodox driven Russian Revolution."


Yes, that's quite a whopper. One of those "Oh, so that's his deal" moments.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 18, 2017 6:19 PM  

@92 Merry Mount? Oh, Nathaniel Hawthorne again... if you want to read fiction as literal history, from a source hostile to the Puritans, there is no use discussing with you. And yes, Christmas and Maypoles are pagan practices; the Puritans were right to abolish them in favor of Sabbath and Pentecost.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright February 18, 2017 7:01 PM  

It is so ironic that the musical has made Hamilton the darling of the Left, because I remember Hamilton well from high school history. He was the ultimate Conservative. Everything he stood for was the opposite of what Liberals want. Jefferson represented a lot of what they like in life. Hamilton-not in the least.

Anonymous Anonymous February 18, 2017 11:57 PM  

Of course not, the English aristocracy did it twice with the Scots borderlanders alone-- once in ireland and again in America. The Indians fell in the West to the much more violent and fecund Scots-Irish. The elites have been running this game for awhile.

Anonymous Anonymous February 18, 2017 11:59 PM  

White meant about the same. People cared more about the fact the Irish were dirty papists.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch February 19, 2017 4:50 AM  

@94. Lol! Okay, so Quincy, Massachusetts doesn't exist for you. Got it.

You seem like the kind of guy who'd hate Christmas. Perhaps Jewish or New Atheist.

As far as I can tell, Rights of Englishmen basically means:

-No-one is above the law, even the king.
-Right to a fair trial.
-People who are taxed should have some kind of representation.

If that's all "The Rights of Englishmen" means I'm going to be disappointed.

Nasty Puritans.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts