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

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Audaciously correcting fake history

The Audacious Epigone provides more details on the lies of the civic nationalists:
The phrase "nation of immigrants" first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935. Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country's population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both--and there's a good chance he has to go back.
Providing more evidence in support of my statement that revisionist philo-immigrant history is a 20th century lie in support of the false claim of 19th century immigrants to be legitimate Americans. The USA is not, and never was, "a Judeo-Christian nation of immigrants".

I can't stress this enough. I've noticed that we're already seeing less and less philo-immigrant falsehoods. And if a civic nationalist or third-generation immigrant tries to pass it off as genuine history, don't hesitate to expose their lies and hammer them hard for it in public.

If you're a Republican of conservative or libertarian inclination, remember that you can't expect to win over the fleeing white Democrats if you're just going to replace liberal lies with conservative or libertarian lies. If the historical evidence belies your dogma, you simply must give it up and replace it with the truth.

Labels: ,

89 Comments:

Blogger American Spartan April 23, 2017 4:08 AM  

Vox, I love your posts on correcting history and your views on Immigration. Do not stop.

Also is that a iron work of Bane in your garden? Because it looks just like Bane.

Blogger SteelPalm April 23, 2017 4:15 AM  

The "nation of immigrants" rhetoric is very silly. It's a testament to how great the US is that it managed to continue functioning at a high level despite the stress on the system of 15% immigrants in 1890, most of who (as Vox points out so well) were peoples lacking the uniquely English concepts of personal freedom, limited, temperate government, and adherence to the law.

Amusingly, I've noticed the "nation of immigrants" line used most often by...Asians. (Especially Chinese, but Indians, too) Not even kidding; cuckservatives are only 2nd in their use of this rhetoric, and leftists 3rd.

I know this is partially a function of where I live, but it's still revealing.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 23, 2017 4:46 AM  

        Please, Vox, make up your mind.

  Who was an "American" in 1890?  Those born in the U.S., no matter where their ancestors came from, and no matter how recently their ancestors immigrated? Or only those of British descent?  Because that 85% of "non-immigrants" was full of natural born citizens whose ancestors came from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Asia, and Africa, among other places.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti April 23, 2017 4:54 AM  

It sounds like Stephen St. Onge has to go back.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT April 23, 2017 5:00 AM  

If the historical evidence belies your dogma, you simply must give it up and replace it with the truth.

One of the most important lessons a person can learn.

@1 - Also is that a iron work of Bane in your garden? Because it looks just like Bane.

It does not matter who made Vox's iron work. What matters is his plan.

Blogger Ceerilan April 23, 2017 5:07 AM  

At least he paid attention and made a reasonable attack, rather than just spouting pure talking points. When your enemy has to read you to attack you, you know you're winning. Are you tired of winning yet, guys?

@Stephen
America of 1890 made a cutoff to absorb the immigrants they already had streaming in. Judging by the societal degradation we see today, they were right in doing so.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 5:46 AM  

Who was an "American" in 1890?

Then, as now, the Posterity of the Founders for whom the Constitution was written. I have always been perfectly clear on that. The fact that it is necessary to send back the post-1965 immigrants if the USA is to survive and be stabilized does not magically transform the descendants of German and Irish and Italian immigrants into Posterity.

The 19th century immigrants may well be sufficiently compatible enough to permit a stable and functional society going forward, but don't mistake that for them being of genuine American descent.

Anonymous Peter #0231 April 23, 2017 6:05 AM  

@3:

Mr. St. Onge, whose ancestors seem to have come, as did mine, from East Anglia (at least from a cursory search of his family name), is trying to ignore the "posterity" portion of our founding documents.

Stephen: I know I've been calling for a better class of trolls. You are indeed of a higher caliber, but you're still not quite tall enough for this ride. Do better, please. The Founders and Framers wrote clear and transparent prose. Do try and pay attention, OK?

Blogger somercet April 23, 2017 6:20 AM  

Vox, have you read Hugh Trevor-Roper's 1967 essay, “The Crisis of the 17th Century”? I think it is what you are looking for. It anticipates Angelo Codevilla's "country class" observations: 'Trevor-Roper argued that the mid-17th century saw a succession of revolts, right across Europe, of the “country” against the “court”...'

'The capitalism of the Middle Ages was the achievement, essentially, of self-governing city-republics: the Flemish and Hanseatic towns in the north, the Italian towns in the Mediterranean, the Rhineland and south German towns between them... And this care [limitation] of the Church was combined with a parallel care of the State. The State, after all, was their instrument: they did not wish it to develop too many organs of its own, or become their master.'

It points to a reform of the current economic order:

'Several thinkers did point out, clearly enough, the kind of economic system which was required.
'What was that system? It was not a "capitalist" system—or at least, if it was capitalist, there was nothing new about it. It did not entail revolution or a change in method of production or in the class structure. Nor was it advocated by revolutionary thinkers: in general, those who advocated it were conservative men who wished for little or no political change. And in fact the economic programme which they advocated, though applied to modern conditions, looked back for its example. For what they advocated was simply the application to the new, centralized monarchies of the old, well-tried policy of the medieval communes which those monarchies had eclipsed: mercantilism.
'For what had been the policy of the medieval cities? It had been a policy of national economy—within the limits of the city-state. The city had seen itself at once as a political and as an economic unit. Its legislation had been based on its trading requirements. It had controlled the price of food and labour, limited imports in the interest of its own manufactures, encouraged the essential methods of trade—fishing and shipbuilding, freedom from internal tolls—invested its profits not in conspicuous waste or pursuit of glory, or wars merely of plunder, but in the rational conquest of markets and the needs of national economy: in technical education, municipal betterment, poor relief. In short, the city had recognized that its life must be related to its means of livelihood.'

It even anticipates our present problem with the universities:

'To reverse the Parkinson’s Law of bureaucracy, let them reduce the hatcheries which turned out the superfluous bureaucrats: grammar schools in England, colleges in France, monasteries and seminaries in Spain. Instead, let them build up local elementary education: skilled workers at the base of society now seemed more important than those unemployable university graduates, hungry for office, whom the new Renaissance foundations were turning out. "Of grammar-schools," declared Sir Francis Bacon, "there are too many": many a good ploughboy was spoiled to make a bad scholar; and he and his followers advocated a change in the type of education or the diversion of funds to elementary schools.'

Blogger Koanic April 23, 2017 6:35 AM  

Everyone is born with a nationality, by which I mean genetic and memetic membership in a cohesive ethno-nation which has genocided enough of its neighborhood to take and hold a territory.

Nobody knows when this started being an inalienable component of the childbirthing process, but it must have been after cartographers finished enclosing Earth's habitable landmass within fictitious borders.

The resonance of these ley lines activates with the natal blood sacrifice to inscribe a social security number of citizenship onto the forehead and right hand of each un-aborted infant, leeching by the principle of transference from the ink reserve of the master map kept at Harvard Seminary, which is periodically refreshed from the ashes of the children of Christian separatists courageously burnt in their homes by Fedcoat liberation companies.

Anonymous Eric the Red April 23, 2017 6:42 AM  

Good statistics for the 0th Amendment crowd.
So it looks like those 1 in 7 were out-bred by the other 85.7% going into year 1965.

The stats since then are different, of course, but all this shows at no time in our history were we ever a nation of immigrants.

Anonymous Patron April 23, 2017 7:06 AM  

In other news, the USA is now a developing nation:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/22/us-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people-mit-professor-warns

Briefly, it's becoming a country where the top 20% have good jobs & social networks etc, and the bottom 80% are screwed, with lots of debt, poor job security, and little money or prospects. The professor wants more public education to "solve" this, but regardless of his purported solutions, the actual meat of the articles is interesting reading.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 23, 2017 7:22 AM  

        Well if the Germans, Irish, Africans, etc. were not Americans, then the non-American portion of the population in 1890 was immensely high.  The census figures were counting them as Americans.

        The figures I've seen show the 'non-American' portion of the population in the first census (1790) at about 1/3rd of the whole population.  Given the heavy immigration the 1840s and 1850s, and the smaller but significant immigration before that, it's pretty certain that the U.S. was majority 'non-American' long before 1890.

        Somehow, I find it hard to take seriously the idea of deporting the majority of the U.S. citizenry.  And hilarious, given the objection of the 'Americans' to deporting the non-white population in the 1830s through 1850s.

Who was an "American" in 1890?

Then, as now, the Posterity of the Founders for whom the Constitution was written. I have always been perfectly clear on that. The fact that it is necessary to send back the post-1965 immigrants if the USA is to survive and be stabilized does not magically transform the descendants of German and Irish and Italian immigrants into Posterity.

The 19th century immigrants may well be sufficiently compatible enough to permit a stable and functional society going forward, but don't mistake that for them being of genuine American descent.

Blogger Skyler the Weird April 23, 2017 7:24 AM  

@11 We're living in Neo Fuedalism?

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 23, 2017 7:24 AM  

"It sounds like Stephen St. Onge has to go back."

        No, you'll never force me to live in the land of my birth again!  I escaped North Carolina decades ago, and I ain't returning!

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 7:30 AM  

Somehow, I find it hard to take seriously the idea of deporting the majority of the U.S. citizenry. And hilarious, given the objection of the 'Americans' to deporting the non-white population in the 1830s through 1850s.

Civil war is so hilarious! You're really rather remarkably stupid if you believe that the largest movement of peoples in human history isn't going to result in an equally significant conflict or three.

You appear to be unable to grasp the difference between "necessary" and "likely". Are deportations on any significant scale going to happen? Probably not. And that is why violence on a scale that makes 1861-1865 look trivial is the much more likely probability.

I have never said that mass deportations will take place. I have, instead, repeatedly predicted that the USA will collapse and there will be a series of wars on the American continent. I don't know what the result will be. No one does. But a single unitary political entity is probably the least likely result.

Blogger KSC April 23, 2017 7:38 AM  

There are even liberals who accept something close to this account of history. Michael Lind is one of them, in his The Next American Nation--though his prescriptions and conclusions at the end are ones everyone here would probably disagree with.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 23, 2017 7:49 AM  

I am a member of the last generation that publicly heard of America being referred to as the Nation of Pioneers.

“Politics runs downhill from culture” -- Andrew Brietbart.


The members of the proto-Deep State class knew that one instinctively. And they had a major cultural problem to overcome. Like the Greeks and Romans before them Americans felt that there were inherent virtues to be found in rural life. That there was an intrinsic nobility to be found in the rustic but honest Jed Clampett.

Clearly they felt a deep and urgent need to change that perception. The first thing they had to do was cultivate an audience for it. And there was one that was almost ready.

The grandchildren of immigrants from the turn of the century drastically preferred the idea of America being a Nation of Immigrants rather than a Nation of Pioneers because their families had no connection with that identity.


Around the bicentennial there was a half-assed conservative effort to call America the Nation of Pioneers and Immigrants but it worked out about as well as anything else they ever did.

Blogger Shane Sullivan April 23, 2017 7:51 AM  

Vox, is there any possibility of a Darkstream coming soon?

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 23, 2017 7:51 AM  

@7

        I suggest, Peter #0231, that you note that the Founders rather clearly anticipated immigration into the U.S. (Article I, Section 8, Congress shall have the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization").  The opinion in the 19th Century seems to have been that all whites born within the U.S. were natural-born citizens (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Government_officials.27_interpretations, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#.C2.A0United_States “The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably.” “Additions [to the citizenry] might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization’.”).  If the Philadephia Convention intended that those not of British descent were not to enjoy the same rights as the rest of the citizenry, I think stronger evidence is required than the Preamble's “to ourselves and our Posterity” phrase, especially since naturalized citizens have from the beginning of the Republic always enjoyed all the rights of the native born citizen, except eligibility for the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 8:03 AM  

Vox, is there any possibility of a Darkstream coming soon?

Did one last night.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 8:04 AM  

I think stronger evidence is required than the Preamble's “to ourselves and our Posterity” phrase, especially since naturalized citizens have from the beginning of the Republic always enjoyed all the rights of the native born citizen, except eligibility for the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Or Cuckservative. Or the Federalist Papers. You're hopelessly wrong, Stephen, and you're arguing from ignorance with people who know considerably more than you about the subject.

Blogger Shane Sullivan April 23, 2017 8:08 AM  

@20 Thanks!

Blogger Shane Sullivan April 23, 2017 8:09 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger MrPaules April 23, 2017 8:13 AM  

I have lived in ethnic enclaves my entire life. Sometimes I was a member of the dominant group, and sometimes I was in the minority.

My Polish family from south Philly never left the confines between Front Street and 4th. We were warned as children that that beyond that point there be monsters: loathsome Irishmen and thuggish Italians. Yet we were at least compatible with our new nation based on cultural characteristics like piety, hard word, and self-sufficiency.

My immediate family later moved to the deep South. We were tolerated because we were white, but we could never be southern because we were Roman Catholic. Thus did my family begin the process of deracination which is now reaching its penultimate phase.

The point is that people prefer the company of their own kind with race being the primary consideration. Compatibility based on a myriad of factors is secondary. I would suggest that intelligence is a third factor at least on the individual level, but not enough is made of this point.

How this all shakes out is anyone's guess.

Blogger bosscauser April 23, 2017 8:16 AM  

We're already two distinct countries under a common border.

Pick a side!

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Blogger James McLaren April 23, 2017 8:22 AM  

the ADL paid JFK to front this bogus, anti-White meme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewk_9wQVVz4

Blogger Wanda Sherratt April 23, 2017 8:26 AM  

There's an interesting museum in New York: the Lower East Side Tenement Museum. They own a tenement building at 97 Orchard St. that was shut up for decades and so preserved nearly in its original state. You can tour it and see what life was like for the immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th century. (It was rough - I don't think I'd have survived in such conditions.)

One thing I learned there, which isn't commonly acknowledged by "nation of immigrants" propaganda, is that a lot of the immigrants of that era didn't make it here and ended up going back to the old country. There were lots of deserted wives and children - without state welfare, they depended on their local (usually ethnic) benevolent associations. Most immigrants weren't fleeing oppression - they were economic migrants, looking for a better life. If they didn't find it, or found it entailed more, or more distasteful work than they'd anticipated, they retraced their steps, much the same way immigrants from south of the US go back when they start encountering difficulties here.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 23, 2017 8:35 AM  

@15 VD

“Civil war is so hilarious! You're really rather remarkably stupid if you believe that the largest movement of peoples in human history isn't going to result in an equally significant conflict or three.”

        I said nothing on that subject, and your guess as to my beliefs is wrong.

“You appear to be unable to grasp the difference between ‘necessary’ and ‘likely’.”

        Necessary to whom, for what end?

“Are deportations on any significant scale going to happen? Probably not. And that is why violence on a scale that makes 1861-1865 look trivial is the much more likely probability.”

        Quite possibly so, but if you go back to the Revolution, Loyalists and Revolutionaries were largely of British descent on both sides.  Before 1860, the South had far less immigration than the North, but in both regions immigrants seem to have largely been loyal to their region.  And while the idea that the Confederate Army had large numbers of black soldiers fighting for it is nonsense, there was significant support for the Confederacy among the African-descended.  Going forward, many soldiers of German and Italian descent were quite willing to shoot up their foreign relatives in WWI and II.  Ancestry=political ideology/loyalty seems mostly to have occured in the post 1965 period, when the old policy of ‘Americanizing’ immigrants was deliberately sabotaged.

“I have never said that mass deportations will take place. I have, instead, repeatedly predicted that the USA will collapse and there will be a series of wars on the American continent. I don't know what the result will be. No one does. But a single unitary political entity is probably the least likely result.”

        I agree the U.S. is heading for a breakup, and happen to consider that desirable.  I hope for a relatively peaceful split, but no longer expect it.  But if & when Civil War II occurs (“This time, with nukes!”), you'll find significant fractions of all ethnic groups on both sides.  There are and have always been plenty of liberals and authoritarians descended from Merry Ol' England, determined to push around the citizenry (see e.g. Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey).  It's their determination to interfere with my life that's objectionable, not their ancestry.

Blogger Sam April 23, 2017 9:26 AM  

@28
You need to read Albion's Seed. "British" has several ethnicities inside of it which happen to dislike each other in the absence of anyone else around.

Blogger Yarnwinder April 23, 2017 9:31 AM  

The idea that we will self-select the 400 Families into some sort of aristocracy with everyone else sorted into various degrees of American, is as likely as women cheerfully returning to the ways of the Dark Ages.

Anonymous Grayman April 23, 2017 10:14 AM  

Stephen St. Onge

Ask the utopia like South Africa, or perhaps Rhodesia how that works out.

This civil war will in no way resemble the last. That was a mono ethic war for succession, not a real civil war for control of the central government.

What's coming is an ethnic civil war which this nation has never really seen. Although nuclear exchange should be limited and possibly avoided.e

Anonymous BBGKB April 23, 2017 10:43 AM  

Somehow, I find it hard to take seriously the idea of deporting the majority of the U.S. citizenry

Right now 1/3 of the population is supporting the rest. That 1/3 has almost no black/brown in it since it doesn't count government jobs that create nothing. When that 1/3 decides it would rather give Latrina's 21 crackbabies bullets instead of cash, what will the crackbabies do, urban farming??

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella April 23, 2017 11:06 AM  

you know VDs right. I have a third gen friend of mixed Italian/ English descent. He's old enough to have registered as a conscientious objector for a war. That war, my father joined his father's branch of the military, and served his time, and then served in the reserves for an entire career. This placed considerable stress on his young wife and children. We paid: one divorce,acrimoniously fought out for years.

Now there is another war. This man has looked it up: behold- his entire family can return to Italy! They will, having served, protected, sacrificed nothing for America. Enjoying the fruits of peace and a good economy, speaking ill of the American military, they'll flee back home.

Three generations of peasants that we all pretended could be free citizens.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella April 23, 2017 11:27 AM  

Look,what sort of war do you expect? I mean, the people who know how to use bulldozers are not liberal SJWs.

We know bulldozers are effective because we see the before and after of their use, but not the in-the-middle, to better study how to use them.

Our highways are built for landing airplanes. Say what you will, pilots, as a group, do not vote Democrat, and are not of any swarthy persuasion- you have to land them, not just fly them through buildings. Our military pilots tend to be blue-eyed boys, if you look at their photos in color.

I think enough people have noticed that the only distinguishing mark about the Holocaust is that there were photos of bodies,afterwards. We have depleted ocean fish stocks,and container ships. Nobody has photos of the bodies of the Armenian genocide,and very few photos of the Bolshevik massacres are in common circulation.

and, media wailing. Which is being deconstructed in front of our own eyes, real time,with the Internet. and, well,that bit where fans of abortion (((fans))) tend to not have as many children,for two generations,as other groups, who are now learning online media. A press card could very easily be seen as a traitor stamp, for someone to be escorted to a "press zone" fairly easily. See,Japanese internment.Include enough liquor and a dummy internet place to file stories,would anyone notice they were gone? Nobody reads Janet Flanners' view on the Nazis in Paris anymore and she was top of the top.

And,natty uniforms. The US military tends to have very low-key uniforms, these days. I think people would get more upset about Brooks Brothers tailored officer uniforms,than the rather spare camouflage uniforms in use now.

We keep getting upset about blacks on the dole. Well, federal school lunch programs were designed to raise soldiers. Mrs Francis Perkins herself, patron saint of all social workers,sold them to Mr President FDR on exactly that point- silage to raise troops- not officers, enlisted men in sufficient health to war on land, including trench warfare. If blacks think its because the government cares, it's about like turkeys claiming farmers care.

Welfare breaks families apart. No fathers. LBJ had it measured, and then doubled down. Goodhearted people see this as a mistake. It's not.It is far simpler to waste a low-IQ, low-investment, quite sturdy, very violent, young man in land war if the death notice isn't being sent to his father. Fathers ask questions of the government: Pat Tillman's father, Chris Kyle's father. We know about their deaths because of their fathers,not because of their mothers or aunts.

We have an invasion of south and central americans,and we don't like them. The obvious troops for this are black people: who wins the ethnic cleansing campaigns? It's not white conservative areas being affected. It's liberal strongholds and poor black neighborhoods. There's a reason those black female cadets graduating from West Point giving the black power salute were not thrown out. They are going to be the leaders of that particular land battle.


Anonymous Anonymous April 23, 2017 11:30 AM  

I'm born-n-bred in Dixie and a practicing Cradle traditional Roman Catholic.
Are you saying there are no Roman Catholic people in the South?
The old south died in the very early 90's for many different reasons.
One of them being Yankee cuck liberals moving down here in Droves!!!!!
-Andrew

Anonymous Anonymous April 23, 2017 11:38 AM  

There are millions of white men fed up & waiting for a leader.

Blogger LES April 23, 2017 12:15 PM  

Illegal aliens are not immigrants, they are colonists.
Aztlan
http://www.fairus.org/issue/chicano-nationalism-revanchism-and-the-aztlan-myth

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 12:28 PM  

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country's population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.


Yeah, but that's only because all of the immigrants who had arrived several decades earlier were no longer considered "immigrants". 19 out of 20 people in the US weren't "American" (according to Vox's definition).

Obviously the idea that America has "always been" or was "created as" a nation of immigrants is nonsense, but it most assuredly is a nation of immigrants now and was long before 1965. (Unless, of course, you're limiting the definition of "nation" to "ethnic group", in which case it's impossible for a nation to include any immigrants at all and the terms themselves are mutually exclusive.)

WATYF

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 12:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 12:42 PM  

Sorry, Vox (no, not really), but posterity had three meanings, all of which are plausible in context, while the constitution, itself, makes clear that they intended immigration and naturalizationm which limits posterity to two of those meanings. Neither of those is "genetic descendents." You can argue that this was unwise, if you like, but it is ahistorical nonsense to argue that it is not so.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 12:46 PM  

Sorry, Vox (no, not really), but posterity had three meanings, all of which are plausible in context, while the constitution, itself, makes clear that they intended immigration and naturalizationm which limits posterity to two of those meanings.

That's simply not true. They intended Posterity in the genetic and familial sense, as the Federalist Papers as well as the Declaration of Independence indicate.

They never, ever imagined that large numbers of non-English whites would immigrate, much less intended for them to do so.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 12:48 PM  

No, it simply IS true. If they had intended it to be genetic, they would not have put in the non-genetic qualifications to serve in the House and Senate.

Your second paragraph is true.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 12:50 PM  

Addendum: Argue it's a bad idea if you like. I can certainly agree that it's gone beyond sane bounds. But to argue that, when they listed the requirements for serving in the House and Senate they meant something other than immigration and naturalization is tantamount to "Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia."

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 12:54 PM  

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

That's immigration, as is

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Anonymous DonaldR April 23, 2017 1:44 PM  

There is an undeniable blend of traditions, cultures and ethnicities in the U.S that makes America unique among the nations. This blend is a result of immigration. Undeniable.

Anonymous DonaldR April 23, 2017 1:55 PM  

"Then, as now, the Posterity of the Founders for whom the Constitution was written"

If this is so, why was there no mention in the constitution as to what "posterity" was to mean? Why were their numerous provisions that anticipated immigrants taking on roles in government? Why was their no prohibition on "non-english, christians" serving becoming citizens, let alone serving in government?

Your theory is incorrect, which is also indicated by the fact that few if any scholars with far more experience studying the founding experience suggest anything like what you are suggesting.

Finally, offering up historical interpretation for the sole reason of supporting a political position is an example of the worst kind of historical analysis, not to mention unethical.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 2:05 PM  

If this is so, why was there no mention in the constitution as to what "posterity" was to mean? Why were their numerous provisions that anticipated immigrants taking on roles in government? Why was their no prohibition on "non-english, christians" serving becoming citizens, let alone serving in government?

Because they weren't lawyers looking to circumvent the commonly understood definition. The provisions did not anticipate immigrants taking roles in government, except in that they failed to guard against it. Because they did not anticipate that very many non-English non-Christians would immigrate to the New World. Your logic is incorrect.

All of your revisionist arguments here are remarkably ignorant of what the various Founding Fathers actually wrote on the subject. I suggest you read Cuckservative.

Your theory is incorrect, which is also indicated by the fact that few if any scholars with far more experience studying the founding experience suggest anything like what you are suggesting.

I do not have a "theory". I am simply citing confirmed historical facts. You clearly don't know a damn thing about what scholars do or do not say. Moreover, what scholars say is irrelevant. We can read the documents for ourselves, we don't need a priestly caste interpreting for us.

Finally, offering up historical interpretation for the sole reason of supporting a political position is an example of the worst kind of historical analysis, not to mention unethical.

You're both ignorant and stupid. I see no reason to further respond to you.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 2:15 PM  

But to argue that, when they listed the requirements for serving in the House and Senate they meant something other than immigration and naturalization is tantamount to "Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia."

Your logic is incorrect. Let reason be silent when the direct words of the Founding Fathers gainsay their conclusions.

Tom, what you're failing to account for is the fact that the Founding Fathers believed immigration was going to be fairly insignificant. It never occurred to them to concern themselves with locking a relatively small number of non-British people out of government. Why guard against something that isn't ever going to be a problem, right?

The same thing is true of their concept of "religious freedom". It never occurred to them that it would lead to Satanists or Aztecs appealing to that freedom in order to worship demons. They just didn't want the different Christian denominations fighting for control of the government.

The fact that we know what eventually happened did not mean that they foresaw the possibility and accounted for it. This is why it is seldom viable to try to build a logical case from limited information.

I understand you can make a case. It might even sound convincing to some. But it's still incorrect. It's not unlike the 1965 law. Some people worried about the consequences, and Kennedy and Celler talked them out of putting any restrictions on the numbers because "the demographics won't change".

Using your logic, everyone must have supported the idea of 80 million foreign residents who ended up entering the country. But we know that's not true since we can read the warnings.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 2:20 PM  

By the way, this would appear to be relevant:

POSTERITY, descents. All the descendants of a person in a direct line.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

It does not mean citizens, or naturalized immigrants, or people inhabiting the same geographic area, or anything like that.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 2:22 PM  

Also, from Black's Law Dictionary:

POSTERITY: All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest gen.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) April 23, 2017 2:23 PM  

turns out, the only *true* posterity of the Founders are the Kekistani.

His last and final prophet, Pepe, revealed this to me in a vision.

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 2:29 PM  

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Interesting. So who counted as the "our" in "our posterity"? I'm honestly asking. Most of the early Americans were English obviously but there were Dutch and German and Irish and so on (even among the Founding Fathers). Do we have any indication that they limited the "our" to just the majority (English)? Did they mean to exclude the minority groups from the Constitution?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) April 23, 2017 2:35 PM  

44. DonaldR April 23, 2017 1:55 PM
why was there no mention in the constitution as to what "posterity" was to mean?



ummm, durr hurr, because posterity was an EXISTING word with an EXISTING meaning.



44. DonaldR April 23, 2017 1:55 PM
which is also indicated by the fact that few if any scholars with far more experience



the scholarship is nearly universal in claiming that States have no right of secession protected by the 10th Amendment.

yet this is a bold and bald faced lie.

i note that even the Oath Keepers have noticed that the 10th ( and 9th ) Amendment exist.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

"The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people."

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) April 23, 2017 2:37 PM  

50. WATYF April 23, 2017 2:29 PM
Did they mean to exclude the minority groups from the Constitution?



this was debated.

no less than Franklin was advocating for not permitting citizenship to the immigrant Germans.

however, due to their numbers and service in the Revolution it was deemed prudent not to try to exclude them.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 2:52 PM  

Did they mean to exclude the minority groups from the Constitution?

It appears that they included those minority groups who were involved in establishing the Constitution. But remember, Germany was not a country at the time. So, the German Quakers in Pennsylvania did not include all Germans.

One could more reasonably argue that they did not include post-1789 British immigrants than insist that they were including all whites of good character, as per the 1790 Naturalization Law, in the Posterity.

The thing is, you can't meaningfully lawyer this stuff. It wasn't designed for lawyers, as John Adams noted. If you're going to lawyer it, you're going to lose it, and that's exactly what happened.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 2:58 PM  

It doesn't matter if they thought it was going to be insignificant (which, by the way, I seriously doubt; we had a continent to tame, indians to exterminate, and foreign threats all around).

Black's Law Dictionary? 1860s Black's Law Dictionary? Well after ratification Black's Law Dictionary?

That's just more "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia." Johnson's and Webster's are contemporary or near contemporary, and they give three definitions, genetic posterity, future generations, generally, and simple future times. All are legit. None is dispositive, until you get to the constitution itself, where they _plainly_ intended immigration that would become fully citizen, so fully citizen that they could serve in the national assemblies.

By the way, what editions of Black's are you using? The first edition, the one nearest to ratification though, as mentioned, well after it, doesn't define posterity at all: http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/p.htm

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 3:03 PM  

In any case, neither black's nor bouvier's can quite overcome those provisions in Article One for complete citizenship for naturalized immigrants. Indeed, as you mention, citing John Adams, the constitution wasn't written for lawyers. And the non-legal dictionaries give three types of posterity and, further, are in accord with Art. 1, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3.

And I'll be out of the net for the next few hours.

Blogger somercet April 23, 2017 3:29 PM  

Tom Kratman: via @Instapundit, that is not necessarily true:


The article supplies strong evidence that the Constitution is written in the language of the law. The article is the first to count the legal terms in the Constitution and approximates them at a hundred. Moreover, the Constitution’s text both blocks the operation of certain legal interpretive rules and calls for the application of other such rules. Finally, the judges and legislators charged with implementing the Constitution in the early Republic frequently deployed legal interpretive rules to resolve contested issues.

The paper is cited here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928936

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 3:31 PM  

they _plainly_ intended immigration that would become fully citizen, so fully citizen that they could serve in the national assemblies.

Again, failing to specifically prevent something is not synonymous with intending to do something.

It doesn't matter if they thought it was going to be insignificant

Of course it matters. That's why they didn't bother to account for it. Your logic relies upon two unsupported assumptions.

Blogger somercet April 23, 2017 3:37 PM  

The Framers were quite careful not to tie the hands of their heirs. I am sure they left decisions about race up to the people who would face them. Sadly, the Left's race-baiting has re-opened the question: can different ethnic groups co-exist under a universal but limited govt? I don't necessarily agree with Vox's insistence on the ethno-state, but he is absolutely correct that this question has been re-opened, and by the New Left.

p.s. "Alt-Left" is unnecessary. The tenured radicals David Horowitz came to despise is just the 1960s New Left all grown up (insert massive sarcasm quotes here).

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 3:45 PM  

The thing is, you can't meaningfully lawyer this stuff.

Right, I'm just trying to understand the arguments here. So the "our" might have meant "anyone involved in this process" (which would have included at least the Dutch/German/Irish/etc who were there). But I take it that they didn't really spell that out so we're left interpreting their intentions to the best of our ability.

But as you say, lawyering isn't going to win, so does it really matter who the "our" or the "posterity" was if the question now is "who's going to stick together"? Not many people are willing to even consider these arguments nowadays (due to social pressure), but even if by some miracle we could convince everyone that only the direct descendants of the people involved in the Constitutional process are real "Americans", that's a small enough percentage of the population now that it would be overwhelmed by everyone else. Most of America wouldn't actually be "American" and so they wouldn't have any reason to fight for "America", since they wouldn't even be a part of it.

But that doesn't really track with how America views itself or acts. All of those Irish and German and Italian and other 19th/early 20th century immigrants see themselves as nothing but American and behave like it, and they would fight for it. Hell, I'm German on both sides (so far as I know) and I don't know a damned thing about German culture and have no desire to learn. Telling me that I'm not "American" due to what we believe to be the intention of the Founders doesn't really mean anything in any practical sense. I'm not offended at the idea, I just don't see how it matters.

So what is the argument for today? Does it serve any purpose to try to suss out who exactly the "our" is or which of the three definitions of "posterity" was intended? Isn't there some other unifying argument that could be made that would include more than ~10% of the population?

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 23, 2017 4:35 PM  

WAYTF, you have to go back.

Blogger Audacious Epigone April 23, 2017 4:37 PM  

WATYF,

What nation's people are not descended from immigrants thus defined if we go back far enough in time? To state a tautology and use it as a red herring is a waste of everyone's time.

Anonymous Panzer Man April 23, 2017 5:02 PM  

Stephen St. Onge, if you think that there is any comparison between a bunch of western European white people emigrating to a western European white people's country, and hordes of Somalis, Mexicans, Arabs, and Asians swarming into it, then you're a blank slater of the most head-in-the-sand kind.

An intelligent, hard-working German is worlds away from

And finally, WHY do we need more people? We already have a third of a billion people here. The place is getting crowded, and automation is making such rapid strides that it may be difficult to employ a large number of the people already here soon, even without hauling in low-IQ, troublesome, hostile, violent foreigners. It's also going to ruin what's left of nature here -- particularly as many of these folk have absolutely no regard for the natural world in general, and someone else's natural world in particular.

Candidly, the only reason for importing third worlders by the tens of millions is to outnumber the existing white population and render them politically impotent -- in short, to take over the country. This is the sole conceivable logical reason for making a giant slum on the prairie filled the literal "wretched refuse" of various savage and third-world nations. The "immigrants" are an invading army meant to dethrone and subjugate the White people living in this country, full stop.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable April 23, 2017 5:57 PM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:I am a member of the last generation that publicly heard of America being referred to as the Nation of Pioneers.

Thank you. I shall start using that term.

WATYF wrote:So what is the argument for today? Does it serve any purpose to try to suss out who exactly the "our" is or which of the three definitions of "posterity" was intended? Isn't there some other unifying argument that could be made that would include more than ~10% of the population?

All Hyphenated-Americans are self-defined with an adjective that negates the noun. They need to go back.

Anonymous Ghost Who Walks April 23, 2017 5:57 PM  

Right you are, Vox, as a well known quote of John Jay bears out. End of discussion, folks.

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 6:39 PM  

WAYTF, you have to go back.

Rhetoric doesn't work on everyone, brother. You have to have more than one tool in your kit.

WATYF

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 6:42 PM  

What nation's people are not descended from immigrants thus defined if we go back far enough in time? To state a tautology and use it as a red herring is a waste of everyone's time.

I don't disagree with this. That was actually kinda the point of my parenthetical remark.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 23, 2017 6:45 PM  

WATYF
So what is the argument for today?

Diversity + proximity = conflict.
Do your very best jazz hands, it is still true.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 23, 2017 6:46 PM  

WATYF
I don't disagree with this. That was actually kinda the point of my parenthetical remark.



How many legs does a dog have if I call his tail a leg?

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 6:59 PM  

All Hyphenated-Americans are self-defined with an adjective that negates the noun. They need to go back.

So as long as someone doesn't go around calling themselves a whatever-American they're good?

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 7:21 PM  

Diversity + proximity = conflict. Do your very best jazz hands, it is still true.

I'm not disputing this either. The question is what argument we use to convince people of where the line should be drawn? If it's "direct descendants of the Founders only because of Our Posterity", then you're gonna have a really small group of people to work with and you'll be excluding most of America, including the people who would not only be your allies but whose identity and behavior is no different from yours in any practical way. And if it's not, then why bother with "our Posterity" at all? Why not go straight to whatever demarcation you're going to use (i.e. "looks white" or "Protestant" or "been here for X years" or whatever).

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 23, 2017 7:31 PM  

@70 WATYF
The question is what argument we use to convince people of where the line should be drawn?

History tells me that people will decide all on their own where to draw the line. Some will be blessed as the Czechs and Slovaks, they drew the line peacefully. Others won't. Bosnia. Sarajevo.

Jazz hands all you want. Use MOAR words. Your opinion isn't relevant in the bigger picture. Neither is mine, and neither is Vox's. He's just pointing to a fault line and saying "Earthquake here some day".

If you want personal advice, great grandfather would suggest you find "your people", whoever they are, and form bonds of friendship and kinship if possible.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 7:48 PM  

Vox, they didn't fail to specify; they expressly specified what it took to be qualified for the house and senate, which included express minimum ages and minimum times as citizens. There'd have been no need if they hadn't intended that there BE citizens via immigration and naturalization.

Can you provide much or any evidence - proof you cannot find, just in the nature of the matter - that they expected immigration to be insignificant?

By the way, assuming, as I do, that you and SB are not from West Virginia, that you are not close cousins, and neither of you is descended from the other, if you have left her any property in the event of your demise, she is your heir. If you have left anyone any property, they are your heirs. if you have left anyone something of value, even if not material, they are also your heirs. I should have to point this out, and I wouldn't have to, if you were so busy trying to control the future by using what control of the present you can muster to control the intepretation of the past.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 23, 2017 7:51 PM  

@56

Take it up with Vox and John Adams.

Blogger WATYF April 23, 2017 7:52 PM  

History tells me that people will decide all on their own where to draw the line.

Then why does the alt-right exist? "This is all a foregone conclusion" takes the wind out of everyone's sails. People don't decide things within a vacuum. There will be arguments made which will spark movements and will be a factor (if not the factor) in how lines are drawn. Telling people "stop talking about this because there's no point" is a silly and self-defeating argument.

He's just pointing to a fault line and saying "Earthquake here some day".

No, he's not "just" doing that. That's one of the things he has done and I don't dispute that. He's also saying other things in this post, some of which I've asked questions about.

If you want personal advice, great grandfather would suggest you find "your people", whoever they are, and form bonds of friendship and kinship if possible.

This kinda only works if you know how the chips are gonna fall. Will my people be "anyone who looks white" or "anyone who is Christian" or "anyone who's been here a long time" or....? Thus the questions.

Anonymous Deplorable Winning April 23, 2017 8:04 PM  

somercet wrote:"Of grammar-schools," declared Sir Francis Bacon, "there are too many": many a good ploughboy was spoiled to make a bad scholar;

The name Phil Sandifer, PhD, immediately popped into my mind.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 23, 2017 8:05 PM  

@74 WATYF
History tells me that people will decide all on their own where to draw the line.

WATYF
Then why does the alt-right exist?

Why, Historical Inevitability, of course.

"This is all a foregone conclusion" takes the wind out of everyone's sails.

Gee, that's a shame. How are your sails doing?
The train is fine.

He's just pointing to a fault line and saying "Earthquake here some day".

No, he's not "just" doing that. That's one of the things he has done and I don't dispute that. He's also saying other things in this post, some of which I've asked questions about.

Every time someone answers, you start up with the jazz hands. Let me ask a question: is the word "could" a synonym of "should"?

If you want personal advice, great grandfather would suggest you find "your people", whoever they are, and form bonds of friendship and kinship if possible.

This kinda only works if you know how the chips are gonna fall.

But we don't know. Now what? More jazz hands, thrown up in the air in despair?

Will my people be "anyone who looks white" or "anyone who is Christian" or "anyone who's been here a long time" or....? Thus the questions.

Already answered, but I'll try again in plain text:
Dude, nobody knows.

Anonymous Deplorable Winning April 23, 2017 8:09 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:How many legs does a dog have if I call his tail a leg?

In reality, 4. In court, 5, unless rebutted.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 23, 2017 8:28 PM  

Rhetoric doesn't work on everyone, brother. You have to have more than one tool in your kit.

No, seriously, snowflake. You have to go back. As in literally.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 8:44 PM  

The question is what argument we use to convince people of where the line should be drawn? If it's "direct descendants of the Founders only because of Our Posterity", then you're gonna have a really small group of people to work with and you'll be excluding most of America, including the people who would not only be your allies but whose identity and behavior is no different from yours in any practical way.

You are completely confused about the point. I am discussing the historical facts. I am observing the actual situation. I don't give a quantum of a damn for where the line "should" be drawn, nor do I pretend to know where it will be drawn in the various offshoots of the post-collapse USA.

Even your language is sloppy. I am not "excluding most of America", I am pointing out that AMERICA IS ALREADY GONE. America, in its correct historical sense, is very nearly as adulterated and destroyed as the Indian tribes. I've already laid this out when I pointed out that the latest post-1965 wave consists of America 4.0.

They're not Americans. Neither are those from America 3.0 or 2.0. The point is that you can never, ever get back your Constitution or the rights of the American posterity it was written to safeguard. That really small group of people is all that is left of it. And no one else has any more historical claim to either the Constitution or Constitutional rights than they do to live in the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.

So, you can stop worrying about the past and get on with what comes next without wasting any concern for rights or the Constitution or whatever.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 8:49 PM  

Then why does the alt-right exist?

Because everyone else has been exposed as liars.

"This is all a foregone conclusion" takes the wind out of everyone's sails.

So what? It is. Read Tolstoy. Read Prechter. Read history.

Telling people "stop talking about this because there's no point" is a silly and self-defeating argument.

No one is telling anyone to stop talking about it. We're telling you to stop whining about how things should be and accept them how they are.

Blogger VD April 23, 2017 8:56 PM  

By the way, please understand that I know that everyone has, in practice, decided to pretend that foreigners who are resident in the United States are real Americans no different in any way than the Daughters of the American Revolution. It's merely the time in residence that varies. Some of you are willing to pretend that after three generations of residence. Others are willing to pretend that because adherence to ideas. Still others believe in the instantly transformative power of Magic Dirt.

I'm merely observing that EVERYONE is pretending. Some pretenses are just more superficially convincing than others. But none of these pretend Americans have ever been compatible with the Constitution or the Rights of Englishmen, nor was it reasonable to ever believe they would be.

The problem, as is usually the case with regards to such things, was that people started believing the pretense.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable April 23, 2017 11:05 PM  

WATYF wrote:All Hyphenated-Americans are self-defined with an adjective that negates the noun. They need to go back.

So as long as someone doesn't go around calling themselves a whatever-American they're good?


Yes and no. I have observed that non-Americans are very proud of it, and can be reliably trusted to identify themselves as such, because they're so dumb.

Blogger Doc Rampage April 24, 2017 3:42 AM  

As recently as 400 years ago, the ancestors of almost none of the current citizens were in this country. In fact, the majority were not even in this hemisphere. Therefore, the current population is a result of historically recent immigration. In that sense, this is a nation of immigrants.

It is pointless to argue that the description isn't accurate, because it is accurate in the sense intended. My response when someone warbles about a nation of immigrants is, "Who cares? We're here now and we get to decide who else comes here because we have the guns and soon we are going to have the wall."

Blogger VD April 24, 2017 5:23 AM  

Therefore, the current population is a result of historically recent immigration. In that sense, this is a nation of immigrants.

That is false. Settlers and colonists and pioneers are not immigrants.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 24, 2017 11:03 AM  

@83 Doc Rampage

As recently as 50 years ago the majority of the population wasn't born yet. Is this a "nation of babies'?

Blogger Mr Darcy April 24, 2017 4:46 PM  

Vox,

As self-evident as it may seem, it may be helpful to make the distinction between citizenship and nationality. Some of us have both; some have--and can have--only one.

Thanks for all you do!

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts