ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Posterity: TK vs VD

As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and united States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

Tom Kratman, as part of his series on Civic Nationalism, took a very different stance in an essay entitled Ourselves and Our Posterity. He claims that in this particular case, "our posterity" means nothing more than "succeeding generations". Read the whole thing, it's not an incompetent case, merely an incorrect one. Not only that, but he also claims that the alternative definition to which I subscribe, "actual legal descendants and heirs", is "utter nonsense". He wrote:

I'm not sloppy Vox, you're just wrong, your genetically based posterity argument utter nonsense, start to finish.

He also added, rather confidently, that he can match me IQ point for IQ point.

Vox, since you set store by it, I can match you IQ point for IQ point. Yes, I can... Once again. you have a word in the preamble which doesn't carry it's own definition. The dictionaries of the day do not help you, because they use three definitions. Within the document, itself, you have clear, absolutely unambiguous evidence that they intended immigration and naturalization because they provided from immigrants to eventually, within their lifetimes, be able to hold any elective office in the land but one. You have the 1790 act, which is commentary on the intent, but not actually necessary because the constitution itself, as mentioned above, provides for the ability of naturalized citizens to become senators and reps. ANd then there is the problem of omission. I mentioned Hobbes in my first post in this thread. Why? I mentioned it because he had translated Thucydides 148 or so years before the revolution; they had that in their libraries, and so they knew about more restrictive - genetic posterity-based - rules for citizenship and neglected to use them. Would have been easy. Didn't bother. Did, once again, put in provisions for non-genetically based citizens in the highest office.

Now, I don't mind people calling me out. It adds a certain flavor to the discourse. The problem, however, is that one's ability to match me in the decathalon is irrelevant when the contest concerned is the 100-meter dash. This is particularly relevant if you happen to know that I can't pole vault over my own height. As I warned Tom, his case is an eminently reasonable one, but it is a purely logical argument of the sort preferred by lawyers, the very sort of argument that reliably fails when the relevant evidence is examined. As with many an economic model, Tom's case relies upon imputing a false rationality and coherence to the behavior of all-too-often irrational and self-contradictory human beings. I could come up with a dozen alternative explanations to his logical conundrum, but I won't bother, because I have a considerably more effective response to offer.

The Three Definitions of "POSTERITY":
  1. direct descendants
  2. succeeding generations
  3. future history
The question is this: how do we determine which of the three definitions of posterity should correctly apply to the term "posterity" as it is used in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution in the phrase "ourselves and our posterity"? The answer, as I previously suggested, is straightforward. To understand how the term was meant to be understood in the Preamble, we must look at how the same people using it were using it in their other writings. Fortunately, there are more than a few mentions of "posterity" in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, both of which are discussing the very constitution in question in no little detail. There are seven instances in the Federalist Papers.
  1. To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
  2. In framing a government for posterity as well as ourselves, we ought, in those provisions which are designed to be permanent, to calculate, not on temporary, but on permanent causes of expense. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
  3. This dependence, and the necessity of being bound himself, and his posterity, by the laws to which he gives his assent, are the true, and they are the strong chords of sympathy between the representative and the constituent. (DEFINITION 1: direct descendants)
  4. WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America. (TBD)
  5. No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, or to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act. (DEFINITION 1: direct descendants)
  6. …upon Congress, as they are now constituted; and either the machine, from the intrinsic feebleness of its structure, will moulder into pieces, in spite of our ill-judged efforts to prop it; or, by successive augmentations of its force an energy, as necessity might prompt, we shall finally accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty, and thus entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived. (TBD)
  7. Whence could it have proceeded, that the Athenians, a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, and who required no other proof of danger to their liberties than the illustrious merit of a fellow-citizen, should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected? (DEFINITION 1: direct descendants)
Note that the distinction between "posterity", used in the sense of future history, and "his posterity" and "their posterity", used in the sense of direct genetic descendants. This suggests that "our posterity" is also meant to be understood in the case of the latter. Also note that none of the seven examples are clearly instances of Definition 2: succeeding generations with the possible exceptions of 2, 4, and 6. But there is considerably more evidence to consider. Now let's turn to the Anti-Federalist Papers, where there are three additional instances.
  1. Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security. -- You are then under a sacred obligation to provide for the safety of your posterity, and would you now basely desert their interests, when by a small share of prudence you may transmit to them a beautiful political patrimony, that will prevent the necessity of their travelling through seas of blood to obtain that, which your wisdom might have secured. -Anti-Federalist No. 5, 
  2. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this, and you will find this state more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. - Anti-Federalist No. 34, The Problem of Concurrent Taxation
  3. Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power. For if Congress will do these things in the dry tree when their power is small, what won't they do when they have all the resources of the United States at their command? - Anti-Federalist No. 13, The Expense of the New Government
Notice in No. 34 the way a distinction is made between Virginia's posterity and the posterity of the 12 other States. This makes it very clear that "our posterity" refers, specifically and solely, to Definition 1: direct genetic descendants and no one else. Furthermore, there are at least three more relevant examples from the era that underline the same point.
  1. We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.  - DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS JULY 6, 1775
  2. They were governed by counts, sent them by the kings of Oviedo and Leon, until 859, when finding themselves without a chief, because Zeno, who commanded them, was made prisoner, they rose and took arms to resist Ordogne, son of Alfonsus the Third, whose domination was too severe for them, chose for their chief an issue of the blood-royal of Scotland, by the mother's side, and son-in-law of Zeno their governor, who having overcome Ordogne, in 870, they chose him for their lord, and his posterity, who bore afterwards the name of Haro, succeeded him, from father to son, until the king Don Pedro the Cruel, having put to death those who were in possession of the lordship, reduced them to a treaty, by which they united their country, under the title of a lordship, with Castile, by which convention the king of Spain is now lord of.  - John Adams, Letter IV, Biscay
  3. That mankind have a right to bind themselves by their own voluntary acts, can scarcely be questioned: but how far have they a right to enter into engagements to bind their posterity likewise? Are the acts of the dead binding upon their living posterity, to all generations; or has posterity the same natural rights which their ancestors have enjoyed before them? And if they have, what right have any generation of men to establish any particular form of government for succeeding generations? The answer is not difficult: "Government," said the congress of the American States, in behalf of their constituents, "derives its just authority from the consent of the governed." This fundamental principle then may serve as a guide to direct our judgment with respect to the question. To which we may add, in the words of the author of Common Sense, a law is not binding upon posterity, merely, because it was made by their ancestors; but, because posterity have not repealed it. It is the acquiescence of posterity under the law, which continues its obligation upon them, and not any right which their ancestors had to bind them. - BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 1803
First, posterity is directly tied to "ancestors". Therefore, it means "descendants". Second, "his posterity" means succession from "father to son" of men bearing the same name. Therefore, it means "descendants". Third, posterity is again directly tied to ancestors and it is specifically distinguished from "succeeding generations". In fact, the former is used as potential justification for the latter. Therefore, again, posterity means "descendants". In fact, it is the first definition of posterity, (Definition 1: direct descendants) which Tom incorrectly described as "utter nonsense, start to finish", that is the only possible definition applicable. Therefore, my case for "ourselves and our posterity" referring solely to direct genetic descendants and no one else is not merely correct, it is conclusive.

Finally, Tom appealed to the fact that the Founding Fathers had Hobbes in their libraries. But they had John Locke in their libraries as well. And Locke's reference to posterity not only underlines my case, but deals a fatal blow to the false notion that immigrants and invaders and other pretenders can ever stake a rightful claim to the Blessings of Liberty intended by the American Revolutionaries for their direct genetic descendants.
  • No damage therefore, that men in the state of nature (as all princes and governments are in reference to one another) suffer from one another, can give a conqueror power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished, and turn them out of that inheritance, which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations. The conqueror indeed will be apt to think himself master: and it is the very condition of the subdued not to be able to dispute their right. But if that be all, it gives no other title than what bare force gives to the stronger over the weaker: and, by this reason, he that is strongest will have a right to whatever he pleases to seize on. - John Locke, Of Conquest, Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690

Labels: ,

335 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 335 of 335
Blogger VD June 25, 2017 9:07 PM  

Yet another example how the alt-right is the new SJWs. Typical leftist tripe. Piranha-like swarming against contrary positions. Collectivism. Identity and racial politics (just like Democrats). Demand for total ideological conformity. Demand for racial loyalty (it sounds better in German). Propaganda and memes instead of intelligent reasoning. Ad hominem and name-calling versus logic.

Translation from cuckservative to English: REEEEEEEEEE!!!

The particulars of the interpretation of "posterity" in the Constitution destroys nothing for me. It's of mild historical and sociological interest. Shouldn't destroy anything for any civic nationalist either.

That's because you're a midwit who doesn't grasp the obvious implications that follow from it, or why the civic nationalists are so desperate to redefine the term ex post facto.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 9:09 PM  

roughcoat wrote:172. Buybuydandavis

Non-whites overwhelmingly vote for gibs and statism. If you want liberty to survive at all, you'd better pray for Whiteytopia.


Voting point is certainly true statistically.

But it's Civic Nationalists and Proposition Nation folk who argue that propositions matter.

Whiteyness aint sufficient. Neither is it necessary.

Notice that multi ethnic whitey mongrel US has held out against statism much better than the relatively pure whitey ethnostates of Europe.

Diversity is our strength!

For all the squawk about the wonder of colonialist British Americans, I suspect that's where the true loon SJWs and Progressives come from.

Could be the mongrelization of the US which has kept us from going down the toilet as fast as the Europeans.

As for Whiteytopia, praying for that is praying for millions dead and gulag. I would not be consoled by having my cell mates all be white.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 9:09 PM  

I have to wonder if there are any full-blooded "real Americans" left in the country. If so, what would they be? Something like 3% of the population, tops?

Brett Stevens at Amerika thinks the ethnic groups will all break up again, that whites will fracture as they do in Europe. I tend to think there's too many mutts for this to work. You can find pockets of Scandanavian, Italian, Irish, but I'm not sure if there are others. Prior to WWII you probably could do a relatively clean ethnic breakup, but then the mixing of European ethnicities took off.

Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 9:11 PM  

Roundtine wrote:Hoteps will want a country too.

Hoteps want a country, Hoteps get a country. Its Identies all the way down.

Anonymous George of the Jungle June 25, 2017 9:11 PM  

A way out of the posterity/immigration issue:

- The raison d'etre of TFF's preamble was to supply the path forward for the nation, including any subsequent immigrants.
- All citizens were intended to support the the primary nation of founding Englishmen and their posterity. Such newcomers were supposed to fit in as seamlessly as possible regarding the full adoption of TFF's nation and their family and their interests. By proving their full and complete support, they would then be adopted into that nation.
- Any immigrants would necessarily be selected upon the basis of their close approximation to and thus their ability to fulfill the needs and goals of the founders and their posterity.
- Thus this path forward clearly belies any nonsense about a proposition nation.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 9:14 PM  

For all the squawk about the wonder of colonialist British Americans, I suspect that's where the true loon SJWs and Progressives come from.

Puritans and Jews. Seattle and Minnesota are heavily Scanavian and cucked like Sweden.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 9:17 PM  

The constitution wasn't a suicide pact to let in millions of citizen migrants to destroy the very precepts of the constitution that they claim is "truly theirs" and "for them too" then used only as a tool to destroy its very foundation.

And we keep getting back to: Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty. Which is the principle and foundation of the constitution. Which most citizen migrants could care less about, because they are not interested, for the most part, in assimilating into those very idea's.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 9:17 PM  

Hoteps want a country, Hoteps get a country. Its Identies all the way down.

Which is why Hoteps aren't screaming about White Nationalism, but civic nationalist are ranting about Nazis.

Anonymous Anonymous June 25, 2017 9:18 PM  

Could be the mongrelization of the US which has kept us from going down the toilet as fast as the Europeans.

Yes, Germany, Switzerland and the nordics are shitholes compared to america.

As for Whiteytopia, praying for that is praying for millions dead and gulag. I would not be consoled by having my cell mates all be white.

Exactly the opposite. Vox is trying to prevent the millions dead, and you cell mates will most certainly be all white when it comes to that, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 9:21 PM  

And to just finish off @206 Here is exactly where we are:

"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass."

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 9:23 PM  

VD wrote:

The particulars of the interpretation of "posterity" in the Constitution destroys nothing for me. It's of mild historical and sociological interest. Shouldn't destroy anything for any civic nationalist either.

That's because you're a midwit who doesn't grasp the obvious implications that follow from it, or why the civic nationalists are so desperate to redefine the term ex post facto.


Personal slap at IQ, followed by a non argument.

Let me know when you've got argument on that. I'd be interested in hearing it.

For all those pooh poohing TK on mentioning IQ, this is why. Vox routinely trots out IQ slaps when his actual arguments run out of gas.

Second time he's done it to me. Second time I'll point out I've probably got a few points on Vox.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 9:33 PM  

I tend to think there's too many mutts for this to work.

Mutts either join the groups that will accept them or form their own new groups.

Personal slap at IQ, followed by a non argument.

There is no need for an argument. You demonstrated that you did not understand the implications.

Let me know when you've got argument on that. I'd be interested in hearing it.

It would be wasted on you.

Second time he's done it to me. Second time I'll point out I've probably got a few points on Vox.

Because you continue to demonstrate your ability to miss the point. Posture all you like, but everyone can see that you still haven't grasped the obvious even when it was specifically stated by me and others.

Anonymous Avalanche June 25, 2017 9:35 PM  

@89 "Jared Taylor, Alt-Lite though he may be, doesn't spend much time countersignaling those farther right."

I've always thought Jared Taylor is a HUGE benefit to our side. No, he never discusses the JQ; but that's not his mission! I see his mission as: he is showing (White) people the WEAPON being wielded against them. Until they recognize the weapon, they cannot possibly consider who is HOLDING the weapon. If you start out recruiting with "jewjewjewjew!" your audience -- totally and deeply brainwashed -- will run screaming from the room. Until you get them to SEE the weapon, and recognize it AS a weapon -- you'll not get them to ask who is wielding the weapon against us.

The old saw: 'start where the student is' absolutely applies to Jared's work lo these decades!

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 9:42 PM  

@193 Sharrukin

"It means there is no Proposition Nation. There never was.

It's a myth"

It's a category error.
Proposition = ideology
Nation = identity

From yesterday's thread:
398 Tom Kratman
"And yet you're one of those afraid to show a name, Takin.

Come on; you're just subhuman trash."

So if merely using a consistent pseudonymous handle that doesn't correspond to an obvious IRL identity makes you "subhuman trash," what does using sock puppets make you?

@198 Nick S
"As a Native American, I don't concede, as morally superior, your squatters rights to abscond with my resources and impose your new house rules on me"

You have full rights to the Cherokee Nation, or one of the Five Nations of the Iroquois, or whatever nation you belong to. Just not to the American nation. Watch out for those Solutreans, though.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 9:42 PM  

@210 The only argument you have, is multiculturalism. Not assimilation. Assimilation into the Christian principles and principles of English and American liberty, as espoused by the founding stock, is not what has destroyed America, but multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is the knitting thread that you hang on.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 9:45 PM  

praetorian wrote:

Yes, Germany, Switzerland and the nordics are shitholes compared to america.



Switzerland is doing great.

But Germany? Really? You want to compare Germany to the US for statism?

Germany wasn't so good on the statism score last century, and is leading all of Europe into EU Apparatchik State this century.

Anonymous 7817 June 25, 2017 9:46 PM  

I'm not one of the smart ones but even I can figure out some of why posterity matters. It's another nail on the coffin for the proposition nation, the "America is an idea" club. And when that falls down, people are going to have to grab something else, different ideas. In a way, the Alt-Lite seems more scared of collapse than the Alt-Right, so they are in denial.

I pay attention to the Alt-Right because they are trying to have the discussion before everything collapses, because that's the smart thing to do. Think there's cynicism now? Just wait till the alt-lite loses faith in the system, and it'll be worse if they believe all the way to the collapse.

Blogger Harry Spitz June 25, 2017 9:47 PM  

Oh, Evil Lord of Evil, please forgive this deplorable wannabe minion.
However, your argument that "us and our posterity" applies only to genetic descendents of Americans at that time, makes about as much sense as claiming that 2nd Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder weapons, and that "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment only protects manually operated printing presses.
Also, last time I checked, the Preamble is not legally binding in any fashion.
Citizenship should be a precious jewel and not bestowed lightly, but it should be available to lawful immigrants who try hard enough.
(Personally, I'm not crazy about birthright citizenship. I thing, at a minimum, that everyone desiring Citizenship should go though a Naturalization process.)

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 9:51 PM  

As a descendant of The Blessing, Revolutionaries X 2, and the Choctaw Nation, please get the f**k out of my country.

Thank you very much.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 9:55 PM  

VD wrote:

Posture all you like, but everyone can see that you still haven't grasped the obvious even when it was specifically stated by me and others.

If you say you've made your case, I'll believe you.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 25, 2017 10:06 PM  

I have followed Vox Day's topics for many years, here and elsewhere. He is not an attorney and he is not interested in legalese. I have never known him to throw out a pointless topic, and this one is not either. This is a subject that will become more relevant, not less relevant, as time passes.

This country was established as a Republic and it remained so for much of it's history. In my lifetime especially, though it started before, there has been a steady pull to make this country an egalitarian democracy. It is destroying the country and it will fail of it's own miserable policies. So what takes the place of a failed democracy? A restored Republic. A military dictatorship. Plutocracy. Feudalism. Foreign domination.

No matter how the fall plays out, no matter how much blood is involved, no matter how bitter the chaos, at some point (probably years later), SOMETHING is going to take the place of this failed democracy....and I do not expect it will be another try at egalitarian nonsense. So this is entirely relevant, unless you believe the worsening state of affairs will continue indefinitely. I do not expect it to continue for much longer.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 10:07 PM  

@118 S1AL

"Just as soon as you take Ruth's oath and are accepted by the Israelis, sure. I'm not going to hold my breath"

Diversity is Israel's greatest strength. This sort of ignorant, bigoted, superannuated Christophobia is completely unacceptable in the current year. Very problematic.

@212 Avalanche
"I've always thought Jared Taylor is a HUGE benefit to our side. No, he never discusses the JQ; but that's not his mission! I see his mission as: he is showing (White) people the WEAPON being wielded against them. Until they recognize the weapon, they cannot possibly consider who is HOLDING the weapon."

You got it. You have to walk before you can run. No one, after accepting the narrative for most of their life, just picks up "The Culture of Critique" one day, reads it, and says "Oh, now I understand..." It's a process. You can't do it all in one step.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 10:13 PM  

Roundtine wrote:For all the squawk about the wonder of colonialist British Americans, I suspect that's where the true loon SJWs and Progressives come from.

Puritans and Jews. Seattle and Minnesota are heavily Scanavian and cucked like Sweden.


Yeah, my guess is that the descendants of the Puritans, the Original Whiteys, are likely the heart of darkness.

I'd think most of them are still centered in the Northeast.

Would be interesting to see detailed demographics on white ethnic political views.

Saw some crappy poll results saying that Trump is most popular among self identified German and American ethnicities.

Anonymous Sertorius June 25, 2017 10:15 PM  

I thought "Hamilton!" was the ultimate in retconning, but VD's imagining the Founders as Pak Protectors has a certain perverse genius.

Again, the Founders were men of parts, secure in their station and civilization--if for no other reason than the franchise was limited to that fraction of property holders who had a vital interest in the status quo. Realize too that in the 18th Century, the foremost "Republic" that would come to mind was the United Provinces--synonymous for a couple centuries as a place of refuge for despised minorities from all over Europe, but as yet exhibiting no ill effects...the merchant oligarchy remained firmly in control.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy June 25, 2017 10:15 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:There's a pattern lately, isn't there, of conservatives accusing the Alt-Right (along with other parts of the Right) of actually being Left/SJWs/collectivists? Hmm.
Yes, but roughcoat is pointing out that ‘Armed Hobbit’ is the troll who cuts-and-pastes quotations from Alt-Lite figures. For a while, I thought it was an Obnoxiously Repetetitititive Attempted Parody Troll, but now it's not even trying to be funny.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2017 10:17 PM  

I tend to think there's too many mutts for this to work.

I think there will be fewer true mutts than people expect. It was trendy in the past to focus on the small fractions of your heritage: "I've got a little [whatever] in me." That made it seem like everyone was a mutt. When people focus on the large fraction instead, most will find that they belong somewhere pretty obvious. And now that people can get their DNA checked, I've noticed it's fairly common for someone who thought he was a mutt to find out he wasn't "a little [whatever]" at all.

In my family, we've always said we're German/Irish/Dutch/English/maybe-Indian. But in reality, we're mostly German (Saxon?), of the type that predominates here in Greater Appalachia. When there's an incentive to pick a single heritage, that's the one we'll gravitate to because it's the one that "fits," regardless of how much we might enjoy St. Patrick's Day.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy June 25, 2017 10:19 PM  

Oh. On second thought, roughcoat may have thought that was Tom Kratman sockpuppeting, and jOHN MOSBY and Sharrukin definitely thought that. It wasn't; that was the M.O. of a known troll.

Blogger roughcoat June 25, 2017 10:21 PM  

Oh, I just noticed the suspicious repetitive phrasing. I leave the interpretation up to the reader.

Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 10:22 PM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:As for Whiteytopia, praying for that is praying for millions dead and gulag. I would not be consoled by having my cell mates all be white.

Lot of assumptions there. Maybe your cell mates will be mutts?

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 10:25 PM  

226. LurkingPuppy

If it wasn't a sockpuppet then why was he using the exact same phrases as TK and the same insults (sans coward) as well as the Panamanian family thing?

It was either TK, or a troll pretending to be him.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 25, 2017 10:26 PM  

128. Sharrukin

*"What makes some ghetto thug who rejects everything that the Republic and the constitution stands for, more 'entitled'"*

What makes some highly educated Swede whose parents moved here the year before he was born and fully accepts everything the Republic and the constitution stands for, as entitled as as a Mayflower American?

What makes him as entitled as the ghetto thug who can trace his ancestry in American back for 240 years?

*"The 1790 Naturalization Act was restricted to whites only."*

Which was supersceded by a number of following acts, which were themselves supersceded by the Fourtheenth Amendment and the Naturalization Act of 1870, etc...

'Posterity' either means the genetic descendants of the relatively small number of Americans who where here when the Declaration was signed, or it includes those who came afterward and were legally given American citizenship under whatever the prevailing law was. If it's the later, then it's going to include hundreds of millions of people who have no genetic link to the 'original' Americans at all.

The idea of a White American Nation that includes whites with no genetic ties to the original Americans seems untenable. I haven't come across a good explanation that doesn't include a lot of squinting, head tilting and looking at things just so.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2017 10:28 PM  

I leave the interpretation up to the reader.

Same here. I was just noticing a broader pattern beyond that. We've been hearing the "everyone to my right is really on the left" whine from conservatives since the election, of course. But the word "collectivist" is suddenly popping up like a bad penny in criticisms of the Right, and not just in the comments here. Makes me wonder if one of the deep thinkers of Cuckservative Inc. -- you know, like Glenn Beck or Jonah Goldberg -- did a treatise on "The New Leftist Right" that's been making the rounds. No idea, really, just an observed pattern.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 10:28 PM  

@212-"I've always thought Jared Taylor was a HUGE benefit to our side"

You're right, in my case at least. I had already been "red-pilled" out of both PC and mainstream conservatism, and dabbled in various radical and reactionary schools. But I didn't catch the wave, so to speak, until I read White Identity.

That was a couple years after St. Trayvon, which I mark as the moment I said bye-bye to our culture's racial Narrative. It required Taylor to make me say hello to Race Realism. I remember my Eureka! moment, it was when I realized, on the basis of something or other in the book, that since they don't teach non-whites to be colorblind it doesn't really matter if white people are colorblind. We won't have a colorblind society, so what's the point? We're just hamstringing ourselves.

I remember vividly thinking the whole concept of "white identity" silly before reading the book. Not after.

Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 10:33 PM  

Elder Son wrote:As a descendant of The Blessing, Revolutionaries X 2, and the Choctaw Nation, please get the f**k out of my country.

Thank you very much.


Yah, the Creek, Chikasaw and Comanche beg to differ about your claim, French loving bastards.

And then your people sided with the Confederacy......lose/lose, yes?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 10:33 PM  

@222 Buybuydandavis
"Roundtine wrote:
For all the squawk about the wonder of colonialist British Americans, I suspect that's where the true loon SJWs and Progressives come from.

Puritans and Jews. Seattle and Minnesota are heavily Scanavian and cucked like Sweden.

Yeah, my guess is that the descendants of the Puritans, the Original Whiteys, are likely the heart of darkness"

Any time you'd care to read a few hundred thousand words of bloviation on this topic, you can always check out the original moldbuggian hypothesis at
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/?m=1

Anonymous crushlimbraw June 25, 2017 10:35 PM  

Something to chew on as a parallel example - throughout the New Testament, Paul writes about the true children of Abraham. It was not DNA as the Jews claimed and as Jesus also disclaimed.
What good is DNA when the mind has been corrupted?
If you want to talk about posterity - what was the point of both Jesus and Paul?
Obviously it was their mindset - the spiritual descendants of Abraham were not so by DNA, but by conversion - a spiritual enactment by God's grace.
So what's my point?
While I agree totally with the general concept of VD's posterity definition - and the fact that the success of any governmental order is better within your own 'tribe', rather than being overrun by hostile forces (immigration invasion) - the most important factor is the continuing process of making disciples within your own tribe.
If new members are brought in, they must become part of that process and be incorporated (assimilated).
Obviously, that was not only not done - it was purposely corrupted.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 10:39 PM  

@217-"your argument that 'us and our posterity' applies only to genetic descendants of Americans at the time, makes about as much sense as claiming that 2nd Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder weapons, and that 'freedom of the press' in the First Amendment only protects manually operated printing presses."

If you want to argue clones, babies born from in vitro fertilization, and so forth wouldn't have counted as posterity to the Founders, that's one thing. But mostly posterity, unlike firearms, are still produced the old-fashioned way. So your simile fails.

"last time I checked, the Preamble is not legally binding in any fashion"

On no, then what shall become of Vox's nonexistent "It's the Law!" argument?

Anonymous Aslan's Paw June 25, 2017 10:39 PM  

This is devastating. This might be in fact, the biggest fisking in the history of fiskings:

"(Kratman) is correct that the nativist argument makes no sense in logic or law or history or linguistics.

In terms of logic, had the Founders intended to forbid naturalization, they would have done so. Had they wished naturalized citizens not to enjoy the same rights as the native born, again, they would have done so....

In terms of pure folly, the argument that America is only meant for direct descendants of the Seed of England ignores that the greatest source of danger to our American Liberties comes precisely from this oldest bloodline: the children of the Massachusetts Bay and New York are all staunch Politically Correct limousine liberals and SJWs."

http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/06/ourselves-and-our-posterity/

Will the alt-right reply with reason and gentlemanly vigor, or will they virtue signal and screech (in German accents) like the alt-Reich? We shall see!

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 10:41 PM  

118. S1AL June 25, 2017 5:22 PM
Just as soon as you take Ruth's oath and are accepted by the Israelis, sure.



just as soon as we re-instate the Founder's requirement to renounce all foreign allegiances and be White ( and Jews do so love to tell me that they're not White ), then we'll have something to agree on.

i'm not holding my breath either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XYMRAoqVmY


132. Nick S June 25, 2017 5:45 PM
That's what editors are for.



Vox hasn't hired Nate for proofreading, has he?



147. Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:19 PM
Considering the constitution as a *means* to an *intent*, the means is still what it is, and explicitly allows for immigration, and naturalization to citizenship.



and also allows for immigration and naturalization to be grossly restricted or even completely halted.

which has been done numerous times in the past, when the refusal of existing immigrants to assimilate became unacceptable to We The People.

except now the PROGRESSIVES lambaste us as Fascists for doing what Americans have voted to do for centuries.

which PROGRESSIVES also insist upon telling us that they are the True Conservatives, even as they destroy the Posterity of the Nation.

and then they pretend to wonder why they can't keep fags and perverts out of the women's bathrooms.


147. Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:19 PM
And then there's that pesky 14th amendment. That's part of the Constitution as well.


all of the Reconstruction Amendments are INVALID as Law.

every single one of the Southern States was forced to ratify the Recon Amendments under Duress. and Duress is absolutely disqualifying to ALL CONTRACTS. which is what the Constitution is.

anyone who asserts that Amendments 13, 14 and 15 are enforceable is unfit to practice Law or sit as a Judge.

yes, i am fully aware that you think me crazed. just as i am also fully aware that i have just said that every bar association and law school in the country should be disbanded for willful malpractice and violation of their oaths to uphold the Law.

i'm not holding my breath over that either.


151. Ceasar June 25, 2017 6:37 PM
How long does Tom K(r)atman think it took to get from Nigeria to the US colonies in 1787?



ummm, a couple of weeks? certainly less than a month, the entire Atlantic Slave triangle could be sailed in less than two months.


165. Armed Hobbit June 25, 2017 7:27 PM
My kids who my wife adopted in Panama


if your wife wears the pants in your family, why do i care what your opinion is?


Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 10:42 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:But the word "collectivist" is suddenly popping up like a bad penny in criticisms of the Right,

Conservatives always lie.
Conservatives always double down.
Conservatives always project. .... Collectivism is a Conservative feature, not an Alt-Right feature. Conservatives subsume their individual identity into the great sentimental mush of Conservativism. Alt Right is dynamic.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 10:45 PM  

226. LurkingPuppy
All Tonya would have to do is deny it. You don't think he's not reading this right now ? You know damn well he is.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 10:47 PM  

230. Northern Observer

Entitlement has little to do with it. The founders obviously meant white and Christian when they created the nation and wrote the constitution.

Their own writings makes this clear as does the existence of slavery and the exclusion of Indians from citizenship.

it's going to include hundreds of millions of people who have no genetic link to the 'original' Americans at all.

It would include a great number but a large number of Americans are related by blood to the original thirteen colonists.

The idea of a White American Nation that includes whites with no genetic ties to the original Americans seems untenable.

Why?

If the nation was tenable in 1950, why would the exclusion of minorities render it untenable?

The massive influx of minority groups and the civil rights nonsense may have currently rendered it untenable but I see no reason why a "White American Nation" would not be viable. Not sure I see your reasoning on this.

Obviously regionalism may make that a moot point as things degenerate.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 10:51 PM  

Collectivism is a charge libertarians make against the argument that there are any group interests at any level, including the nation. Go read what libertarians/Austrians write about statistics like GDP. They literally claim there is no nation, that trade deficits don't really matter because it's made up of lots of individuals acting in their self-interest. When you come along and argue there's a nation, that we should have some policies we agree on, if you believe you should help your countrymen before saving a penny by importing from Vietnam, then you are by their definition a collectivist. For them it is a straight line slippery slope from that to full on socialism/communism.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 10:57 PM  

@223-"Realize too that in the 18th century, the foremost 'Republic' that would come to mind was the United Provinces"

I'm fairly certain foremost in their mind was classical Rome. They had the idea, too, that all republics turned to crap but This Time Is Different.

"synonymous for a couple of centuries as a place of refuge for despised minorities from all over Europe"

Yes, our Pilgrim Fathers fled persecution to stay there...for a bit. Then they came over here and acted more or less like Good Englishmen for a couple of centuries.

For whatever off reason people enlarge minor things like the Dutch Republic, the Venetian Republic,the Corsican Republic, or whatever, and take for granted the painfully obvious like American and English culture and politics.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 25, 2017 11:09 PM  

240. Sharrukin

"Why?"

Because they are not the posterity.

The argument is untenable. The nation is unviable.

'Americans' are either just the posterity or they are not just the posterity.

I agree with you that the massive influx on people with incompatible cultures, religions, genetic predispositions has made the US less viable. Strict immigration controls and rules for citizenship based on compatibility are absolutely needed.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 11:13 PM  

@241-That's mostly a pose, though. The idea that any social relations that aren't 100% voluntary are tainted with Original Sin, or however it goes in their heads. I think I understand the motivation. They have a mania for consistency, because they're mad rationalists. They also will do anything to avoid being called commies.

Most importantly, teasing what is permissible supra-individualism is HARD. Even your mother, who loves you, may be a tyrant. Your property might be theft if someone hit someone else in the head with a club 2,000 years ago. History is hard. The law is hard. Economics is hard. Politics is hard.

Much easier to abide by a simple template that gives you most answers immediately. If it makes you crazy, or if it bears no relation to the way human beings actually live, that's a small price to pay.

Anonymous Eduardo June 25, 2017 11:15 PM  

You know what I find funny... The counties in the USA with majority English descendants all vote Left pretty much.

Think about... Pantsuit would have won if it wasn't for German descendants and Southern people who mostly deem themselves of American Descent.

The Fathers Posterity has not exactly cared to keep the most perfect Republic intact.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 11:16 PM  

239. jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 10:45 PM
All Tonya would have to do is deny it.


i'm agnostic on the question of whether AH is a Kratman sock puppet or someone else simulating TK.

but AH does have Kratman's habit of arguing himself into absurd logical corners.

either AH can admit that his wife makes the decisions in the family

or

AH can admit that when it comes time to stand to account for his own decisions, he chooses to hide behind his wife's skirts.

a Man doesn't blame his wife for the national origin of his children. his choice to likewise adopt those children was entirely his own.

it's the Sin of Adam, the same as ever it was.

Anonymous roo_ster June 25, 2017 11:17 PM  

1. As a former civic nationalist / proposition nationalist the straight reading of the preamble, fed papers, af papers, and such regarding posterity makes me more than a bit embarased that i did not note it earlier in life.

2. TK can be a persuasive writer but his emotions leave gaping holes in his arguments that he attempts to patch up with bluster. Some may be impressed by such but others of us have backgrounds similar to TKs and are not so easily buffaloed by it. One example was a frothing emotional tirade that included a denunciation of rhetoric and how any argument that was dishonest in part was totally invalid. He did this whilst using rhetoric and shading the truth. Not impressed.

3. I sure hope TK is not engaging in sock puppetry. That would be disappointing.

4. The strident civic nationalist rainbow coalitionism in TK works stuck out when i first read them and now is even more apparent and a bit of an impediment. His nonfiction still holds up well.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 11:20 PM  

243. Northern Observer

'Americans' are either just the posterity or they are not just the posterity.

Well they are obviously both at this point.

That is the reality that we face.

So we have to go on from here and create something that is viable.

The new Brazil del Norte isn't it.

That leaves white nationalism.

What else is there? Civil war or low level violence in the future doesn't change the reality that multi-culturalism doesn't work.

Anonymous CoolHand June 25, 2017 11:21 PM  

John Wright wrote:" Tom's import wife and mystery meat kids should disqualify him from any objective analysis of this issue."

This sentence, by itself, shows the intellectual bankruptcy of collectivism. Leftists peddle this exact same type of ad hom BS because they have no argument.


Mr Wright, while it doesn't (or shouldn't) dismiss his argument outright, this state of affairs surely informs how he came to hold this position in the first place.

It is not simply coincidental that his family and friends would be adversely effected by the thing he so vociferously opposes. Whether he'll admit to it or not, his situation shapes his opinion.

He wants everyone to get along, but if that's not possible, he says he'll kill anyone who acts against his friends/family. He chose his side, and it ain't ours. Such is every man's right.

I'm a redneck (which is a sub-species of white guy), and all my friends and family are as well.

It is not coincidental that my preference is for the invading hordes to go back. I too have chosen my side.

I want to be left alone, to work in my machine shop and raise a family of my own.

But, if I'm forced to chose between fighting or allowing me and mine to be over run by invaders, I'll fight. It's not what I want, but if it comes to that, I'll not run.

If Kratman wants to force the rest of us to accept living in Mexico City or Mogadishu because he can't bring himself to realize where his loyalties actually lie, then he IS the enemy.

Anonymous Eduardo June 25, 2017 11:24 PM  

Brasil Do Norte seems like a fun idea lol. Ironic basically. What country has Brazil always attempted to imitate with ridiculously bad results? U. S. A.

But now you will become us... Poetic in a bad sense.

Anonymous MegaAvallonn June 25, 2017 11:26 PM  

202:

"Whiteyness aint sufficient. Neither is it necessary."

On paper, a white nation isn't necessary nor sufficient to have, for example, freedom of speech - it's a conclusion we as alt-righters have come to accept. I've seen much of the brown, or as many Liberals would like to euphemize, "coloured" world over the years. In the "coloured" world - there's no such thing as freedom of speech. I actually spoke to many of the everyday people in these 3rd world countries, and I found, much to my shock and dismay, that a great many of them DON'T WANT freedom of speech. That if we gave them freedom of speech today; they would vote it out tomorrow. The irony is that's exactly what "coloured" immigrants right now are doing in the United States. They're voting away their freedoms in the place of the very so called oppression they were trying to flee. Instead of shouting raaaaacist, maybe you should ask yourself why is this? Does genetics possibly play a role?

"Notice that multi ethnic whitey mongrel US has held out against statism much better than the relatively pure whitey ethnostates of Europe."

My theory is that eugenics has a lot more to do with this than "hybrid vigour." The smartest white people are Germans and Dutch. The USA accepted many of Germany's and the Netherland's brightest as immigrants throughout history. America essentially plucked the smartest white people away from Europe and now Europe is paying a price. Oddly enough, America's immigration tactics before 1965 were ruthlessly eugenic vs. the dysgenic immigration we have after 1965.

Blogger Al Smith June 25, 2017 11:27 PM  

I don't know if anyone recalls the old Star Trek TOS episode "Omega Glory," but it quotes the Preamble including "posterity."

It seems all the more relevant because the Yangs (Yanks:white) are taking back their land from the Kohms (Commies:nonwhites).

Anonymous CoolHand June 25, 2017 11:36 PM  

Eduardo wrote:But now you will become us... Poetic in a bad sense.

See, this is why I hate poetry.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy June 25, 2017 11:46 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) wrote:239. jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 10:45 PM
All Tonya would have to do is deny it.

i'm agnostic on the question of whether AH is a Kratman sock puppet or someone else simulating TK.

It's the same person as ‘Catholic Crusader’ who quoted John C. Wright yesterday-ish, and the same person who had claimed to be a Justin Amash supporter for a while before that. (I think that started after a semi-real Amash supporter, or some other type of shill claiming to be one, posted one or two comments on a post here.)

but AH does have Kratman's habit of arguing himself into absurd logical corners.
It always does that, because it's trying to be a parody. It's just not funny anymore.

Blogger Artisanal Toad June 26, 2017 12:41 AM  

Following one line of my family, that particular great-great grandfather was born in 1794 in Frederick County, Maryland (now Montgomery County). His father was born in 1754 in Frederick County and he (along with several other family members) fought in the Revolutionary war. His father was born in 1711 in Prince George's County, Maryland and his father was born in 1660 in Calvert County Maryland. His father was born in England and came to the colonies as a child.

And, yes, that family line is distinguished by men marrying much younger women after their wife died and fathering children when they were old men. That particular great-great grandfather sired my great grandfather when he was 71 years old and that was not his last child. He was 42 years older than his (3rd) wife.

If I follow another line of my family, that great-great grandfather never left Italy. His son (my great-grandfather) was born in Italy in 1874 and came to the United States in 1907. His son, my grandfather, was born in Pennsylvania, 154 days prior to his father naturalizing as a US citizen.

Of my 16 great-grandparents, nine are descendants of individuals who were present in the colonies at the time of the American Revolution. With the exception of the Italians, the rest are descendants of people who immigrated in the late 1700's to early 1800's. Those were either from France, fleeing the French Revolution, or from England, fleeing the industrial revolution.

There is no question the majority of my great-great grandparents were the posterity the founders spoke of. The question is not whether that Italian addition to the family "taint's" me enough that I'm not part of the posterity. If my Italian great-grandparents had been a full-blooded Indian instead of Italian, I could be collecting my share of the profits from some tribe's casino business. If any of my 16 great-great grandparents were descendants of the "We the People" of 1787, I'm part of the posterity.

My children have only 50% of my DNA. My grandchildren have only 25% and great-grandchildren only 12.5%, but they are still my posterity. Mine because part of me lives on in them. And it keeps going like that. But it begs the question of who the "We the People" referred to.

I suppose that is why organizations like the daughters of the American Revolution exist. It wasn't enough to have been resident in the colonies during the revolution, because plenty of those residents supported the British in that war. Arguably the "We the People" of the Constitution was referring to the patriots, not the loyalists, thus the DAR members point to the fact that they ARE part of the posterity.


Blogger Fred Carter June 26, 2017 12:47 AM  

VD has a stronger argument. When we consider the context the founders would have been coming from based on what we know of the times, it makes no sense to assume they would have held the views needed for TK's argument to hold weight. Further, even if he were right, the 1790 immigration act the founders created would define the scope of TK's definition of Posterity.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy June 26, 2017 12:51 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:I was just noticing a broader pattern beyond that. We've been hearing the "everyone to my right is really on the left" whine from conservatives since the election, of course. But the word "collectivist" is suddenly popping up like a bad penny in criticisms of the Right, and not just in the comments here.
Kratman has said that the Nazis were right-wing, IIRC because of the means they used to try to perfect man. That stuck out to me at the time, because I thought perfecting man was a Leftist goal. And I've seen “Alt-Right = SJW” before, so it's about time that the Commies tried turning that into a meme.

Eric S. Raymond expressed the root of their error concisely:There's a truism that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. The corollary is that evil is best known not by its motives but by its *methods*.
It's rhetoric, not dialectic, but it seems plausible at first.

Bear in mind that ESR also defines libertarianism based on the ‘Non-Coercion Principle’: “No person should be coerced by force or fraud except in response to coercion by force or fraud.” (quote from memory) When I read that, it was the first time I had seen the Left's preferred strategy of ‘non-violent’ lying equated with violence. (Now I know that the Left was lying about being non-violent, and ESR was (nearly?) alone among libertarians in equating fraud with force.)

Now apply “evil is best known not by its motives but by its *methods*” to the Non-Coercion Principle, or the Non-Aggression Principle, or the principle of sending cops with guns to imprison or kill people who have committed kidnapping or murder. Oops.

Blogger JP June 26, 2017 12:55 AM  

"the intellectual bankruptcy of collectivism".

Are you saying that democracy itself is illegitimate? How is representation even possible without collectivism?

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 1:08 AM  

Basically because Democracy asually assumes a homogeneous people.

So the desires of the people are somewhat in the same vein.

Another thing, is good to remember that Collectivism is not group, the Collectivist acts always benefit of the Group, so if killing yourself would allow the group to be better, so be it.

Representation is to give voice to one group's voice. So this particular group here has voted and decided this, so the representer will fight for that decision.

Anonymous tublecane June 26, 2017 1:10 AM  

@257-"the Nazis were right-wing, IIRC because of the means they used to try to perfect man...I thought perfecting man was a leftist goal."

Don't you remember the New Nazi Man?

No, wait, that was the New Soviet Man.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 1:13 AM  

For instance a Hilarious part is that the Alt-Right loves to make fun of Africa, for being Africa. But guess what happened there to cause it to be so bad.

Diversity+Proximity.

Mostly done by white people then perpetuated by fudged up black people that wanted money and power. But their wars are always the same, different people under the same government, identity politics takes over, long standing hatred takes over, and mass graves are created. Hence Ethinical Cleansing.

Anonymous tublecane June 26, 2017 1:13 AM  

@259-Could you try that again in English?

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 1:33 AM  

@262

Yeahhh taking away the fact not even can fully understand what I said lol.

Okay okay... Representation does assume that you are representing a group of people in a Congress or a Parliament. However that is not the same as collectivism. Collectivism places the group first. For instance: You won't marry an Indian woman that you like because that would be a detriment to the White Race. You are basically putting the White Race (Your Group) ahead of you. Another way to define this, is to think that a collectivist's actions in society are entirely or mostly guided by benefitting the collective/group and putting personal benefit after the group.

That bit about Democracy was not really necessary, although democracy does tend to assume very little internal attrition among the people.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 26, 2017 1:56 AM  

MegaAvallonn wrote:202:

1) On paper, a white nation isn't necessary nor sufficient to have, for example, freedom of speech - it's a conclusion we as alt-righters have come to accept.

2) Does genetics possibly play a role?

3) My theory is that eugenics has a lot more to do with this than "hybrid vigour." The smartest white people are Germans and Dutch.



1) I presume you don't assume it is sufficient. I grant that it *may* be necessary in practical terms. Then again, maybe not.

2) In fact, almost certainly has something to do with genetics, as much of personality is genetic, and personality correlates with politics.

3) I'll buy that smarter is probably good, AEBE. But diversity itself *can* be an advantage too, whether mutts or mixtures of purebreeds. Checks and balances.

See anyone else but Whitey apologizing for being born? Eager to commit societal suicide with pathological altruism? (I have a theory that *that* is genetic too.)

Maybe leavening with a chunk of *smart* unapologetic Asians could be good for a Whitey polity. Not unpossible, right?

Also, maybe a pretty damn good thing geopolitically for Whitey. More Asians in the world than Whites, and they seem to be a little smarter. Certainly competitive. Increasing the ties of blood between the countries may help limit hostilities.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 1:59 AM  

@245 You are wrong about America's demographics, their geographic distribution and their voting patterns.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 26, 2017 2:03 AM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:

Any time you'd care to read a few hundred thousand words of bloviation on this topic, you can always check out the original moldbuggian hypothesis at



I've read a chunk of the Moldbug's bloviations. Good times.

I'm sure I got the idea from him. But he seemed to take SJWs as ideological descendants as Puritans, not actual genetic descendants. I don't recall him ever getting into demographics on the topic, though I may have just not gotten to those posts.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 2:06 AM  

265. Bobby Farr
Eduardo is from Brazil, of course he doesn't know what he's talking about. In all fairness, I don't know about Brazilian politics nor do I give a damn about it.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 2:15 AM  

@265

I find a bit funny, but looking at an American Ancestry Map, where it color codes each county depending on which ancestry is more prevalent in that County, I get the impression that ... English Ancestry is actually more related to Blue States then Red States.

Now maybe English descendants don't vote as much thus letting other peoples vote more important, but still... Shouldn't the English vote more Right then Left, and shouldn't they vote more since they understand better what is at stake?

Now I would have to count counties in these maps to see the percentage, but where the English are the majority... lots of Blue.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 2:17 AM  

"See anyone else but Whitey apologizing for being born? "
This white boy ain't never apologized for being born,never will.
You want a country of mutts ? Move your ass to Cuba. I have a feeling you'd like it there.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 2:19 AM  

@267

Look at Map Mosby >>>> MAP

When Vox was talking about English Ancestry I went on and looked up this map, and was a bit impressed about the distribution.

And about Brazilian politics... good for you XD, because it sucks! Is just 50 shades of Leftism.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 26, 2017 2:25 AM  

260. tublecane June 26, 2017 1:10 AM
Don't you remember the New Nazi Man?


let's not be silly.

Hitler was quite fixated on the perfection of the ideal Aryan Man and Woman. that's why the first victims of the Nazi murder machine were the Aryan infants and children who had been born disabled. that's also a large part of the reason for the Hitler Youth and the recreation camps; insuring that the populace got plenty of exercise and became the best and healthiest 'animals' that they could be. Hitler also encouraged those men who most closely approached the Aryan 'ideal' to have children by many women.

he wasn't joking when he was talking about eugenics.

Hitler simply chose to draw his class distinctions on Racial lines, rather than the Economic ones that Marx had chosen.

thus, the National Socialist 'ideal man' was based on genetics while the Communist 'ideal man' is based on ideology and economic status.


264. Buybuydandavis June 26, 2017 1:56 AM
More Asians in the world than Whites, and they seem to be a little smarter.


depends which Asians and which Whites you're talking about.

lots of Asians don't score particularly well on IQ tests. Indians, for instance. Filipinos for another. Han Chinese? yeah, they average pretty good. Han test about as well as WASP Presbyterians.

as it happens, Whites have a much wider distribution in the bell than Asians do though, so the average is somewhat irrelevant. we still throw off many more high IQ individuals, as a percentage, than the Chinese do.

however the Chinese population is so large that that may not matter. i think i remember seeing a citation once that China probably had more +120 IQ students than the entire student population of the USA? something like that.

even if we match or exceed them in the total number of +150s ( or whatever ), that's a lot of mental horsepower to overcome.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 2:32 AM  

Eduardo, The county I like in is overwhelmingly English, Scots English, (me ) Scots Irish and Irish, as well as overwhemingly Protestant .
Go back and look at SW Mississippi on your map and get back to me.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 2:40 AM  

Well it ... doesn't show it here. It is all African American on the SouthWest of the State.

u_u trying to say this map is all lies?

------------------

Which would be funny, I mean who lies about this?!?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 26, 2017 2:41 AM  

Eduardo
When Vox was talking about English Ancestry I went on and looked up this map, and was a bit impressed about the distribution.


i haven't done an in depth look at the numbers but that map seems to weight WAY too many counties as majority African. Mississippi, for instance, is 61% White and 36% African but has only one county listed as majority British with the vast majority of counties being at least plurality of African. the same critique applies to all of those 'unknown' counties in Kentucky and West Virginia and the like.

i'm betting that if you were to do genetic assays on the population that you're going to find a BUNCH of English and Scots / Scots-Irish there.

it looks like someone is actively trying to conceal the British and Scots-Irish ( who aren't broken out at all ) heritage of the former Confederate States for some reason.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 2:42 AM  

Never mind, I just looked at it myself.
Eduardo, if you believe that map, I got a beach house in Santa Fe I'll let you have,cheap. The county I live in and the 4 of 5 surrounding it are majority white, not pickaninny.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 26, 2017 2:46 AM  

https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-187

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 2:55 AM  

@274
Truthfully, I also thought it was weird the distribution, but like I said.... who lies about this XD. Or who gets the number wrong, this is so simple a monkey do it.

That is what you get for just trusting your average demographics map...

Man, who would hide anything about the Confederacy.

Keep a straight face Mando ... Hold it in... Just hold it...

@275

Assuming you are right, the map is so off the spotter couldn't tell where the shot went and went on to take the sniper a BB gun.

Which is technically good for the English.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 26, 2017 3:03 AM  

275. jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 2:42 AM
The county I live in and the 4 of 5 surrounding it are majority white



yeah, but if you split the White population into British, French, German, Italian, etc, it may actually be true that no particular sub-grouping of Whites exceeds the 36% ( or whatever ) of the county that is African, even though the total 'White' percentage is well north of 50.

the bigger problem is that so many counties ( almost all of Kentucky, most of Tennessee ) are listed as 'unknown'. that's what really clues you in that they weren't very rigorous when they compiled this.

you combine splitting the White demography at least six different ways ( did they bother splitting the Africans out by tribe of origin? of course not ) with their sloppiness in identifying pop origin at all and you give way, WAY too many counties to Africans. probably gave too many counties to other minority groups as well.

excepting Virginia, every single state of the Confederacy voted for Trump.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map

that's kind of hard to do if Africans voted 90% for Hillary AND all of the counties claimed are 'majority' ( or even plurality ) African.

Anonymous CoolHand June 26, 2017 3:06 AM  

Eduardo wrote:@267

Look at Map Mosby >>>> MAP


You're not familiar enough county by county voting patterns to realize that the map you linked to refutes your claim itself.

Of the areas that are majority British descent, nearly all of them voted for Trump in the last election (if you go county by county) the trouble is that in those New England states, all but one or two counties are irrelevant because of the presences of one large city.

The British parts of Maine are red. The British parts of New York state are red. The entire state of New Hampshire is red (just barely, but still). The British parts of Virginia are red, as are the British parts of both Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, etc, etc.

County by county, the "Majority British Descent = Republican" hypothesis holds up.

Where it breaks down is on the state level in the northeast because you have those giant liberal cities filled with not-British folks who vastly outnumber the entire rest of the state.

Also, I would dispute the veracity of that map as it goes westward, because in my area (middle of Missouri), they're showing nearly the entire state as German descent, and that's just not the case, and hasn't ever been, as far as I know. There are counties in MO that are definitely of heavily Germanic descent, but they are very easy to identify when moving through them.

And anyway, this is one of those areas where the "white" vs "10k European Flavors of Honky" is going to get very hard to discern, because while a lot of folks came from Germany, it was in the 1820's and 30's, so it's going to be very hard to tell many of us apart from your garden variety Scots-Irish redneck without genetic testing, as we blend into TN and KY without much issue, and vice versa.

I think politically it is more useful to think about whites in the US on an urban vs rural scale instead of individual nationalities, especially west of the Appalachian Mountains where people generally aren't clustered together tightly enough to form ethnic enclaves like they do back east (you'll not find any Little Italy's out here in BFE Missouri, for instance).

That same theme on identity politics holds for Latins, Blacks, and Asians as well, as there aren't going to be enough Koreans outside of the west coast for them to wholly segregate themselves from other Asian nationalities like they might in a big city like San Francisco.

Hell, in any given little town where I live in MO, the number of blacks and asians living there may well be so small that they integrate and behave just like the redneck white folks around them. Used to be the same way with Mexicans and other central americans, but their numbers are gradually climbing such that they are able to self segregate much more often. It's the same for blacks in STL, KC, Jefferson City, and Columbia.

This complication is why I fear the shit storm (when it finally happens) will be so much worse in the US than anywhere else.

I think it will probably not shake out the same here in the US as it does everywhere else either, and for the same reasons.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 3:08 AM  

@276

Interesting, in that Map Black people would have to be +50% minimun. Whatever happened... was horribly wrong. I mean it looks like they asked mostly blacks in the Census or most white people are closet Mestizos.

Weird XD!

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 26, 2017 3:12 AM  

277. Eduardo June 26, 2017 2:55 AM
who lies about this XD


Marxists lie about everything. they never stop lying.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 3:16 AM  

Cooper Center is out of Cal State Fullerton ,according to Infogalactic. No way those galiforniacs would put out a demographic map worthy of the round file ( rubbish bin for our furrin readers. ) There is all you need to know about that map, Eduardo.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 3:19 AM  

@278

Yeah that would explain, but still look AT HOW MANY counties! Is the Entire UnderBellum (sort of).

@279

CoolHand, That is very likely true that non-Whites in big Liberal Mordors will bias the votes heavily towards the Left, but there are States like Vermont, and if the Map is correct, it voted Blue in ALL COUNTIES, and it is pretty much as british as it goes with a single French Strong hold.

I think I have to look at the numbers, this map is too ambiguous to actually have any good premises about it.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 3:22 AM  

@280 Many states in the SE have blacks as the largest ethnic group because there is no catchall category for old stock whites. Instead, they are divided between American, English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, Welsh, Cornish and other categories. This results in blacks having the largest plurality.

I haven't looked for a few years but seem to recall only the Mormon states (Utah and Idaho) having English as the largest ancestry group, along with Maine, NH and, perhaps, VT.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 3:24 AM  

Mosby and Mando

Funny is that it is supposely created by the Census Bureau. So who knows, gotta find the actual numbers, because you put so many holes in it, it has become just a pretty color spread.

BTW Mosby, technically, they are referencing other people, so it is not straight out of Just-#CalExit-Already State.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 3:33 AM  

The Cooper Center map seems to conform with what I remember reading about the 2010 stats but with the exception that they have a "British" category that reflects what I recall the results being for the English. I don't know if they actually went through and combined all the British ethnic groups or are just stupidly using the term to mean English.

See e.g. this map from 2000, which uses English, not British http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408591/American-ethnicity-map-shows-melting-pot-ethnicities-make-USA-today.html

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 3:37 AM  

And apparently the census left off the ancestry question in 2010, lest it encourage BadThink. So these maps must be based on 2000 data.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 3:38 AM  

You mean the Obama census Bureau, Eduardo.
That also has a lot to do with that phony baloney drawn up map.

Anonymous Eduardo June 26, 2017 3:48 AM  

Well, where are we suppose to find an ancestry map then XD if the Mighty Government

Now now Mosby is not like I would attempt to search for the word Ancestry in their site and I would find: "We the People of Arab Descent in the United States". I mean nothing really comes to mind when I read this. The census is a good boy, he was about to straight his life up...

And yes Bob, apparently it has stopped in the year 2000.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 26, 2017 4:00 AM  

They had more nigras than all the Tarzan moofies ever made doing the Census in my county in 20 10 . and they counted dilapidated/unlivable houses around here as being occupied.Now who do you think Tyeshia put down as living in a pile of sticks with a crumbling chimney ? anyone want to take a guess ?

Anonymous tublecane June 26, 2017 4:15 AM  

@271-"let's not be silly.

Hitler was quite fixated on the perfection of the ideal Aryan Man and Woman."

The point, if you followed the discussion, was that you can't conclude right-wingedness on the basis of Hitlerian perfection fixation. Not that there was no such fixation.

Commies are obsessed with the infinite perfectibility of man, as evidenced by the popular phrase New Soviet Man. If anyone wants to call commies right-wing, that's another discussion.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 4:22 AM  

OT but I recalled looking at this ancestry map over a decade ago in response to reading about the BNP's repatriation program (wanted to see what the scale of such a program would look like in the US). If you look at the BNP's immigration plan now, it is only a bit to the right of Trump and well within the mainstream Alt Right.

https://bnp.org.uk/policies/immigration/

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 26, 2017 4:25 AM  

In the US White is an ethnicity by itself and baring someone being visibly not White I suspect most people aren't going to care very much. I think this will also be the dominant ethnicity and it will include quite a few people who are someone inclined to soft civic nationalism though 100% say Northern/Western European and while they could go live among the Neo Nazis they aren't going to want to

The main controversy is going to be mulattoes, some darker half mestizos and visible mixes, mostly Asians.

The bulk of mixed people, say part Ashkenazim or "had a Mexican grandma" or "1/8" Cherokee or "1/4" Thai or the like might be screened on political grounds but will have to go live in the civic nationalist areas rather than the W.H.I.N.E (White Nationalist Enclave)

A personal example, years ago I had a friend who was provably 1/4 Dakota Sioux, had papers, way before fake casino Indians. He was pretty indistinguishable from any White person physically and culturally. He couldn't have kids but if he had, baring a D.N.A. test no one would really notice and I suspect no one will care

My guess if a collapse comes is there will be many states political and religious depending on a host of factors

The Alt Right state will be default Christian, tolerant of Catholics and not persecuting quiet Pagans

The Alt Light /Soft Civic Nationalist state might persecute Muslims but tolerate everything else and this is where visibly and politically mixed folks will probably live

A W.H.I.N.E. might happen if they grow numerous, it will be mostly Northern/Western European

and of course there will be a Mormon Deseret composed of Utah and whatever contiguous lands that are mostly LDS already

and of course there will be various ethnic homelands, some turf might end up lost to Mexico or some La Raza /Drug Lord turned Baron type, various Black Nationalists and anyone else white enough muscle to take some land .

Now the ideal would be an .Alt Right or .Alt Medium (uncucked Alt Light) takeover putting CONUS under either of these groups (The .Alt Light is a wee bit cucked so its a no go for ruling) but I have no way to know how it could be made to work.

Blogger VD June 26, 2017 5:07 AM  

However, your argument that "us and our posterity" applies only to genetic descendents of Americans at that time, makes about as much sense as claiming that 2nd Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder weapons, and that "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment only protects manually operated printing presses.

Historical facts don't have to "make sense". They simply are. Especially since "posterity" is a concept that literally requires application from past to future.

Also, last time I checked, the Preamble is not legally binding in any fashion.

It's more important than the law. It provides the basis for the law and either legitimates or renders it illegitimate.

Blogger Texas Cyberthal June 26, 2017 6:20 AM  

4 When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were building a temple for the Lord, the God of Israel, 2 they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, “Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here.”

3 But Zerubbabel, Joshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel answered, “You have no part with us in building a temple to our God. We alone will build it for the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, commanded us.”

4 Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building.[a] 5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Blogger phunktor June 26, 2017 6:37 AM  

TK appears to be that rara avis, a smart mean drunk who stays smart while shredding discretion and inhibition. For values of smart, mean, and drunk that I hardly fathom.

The whole conversation would work better in Portuguese-American - but neither Constitutional exegesis nor Nehemiah is going to change the mind of even the most religious of Usaians.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 26, 2017 8:16 AM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) wrote:

a) 147. Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:19 PM

and also allows for immigration and naturalization to be grossly restricted or even completely halted.

b) 147. Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:19 PM

And then there's that pesky 14th amendment. That's part of the Constitution as well.

all of the Reconstruction Amendments are INVALID as Law.
...
yes, i am fully aware that you think me crazed.


a) Yup

b) Not crazy, or at least not so much more than I am. I similarly view much of the Supreme Court expansion of state power in the 20th Century as illegitimate.

But even under your argument, the illegitimacy of the 13th and above amendments would only hold in the Confederate States of America, yes?

In my case, though, I'm holding illegitimate extra constitutional changes to the constitution by a handful of Supremes.

You're holding it illegitimate that a civil war had extra constitutional consequences. But that's what civil wars are for.

You're crazier than I am.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 26, 2017 8:36 AM  

Sharrukin wrote:192. Buybuydandavis

It means there is no Proposition Nation. There never was.


The citizens established a government. In that establishment, they left the rules of naturalization of immigrants to the legislature. They could do it by race, and they did. And they could change those rules. And they did. They could stop doing it by race, and they did.

If you don't want to call the resulting citizens a nation, that's fine by me. It's contrary to a lot of usage, but if it makes you happy, knock yourself out.

Citizens can make a successful go of a polity with certain immigration standards, or they can't. Withholding a label from the result doesn't change the result.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 26, 2017 8:48 AM  

@236 tublecane
@217-"your argument that 'us and our posterity' applies only to genetic descendants of Americans at the time, makes about as much sense as claiming that 2nd Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder weapons, and that 'freedom of the press' in the First Amendment only protects manually operated printing presses."

"If you want to argue clones, babies born from in vitro fertilization, and so forth wouldn't have counted as posterity to the Founders, that's one thing. But mostly posterity, unlike firearms, are still produced the old-fashioned way. So your simile fails"

Note the embedded assumption in this simile, in a broader sense, is that human nature "progresses," just as technology does.

Blogger wreckage June 26, 2017 8:52 AM  

@298, and then they can change it back if they want.

But your core argument seems to be that we must accept a final result of "failed state", because mumble mumble mumble.

Were you frothing earlier about your IQ?

Anonymous paulmat June 26, 2017 9:28 AM  

@166 VD

"But I didn't truly understand why. Now, I have a deeper, though not complete, grasp on it. And that's all I'm really seeking to do, is understand why events are playing out as they are."

Your understanding is incorrect as is shown by our fellow failing European nations. If having a homogeneous ethnic nation was the great safeguard then the northern European countries and the UK would not be dying to the sword of Islam. It was the ethnically homogeneous Swedes that invited in the murderous horde, so too with the Germans and British. There were no outsiders in those countries for which you can blame their disastrous decision on.

In America it is the Mayflower descendant New Englanders who are the leaders of leftism. How does your theory rectify the fact that it is the descendants of original colonists themselves that for over a century now continue to undermine the pillars of our society? Today they use racial minorities as political tools just like their British cousins back in the UK use poor whites as political tools.

Your explanation fails to explain why Ireland, Poland, and to a lesser extent Spain and Italy are not being taken by the sword, but Germany, Sweden, England and France are. Ethnically pure Sweden is killing itself while Hungary and Russia are not.

You will have to kill your sacred cow to understand what is going on. Examine non-Catholicism and see what you find. As I see it the more Catholic / Orthodox a country is, the more likely its society will culturally survive going forwards.

Group Catholic / Orthodox: Poland, Ireland, Russia, Hungary, Spain, Italy

Group non-Catholic: USA, UK, Germany, Sweden, France (France is Catholic but mass attendance is nearing 0%)

Which of these groups of countries do you think will best survive culturally going forwards?

You think it is race or some local culture that keeps people together. You have been proven wrong by the many homogeneous European countries that are willfully dying to the sword of Islam. Your theory also lacks historical scope as homogeneous France wrecked itself in the French Revolution as did the Nazis and Soviets.

Your monomania is intellectually embarrassing. The much more intellectually defensible position is that it is Leftism that is destroying the West, no matter what race, religion, or background the leftist has.

To that I would also note that Catholic / Orthodox countries are holding out far better than the Protestant ones. In a hundred years Germany has a good chance of being majority Muslim and under Sharia law whereas Ireland will still be Ireland and Italy still Italy.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 9:45 AM  

@301 You seem to ignore the fact that WASPs overwhelmingly vote right wing (well, GOP, which is the closest option generally available) and hold right of center opinions, which would seem to disprove your point regardless of whether there may be some among the leftist leadership.

You blame Protestantism while ignoring the fact that the Catholic/Orthodox countries you list are much poorer and therefore less attractive to migrants. Also, the Irish have been gutted by immigration over the last two decades - down to 85% of the population of Ireland and responded by electing a foreigner as prime minister.

Anonymous DreadIlkZee June 26, 2017 10:01 AM  

The genetic aurgument has the problem in that it does not achieve its goal. Genetically the american black is desendent of the original stock now as almost none have pure african genetics. For better or worse they are us. Hispanics is a different matter but if we keep with the genetic aurgunent then half breed is entitked to the US heratage.

TK aurgement axcepts the exceptional cases but makes the falacy of treating all people who land here with the magic dirt fallocy.

I see truth in both TK and VD ideas but the question is where does the line get crossed? Both have the issue of nonintigrating cultures which is where we have the problem. In that respect both fail but both have potential to succeed.

VD is not gracious enough to the immigrant and TK is to accomidating.

Anonymous BBGKB June 26, 2017 10:38 AM  

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table"

I would hate to be a table at the Kratman house this weekend. I hope he has a stove that can burn sawdust, if not here is a video on how to make one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK33HlcAAs

Anonymous paulmat June 26, 2017 10:44 AM  

@ VD

I will also comment that I think the USA was a failed nation from its beginning. It is religion that creates culture, not an idea of freedom, uniform race, or collective love of soccer. The USA was explicitly founded without a religion and the result was perpetual societal fractures from day one.

It is not a surprise that in a century the country founded without a uniform religion was already destroying itself in a horrible war and then only a couple decades later beginning a new century-long process of undermining society in every way imaginable. The people were never united in a culture by a collective religion, so they always disagree on morals.

Democracy cannot function when morals are to be voted on. Morals have to be the unchanging bedrock of society. Democracy is to be used to determine practical matters such as how to best supply cities with water and electricity, not about whether we should murder unborn babies, legally allow broken families with divorce, promote sexual promiscuity, import tens of millions of immigrants who refuse to assimilate, and so on so forth.

If you want to understand why the West is collapsing, you need to examine how it was built up. The West was Christendom and it was built by the Catholic Church. Nations without this strong uniform religion are fatally fractured.

I am sure this observation will be met with great hostility.

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 26, 2017 10:50 AM  

Exhibit 91,765,678: Foreigner (E/SE European Catholic) with a US passport and a hostility to his hosts that extends to trying to define them out of existence.

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2017 10:52 AM  

@303. DreadIlkZee
The genetic aurgument has the problem in that it does not achieve its goal.

Achieving its goal isn't the argument on display here. The argument is over what the Founders intended.

It's akin to arguing if a man, who lived after his ordeal, meant to kill himself or not. Sure, if he meant to kill himself then he certainly didn't succeed, but that wasn't the point being discussed.

Anonymous paulmat June 26, 2017 10:52 AM  

@301

National wealth is irrelevant. A rich country can refuse to provide immigration and welfare to a Muslim just as a poor country can. Similarly a poor person like Mother Teresa is capable of providing enormous amounts of care and support despite her financial poverty.

Muslims are not freezing up in Sweden because Sweden is rich. They are up there because the Swedes are offering them care whereas the other group of countries is not.

Besides, which Western country is not financially bankrupt anyways? This wealth is very illusory.

Blogger SirGroggy June 26, 2017 11:47 AM  

An often overlooked section of the constitution which we must not skip over:

... these truths we hold self evident, that these United States do contain that sorcerous soil, those transcendental powers contained thereof which in a jiffy does transform all the peoples regardless of whence they came or from where they have proceeded, into such beings as those who shall be hitherto regarded as Posterity. We do declare that upon this very supernatural soil upon which we stand, that our strength shall be hitherto and forthwith derived from vibrancy. The cardinal virtue, we do regard as tolerance and in this we strive for life, equality, and the pursuit of diversity ...

I'm not sure in which section it is exactly but I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

Blogger WATYF June 26, 2017 12:02 PM  

tublecane wrote:@30-"What does it matter who 'posterity' is referring to if they also allowed immigration and naturalization?"

It's a very useful rhetorical counterpunch to "all men are created equal."

But more seriously, it cuts to the heart of the National Question, which I believe cannot be answered by civic nationalism.

This state brought into being by the Constitutiona, what is it for, why does it exist? To serve whomsoever should happen to become its citizens? Or was it, like the preamble says, an instrument created to secure the blessings of liberty for some more particularly group? A group which may just so happen to constitute the American nation.

A polity is what its laws say and who officially gets recognized as part of it. But a nation is not that. An imperfect instrument such as the Constitution could be misused or perverted to accomplish goals other than or contrary to what it was created to accomplish in the first place. But let us not misinterpret such perversion as the intended thing.

The U.S. was made for a specific people. It wasn't made for all citizens, myself included. I get to be a U.S. citizen, but that doesn't mean I'm an American, really, in the full nationalist sense.


I don't care about rhetoric. I'm not talking about "what will win you an argument against someone who is too stupid or emotional to actually think through the issue", I'm talking about the actual truth of the matter.

As for the rest of that, that sounds great and all, but it doesn't answer my question. What difference does it make what posterity means if they allowed people who weren't "posterity" (according to Vox's definition) in without any legal distinction (and even allowed "non-posterity" to hold the highest office)? What laws should be written differently? What actual, tangible changes would we make if we were to all suddenly agree with Vox's argument? And make sure they're changes that wouldn't have otherwise happened based on a different worldview that disagrees with his argument. (For example, if you say, "limit immigration to only certain people", that's no good since plenty of other views also want to do that)

Saying that the U.S. was "made for" certain people is an abstract concept. And it's all the more unclear what that would even mean in a practical sense when they also gave something that was supposedly "made for" certain people to other people just the same.

Anonymous PVB June 26, 2017 12:08 PM  

I was reading the Dred Scott decision the other day and it sounded familiar.

Relying upon statements made by Charles Pinckney, who had claimed authorship of the Privileges and Immunities Clause during the debates over the Missouri Compromise,[26] Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained."


Chief Justice Roger Taney authored the Court's Majority opinion.
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.



The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring that, 'when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'

It then proceeds to say: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

And then the 14th Amendment.


Blogger Sheila4g June 26, 2017 12:25 PM  

@273 Eduardo: "Which would be funny, I mean who lies about this?!?"

If I recall, Eduardo, that map is also based on people's self-identified descent. Many people think they are German when they're actually English, or say American when it's Scotch-Irish, or believe family lore which DNA tests prove to be bollocks.

@301 paulmat: " In a hundred years Germany has a good chance of being majority Muslim and under Sharia law whereas Ireland will still be Ireland and Italy still Italy."

While I haven't been in either country in more than 20 years, my reading indicates Ireland is rapidly welcoming Nigerians and Mohammedans. It began courtesy of minister (Alan Shatter), but it continues even though he's now gone. Check out their immigration numbers. And the locals, while Catholic, appear to have done their best to apologize for their past "morality," i.e. new laws regarding divorce, abortion, and homosexuals.

Spain has entire towns filled with 3rd world squatters. I read the other day of Mohammedans demanding the right to pray ass-up in a Cordovan church that was a mosque during the Mohammedan occupation, and the city said "maybe you're right."

Vox could better speak re conditions on the ground in Italy, but we've all read of the Italian navy traveling down to the African coast to pick up vibrants, who then proceed to squat in Rome's streets, congregate at Lake Como's railroad station, and generally do what Africans do wherever they are.

So I've already refuted your baseless assertion based on immigration alone, and haven't even touched the Catholic/Protestant question you're begging everyone to get enmeshed in.

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2017 1:08 PM  

The United States has a lower percentage of Muslims in its population than all but a handful of European countries. Get out of here with your Catholic Supremacy nonsense.

Blogger Billy Ray June 26, 2017 2:08 PM  

so basically, america is only for descendants of the mayflower? give me a break. and you alt right morons can't figure out why everyone else thinks you're idiotic racists like your 1920s democratic KKK heroes who spouted the EXACT SAME THING

Anonymous Joe Blowe June 26, 2017 2:21 PM  

The Founders not only denied Africans and Red Indians (and one would assume any non-White) citizenship and the protection of the Constitution but they were considered completely outside the body politic. The question is why did they do this beyond hatred of darker skin hues. Jefferson himself wrote, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [African slaves] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." So, according to Jefferson the inherent nature of the different races demands that they have separate governments. One may quibble that the Founders did or did not consider their Western European cousins to be eligible as their "posterity", they are after all family with similar natures, but to suggest that the 3rd World Hordes, with their alien and often completely incompatible natures, could be made part of that is patently absurd.

Anonymous BBGKB June 26, 2017 3:45 PM  

So now he's regressed further, to "The weights aren't standardized!" "You used too wide a grip!" "That dyno wasn't calibrated properly!" The ring, or the track (or the debate) still awaits.

I am not trying to pull a Kratman by blaming the government for my lack of timely response but please next time you guys plan a dick measuring contest don't schedule it on NYC's pride weekend.

Anonymous tublecane June 26, 2017 5:07 PM  

@310-"I don't care about rhetoric."

Rhetoric cares about you.

"I'm not talking about 'what will win you an argument against someone who is too stupid or emotional to actually think through the issue"

Rhetoric is for everyone, not just the stupid and those who don't think things through.

"I'm talking about the actual truth of the matter"

Are you? Because shortly you go on to say:

"What actual, tangible changes would we make if we were to all suddenly agree with Vox's argument?"

Instead of the truth of the posterity issue, you're interested in the practical upshot. Which I believe has been discussed in this thread, or at least hinted at, though because it wasn't the main issue it was either buried amongst what is to irrelevant, or was merely hinted at.

I don't want to put words in Vox's mouth, but the uoshot is the Proposition Nation doesn't exist. There is an American nation, but it has no power, and probably can't be restored. The U.S. government, which associates itself with the idea of a nation, doesn't have any such foundation.

The sine qua non of Voxism on the contemporary National Question, if I may be so bold as to assert it, is that we're headed for social and political disaster. The Frankenstein's Monster "nation" of the U.S.A. will fail and be eaten up by the bad sort of identity politics. The destructive tribalism promoted and officially sanctioned by multiculturalism and permitted, whether with or against its knowledge or will, by civic nationalism, Proposition Nationalism, Nation of Immigrantism, etc.

The practical solution is to, above all else, abandon the dead end of civic nationalism, which is a false creed. The posterity issue doesn't prove that fact, but it is rhetorically useful in helping to swat it down. Then, I think, the idea is to reform in smaller groups and start nation-building for reelz.

Which is all abstract and unclear, admittedly. But I can't tell you "vote for proposition X." There's no solution so practical as that.

Anonymous tublecane June 26, 2017 5:16 PM  

@311-It might be helpful to consider, instead of African slaves and suchlike, less emotionally loaded groups. Groups that are still kept outside the political world by law, right down to the Current Year. Kids, for instance, or felons.

They are God's creatures, aren't they? Yet we don't afford them the prerogatives of other classes of people. How can that possibly be?

Well, don't take the high-falutin' philosifizin' of the Declaration too seriously, for one

Anonymous Pennywise June 26, 2017 5:30 PM  

Again, in those seven instances, what reasoning was used to determine the definition?

Anonymous Paulmat June 26, 2017 6:27 PM  

@311

An irrelevant fact that everyone is already well aware of.

The US is falling apart without Muslims. It was falling apart before mass immigration began. It was violently tearing itself apart before brown people became citizens. It's failure comes from its explicit lack of uniform religion.

The Catholic Church built Christendom up, and the revolt sowed the seeds to tear it back down. Your visceral emotional reaction to this idea is unfortunate.

Blogger S1AL June 26, 2017 7:05 PM  

Right. There was never any conflict in Europe, and certainly no civil wars, before the Protestant Schism... wait, the Hussites, no, no, the antipope crisis, er, I mean, the 1054 schism... No, no, the iconoclast crisis - or is it the Quartodeciman controversy?

Yeah, all those nation-states that didn't exist prior to Protestantism have Protestantism to blame for structural decay. That's the ticket, bub.

Blogger roughcoat June 26, 2017 7:50 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:so basically, america is only for descendants of the mayflower? give me a break. and you alt right morons can't figure out why everyone else thinks you're idiotic racists like your 1920s democratic KKK heroes who spouted the EXACT SAME THING

Hey, it's our buddy the one dimensional thinker.

I'm curious. Are you one of those guys who was saying Trump is Hitler Reborn last year because he's a nationalist who uses rhetoric? I know lots of you cuckservatives like that sort of not-even-skin-deep analysis. It sounds deep and insightful... well, to the ignorant and the stupid, anyway.

You should stop LARPing as an intelligent person. You're not very convincing in the role.

Anonymous Paulmat June 26, 2017 8:53 PM  

@321

Irrelevant comment. Please explain which of those matters lead to the destruction of the society. Did the 1054 schism make either region collapse? Did the antipope make Rome fall apart? Did the iconoclast heretics ruin Christendom?

The US culture of 100 years ago is almost entirely dead. Not so for Ireland, Poland, Italy, Spain, etc. Germany and Sweden very well might be parts of a caliphate in the next century. How likely do you think it is that Ireland will be? How much of German culture will be preserved under the sword?

The US failed because it never had a uniform religion, it was founded on an idea, and that never held the people together. That the colonists divided themselves up into states with differing religions should strongly suggest to you what is most important in building a society. They tried to hobble together a nation of differing religions and it did not take long for it all to fall.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2017 9:16 PM  

@199 Roundtine
Nothing pisses off people more than people told they don't meet the club's standards.
---
A slight tweak and you've described Cucks to a T.

Nothing scares the hell out of cucks more than lefties telling them they don't meet the club's standards.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2017 9:44 PM  

@250 Eduardo
But now you will become us... Poetic in a bad sense.
---

Does that make you a Fake American, or me a Fake Brazillian?

Blogger Were-Puppy June 26, 2017 9:46 PM  

@252 Al Smith
I don't know if anyone recalls the old Star Trek TOS episode "Omega Glory," but it quotes the Preamble including "posterity."
---

You're going back into E. Plebnista times

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 26, 2017 10:46 PM  

Arian Vs. Trinitarian? That was a doozy.



Anonymous Takin' a Look June 26, 2017 10:51 PM  

@PaulMat

Yes, because we had Jews flood us a hundred years ago.n

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 26, 2017 10:57 PM  

We could handle and absorb all sorts of Christians, even the Mohammedans and Buddhists and others coming on both shores after we shut immigration down and forced everyone to assimilate. It would've taken 500 years, but America would've been recognizable to a FF in 1700s in 2400.

Anonymous paulmat June 26, 2017 11:14 PM  

@329

People do not effectively assimilate when they are of different religions. Morality comes from religion and as long as people stay faithful to their religion they will not come to adopt the morality of a foreign religion.

America failed because it explicitly did not establish itself under a unified religion, hence no unified morality and hence nothing to definitively assimilate into. The idea of "you do you, I do me" observably fails - the nation needed to have one religion that collectively organized its people behind one set of morals.

If you want to claim that America was a success because a Catholic and Protestant can happily play poker together, then sure. But on a macro scale the wide diversity of religions competing in the United States has brought the government to disaster. The people of different beliefs have hidden their animosity between each other on the micro scale by making it socially taboo to personally discuss but brandish it wildly on the anonymous macro political scale, thus leading to disaster. Antifragility comes to mind.

Blogger S1AL June 27, 2017 12:09 AM  

Italy, Spain, and Ireland as cohesive countries literally did not exist when the United States was founded. Your sense of time is completely ahistorical. Your argument is senseless.

Anonymous Pennywise June 27, 2017 5:43 PM  

paulmat...

"People do not effectively assimilate when they are of different religions."

Americans are generally Christian. We have incorporated ourselves into the body politic and immersed ourselves in our society. You wrongly assume that different faiths leads to people being unable to create institutions separate from their religion.
Moreover, what are your metrics for "effectively assimilate"?

"Morality comes from religion and as long as people stay faithful to their religion they will not come to adopt the morality of a foreign religion."

I didn't realize that Roman Catholicism, Methodist, and Southern Baptist, for example, are "foreign religions".

"America failed because it explicitly did not establish itself under a unified religion, hence no unified morality and hence nothing to definitively assimilate into."

Patently false. Christianity is America's unified religion. And how does one even begin to quantify "unified morality"? Are not Christians bound to the Bible?

"The people of different beliefs have hidden their animosity between each other on the micro scale by making it socially taboo to personally discuss but brandish it wildly on the anonymous macro political scale, thus leading to disaster."

You have to go back.

Blogger Richard Rahl May 20, 2019 4:27 PM  

Does anyone know where I can find Tom's "Civic Nationalism - Ourselves and Our Posterity?" I'm interested in reading the debate in its full context.

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 335 of 335

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts