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

Saturday, July 08, 2017

The Magna Carta and Posterity

John C. Wright makes an observation that is not insignificant in relation to last week's debate on the meaning of Posterity:
The effect of the Magna Carta on later charters of rights, on the Glorious Revolution, and on the Bill of Rights of the American Revolution should be known to all educated citizens in America.
To say nothing of its effect on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Does this sound familiar?

We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve and protect the Rights of Englishmen, which of the three alternative definitions of "Posterity" most accurately represents the term used in the phrase "ourselves and our Posterity" in light of this section of the Magna Carta?
  1. actual legal descendants and heirs
  2. succeeding generations living within the same geographic boundaries
  3. later times
As the authors of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers also demonstrate, the only possible answer should be perfectly clear.

Labels: ,

236 Comments:

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous I wrote the Magna Carta July 08, 2017 8:12 AM  

Answer: 1. "actual legal descendants and heirs"

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:20 AM  

200 dollars on umber 3!

Gonna put all my money on 3... What are the odds? Zero?!? Great I will be rich soon, these fools can't see as far as I can.

Now, all derby non-jokes aside, doesn't it look like they are assuming someZing... That their heirs, their children, would share the same values as they do?

It does not seem to be just their children, but only the ones who share their values as they intend on these letters, it is just assumed because of the time, that the children will carry on the legacy. Is this not ideological children then? Even further more restrictive?

Maybe people like you Vox, also count, just as long as you taken under the wings of the people represented in the Letters. I mean... It's possible no? Once you are part of the People, and you share their values, you are their Posterity no?

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 8:26 AM  

It does not seem to be just their children, but only the ones who share their values as they intend on these letters, it is just assumed because of the time, that the children will carry on the legacy. Is this not ideological children then?

No, it says nothing about values or those who might hold them in the future. You might as well say that it just seems to be aardvarks, and therefore aardvarks are the only true Posterity. You're an effective illustration of the difference between Americans and Not-Americans who have no conceptual grasp whatsoever of the Rights of Englishmen.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 8:28 AM  

#1: actual legal descendants and heirs

I find the use of the word legal to be pivotal. For example, a family unit, by way of legal adoption, can increase its number of members and legal heirs. Adoption does not mean anyone choosing to be be part of that family must be accepted, oh no. Only those chosen by the family itself.

Choose wisely should one desires to choose at all.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 8:30 AM  

I find the use of the word legal to be pivotal.

It's not. It was added to the actual definition.

Blogger Blunt Force July 08, 2017 8:30 AM  

Lest we forgot sans the unwavering influence of the Christian church and clergy there would have been no Magna Carta thus no basis for the American colonists to assert their demands for God -given rights to counter the oppressive rule of a distant king.

"The freedoms contained in the 1215 document originate 'with the Christian Church and Christian theology'

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/06/10/the-churchs-central-role-in-magna-carta-has-been-airbrushed-out-of-history/



http://magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/magna-carta-bishops/stephen-langton/

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 8:31 AM  

The Rights of Englishmen was a populist defense utilized to install and secure the everlasting rule of oligarchy.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:37 AM  

I do not pretend to know the Rights of Englishmen, hey if anything I have served a illustrative purpose no XD?

But still, what is the point of wanting to protect rights people of your ancestry can revogue later? Is it not more sensable to assume your children keep it going? That your children maintains the Legacy and your Will intact?

Or is the idea simply to say: "The children of our nation shall do as they see fit in the future"? Which seems trivial to the point that no document whatsoever would be necessary.

Now, what if it is the Aardvarks huh? Eh? Hmmm... Yeah, so what the heck is Aardvarks!?!

Anonymous Avalanche July 08, 2017 8:40 AM  

Hmmm, maybe instead of all the RINOs and NeverTrumpers carrying around their "pocket Constitutions (which apparently they are unable to read and understand....) we should send them each a copy of the Magna Carta... 'cept they probably wouldn't understand that either! (Does that make THEM King John?!)

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 8:40 AM  

VD wrote:It's not. It was added to the actual definition.

The only question I have then is, was/is legal adoption recognized as an element of the Rights of Englishmen? If yes, then its inclusion in the definition is irrelevant.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 8:42 AM  

It's fine to attribute the Rights of Englishmen to Englishmen. I'm coming at it from another angle to keep things fresh. Researching the RoE, if they are to be put into bulletpoints, and if we are to conclude them based on 18th Century Whig propaganda, I've concluded they are the following:

-Lawmaking should belong to a king, Parliament, and representatives of freemen.
-Free men should enjoy liberty
-Men should be represented in the legislature.
-Men ought to be able to vote for representatives in Parliament.
-A New House of Commons should be elected yearly.

Anonymous I wrote the Magna Carta July 08, 2017 8:46 AM  

According to ancestery.com, my family tree going back to the mid 1700s in America are all English on my mother and father's sides. (e.g. Sutton, Davis, Clark...) Therefore, I'm a true American. (There was a "Scott" in there a few generations ago though.)

Anonymous Rigel Kent July 08, 2017 8:47 AM  

In the argument between you and Col. Kratman, it seemed as if you were arguing two different things. He was arguing American citizenship, and you were arguing (for lack of a better term) American ethnicity.

One is a matter of legality, the other a matter of biology and history.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. July 08, 2017 8:51 AM  

Clinic in rationalization in 3... 2... 1...

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 8:52 AM  

The primary three cherished rights from the Magna Carta are:

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

These truths were held to be self-evident, and they are derived from the fruit of medieval jurists, who believed such rights were universal. Though, before the late 1100s, there was no real vocabulary for these concepts, they took solid form by the time Bartolome de Las Casas managed to combine Thomist and Augustinian theology, proposing that natural rights belonged even to primitive peoples such as the American Indians.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:54 AM  

@Rigel

Actually Rigel, the debate is exactly about the relation between ethnicity annnd citizenry. Vox defends that Citizenry was meant for the Posterity, which is the children of Fathers, aka, English People and it's descendants.

Now Kratman probably believes that Citizenry comes from being born in the U.S. And protecting the country. Has nothing necessarily to do with your ancestors... i think.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 9:00 AM  

In the argument between you and Col. Kratman, it seemed as if you were arguing two different things. He was arguing American citizenship, and you were arguing (for lack of a better term) American ethnicity.

Obviously. And the question is: to which group does Posterity refer?

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 9:01 AM  

Vox defends that Citizenry was meant for the Posterity, which is the children of Fathers, aka, English People and it's descendants.

No, not citizenry. The nation and the purpose of the Constitution. Citizenship is just paperwork; you can hold literally dozens of citizenships these days.

Blogger Dirtnapninja July 08, 2017 9:01 AM  

Magna Carta?

Thats stupid white people stuff.

America 2 doesnt do that.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 9:05 AM  

My problem with this whole argument is, you cannot, in any form, have immigration eventuating to full heir status while simultaneously declaring the definition of American which Vox proclaims.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 9:07 AM  

Okay, reading Vox's reply again, it seems that:

Carta Magna is written as the pronouncement of the Will of a People, from here on out.
This Will applies obviously to the descendants of this People, and only it's descendants, unless they explicitly include somebody else.
However it is entirely up to the people to decide if they will or not, follow this Will in future times.
So the rights obviously, applies only to Descendants. (Just to be clear)
That may or may not turn insane and allow everybody as citizens...


That can't be it. I'm missing something...

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 9:08 AM  

One more resource for whoever cares.

Magna Carta: Myth and Meaning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm1FrTO2aOg&list=FLkDGX9RCcVueSNuu2F6n3Qg&index=19

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 9:10 AM  

@VD

Yeah, my bad, I wasn't clear. Theoretically the Only citizens should have been the descendants and of course they could only be American Citizens. But yeah a bit out of touch with the times there.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 9:10 AM  

Distinguishing Mexican from American is splitting heirs.

It's a unipolar world. Greed is good. We're all living in America! (It's wunderbar)

Anonymous Jeff July 08, 2017 9:15 AM  

Aside from the Bible, the Magna Carta may be the most important document in the history of Western Civilization. Here is what John Robson had to say in his book Magna Carta: Our Shared Legacy of Liberty:

"The Magna Carta laid the foundation of the system of government we still enjoy today...The history of liberty in the Anglosphere is the astonishing tale of a sound, remarkably complete system of liberty and law established a thousand years ago...Political, constitutional and legal systems aren't like computer operating systems that need to be dramatically revised every few years or they're hopelessly, embarrassingly out of date. Their principles are timeless. And the rights contained in Magna Carta aren't just one way of creating a good society. They're the only way that's ever been found"


Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 9:20 AM  

> Aside from the Bible, the Magna Carta may be the most important document in the history of Western Civilization.

Hey, don't forget the Communist Manifesto, while we're listing evil bullshit.

"We have granted to God"

That's rich.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 9:22 AM  

@Jeff

Just as long as the people meant to keep it does keep it. Otherwise is just a pretty idea. But if genetics is fundamental, it can't wrong if you have English people. Hopefully... Hopefully..

Anonymous LurkingPuppy July 08, 2017 9:25 AM  

Blunt Force wrote:Lest we forgot sans the unwavering influence of the Christian church and clergy there would have been no Magna Carta thus no basis for the American colonists to assert their demands for God -given rights to counter the oppressive rule of a distant king.
"The freedoms contained in the 1215 document originate 'with the Christian Church and Christian theology'

That's why Catholic Spain, France, and Mexico enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in their most fundamental laws too.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 9:33 AM  

That's why Catholic Spain, France, and Mexico enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in their most fundamental laws too.

Illustrating, once more, that Western civilization is neither Christianity nor the European nations, but the combination of the two, plus the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 10:15 AM  

If the posterity is preserved, it can continue to share, as it sees fit, the benefits bequeathed to it. If it is annihilated, the definition of posterity is irrelevant, because the inheritance is destroyed.

In other words, for the shades of meaning where posterity relates to citizenship, the attempt to define citizenship as posterity is still irrelevant. The benefits offered to those who form the loose definition of posterity can only exist dependent on the survival and prosperity of the narrow definition.

The loose definition of posterity cannot overturn the narrow definition and still be either defined or relevant.

Blogger Chris Mallory July 08, 2017 10:15 AM  

Salt wrote:My problem with this whole argument is, you cannot, in any form, have immigration eventuating to full heir status while simultaneously declaring the definition of American which Vox proclaims.

The first is easily fixed. There should be no immigration of any kind. If you want to marry a wog, go live in wogland. If you are going to allow immigration, no descendant of that immigration should ever be allowed the same rights of natural born citizens born of natural born citizens.

Blogger Matt July 08, 2017 10:22 AM  

They dont teach kids about the magna carta anymore?

Blogger Matt July 08, 2017 10:22 AM  

They dont teach kids about the magna carta anymore?

Blogger Matt July 08, 2017 10:22 AM  

They dont teach kids about the magna carta anymore?

Blogger Chris Mallory July 08, 2017 10:23 AM  

LurkingPuppy wrote:

That's why Catholic Spain, France, and Mexico enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in their most fundamental laws too.


Of course in Mexico, Article 10 was "reformed" in 1971 to prohibit citizens from owning anything other than a .380 or a .22 in handguns or a shotgun.

OpenID newscaper July 08, 2017 10:24 AM  

Long time lurker here. Have not read the other comments yet.
When I read your original post on this my though was you were neglecting a key piece of the puzzle, the meaning of 'our' as well as 'posterity' in that even your stricter definition of the latter is in the context of how broad the *former*, it's subject, is.
Our in the preamble is clearly broader than our as used in end of the Declaration re lives, fortunes and sacred honor, which clearly literally referred to the singers and not the general populace.
In the Charter, this significance of whose posterity is more explicit, where there is Our, from the royal We , and their, the freedman subjects, presumably the other nobles falling under there.
So who is the subject of preamble posterity?
All residents of America at the time (Britons and non?), only like-minded ones, supporters of independence, patriots?
Since immigration from Britain at least was still an ongoing and unremarkable thing, close cousins culturally if not quite brothers, from the same stock, I don't think you can definitively rule out 'our' including future new like minded Americans.

'Magic dirt' hyperbolically refers to a ludicrous concept, that some token idea creates a real American, a true fellow countryman, from anyone stepping off the boat. That is functionally what a bunch of the civic nationalists believe.
However I don't think proposition nation is really wrong. I certainly feel that a lot of leftist globalist are TWANLOC, in spite of whatever common ancestral heritage we share, so it is not unthinkable a newer immigrant could be more 'American' than them.
BUT, where the proposition notion fails in practice is the ideals it refers to cannot fit on a bumper sticker, and they are fools to ignore that people from different cultures (races?) Have much lower, or higher, chance being able to truly understand, accept, and fully embrace what we consider American, and be our true countrymen. That is where civic nationalists fail. But they are more incomplete than wrong.

For the record, I am almost entirely English and Scots Irish: Alabama, mostly by way of Carolinas, Virgina well before Civil War and Revolution, trace to three different men who came in later waves at Jamestown, with my paternal great grandfather being the most recent immigrant, from London as a boy in 1870s.)

Anonymous Pennywise July 08, 2017 10:35 AM  

"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: descendants)"

So what reasoning was employed to demonstrate that this part is indeed reflective of "actual legal descendants and heirs"?

You know, to help us mid-wits...

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 10:37 AM  

However I don't think proposition nation is really wrong.

You are completely wrong. It is absolute and utter bullshit. It does not exist in any way, shape, or form.

What is the precise proposition that distinguishes between being a member of the proposition nation and not being a member of it? How does one accept or reject this proposition? And at what age are you required to choose?

Blogger rumpole5 July 08, 2017 10:45 AM  

So, exactly how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? This is useless sophistry. The territory that became the USA was already lousy with non English, and non protestants, at the point in time that the Declaration and Constitution were written. Therefore "We the people" must have included all sorts of non Englishmen, To wit: Germans, Danes, Dutch, Jews, Indian/European mixed bloods, and the like

The 1660s documents pertaining to the Glorious Revolution were directed toward protecting protestants, yet one of our original 13 colonies, Maryland, was specifically founded as a haven for Catholics.

You are trying to define terms in our founding documents outside of the context in which they came into being, by citing older Glorious revolution documents that are also not fully applicable, one hundred years later, to the American Zeitgeist of the late 1700s, and involving a different people, time and place.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 10:47 AM  

Therefore "We the people" must have included all sorts of non Englishmen.

Obviously. But ONLY THOSE WHO WERE THERE at the time. Not their relatives overseas.

You are trying to define terms in our founding documents outside of the context in which they came into being, by citing older Glorious revolution documents that are also not fully applicable, one hundred years later, to the American Zeitgeist of the late 1700s, and involving a different people, time and place.

I am absolutely not doing that. I am defining them correctly, in both context and era, and part of doing that involves referring to their conceptual heritage.

Anonymous Sertorius July 08, 2017 10:47 AM  

Ha, I'm not sure that a bunch of armorially-obsessed aristocrats usage of the term necessarily defines its connotation for a bunch of rough-and-ready commoners centuries later on a different continent. You would be on stronger ground if you gave any examples of the English colonies denying (white) settlers "the rights of Englishmen" no matter their country of origin. Religion was of course a different issue--the Test Act remained in effect in Colonies, however loosely enforced--but the very fact that the State had many powers to disenfranchise various religious minorities should call attention to fact that it did not do so on "ethnic" grounds.

Just to give an example, in South Carolina both Huguenot and Germans quickly incorporated themselves into the planter elite, quickly establishing themselves as militia captains and "district judges." Nor were Jews excluded--Francis Salvador, famously, was part of that same elite, and was elected to the Provincial Congress.

Long story short, if the Founders had wanted to limit political power or even the franchise to their putatively "English" genetic posterity, they couldn't if they wanted to. While no doubt the majority of the colonists at the Founding were of British stock--and the legal foundations of the new US firmly British--there were nodes of "others" amongst the colonies that were among the movers and shakers. (I admit to having a chuckle over your example of arch-Federalist John Jay, who was of course of Huguenot and Dutch stock.)

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 10:49 AM  

This is useless sophistry.

It is not useless sophistry. I suspect that you know that are a civic nationalist who senses how dangerous an accurate definition of "Posterity" is to your "everybody who wants to be American is" and are trying to dishonestly disqualify it.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 10:49 AM  

I don't understand VD's obsession with the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. While the meaning of "ourselves and our posterity" is clear, that definition of citizenship was superseded only 14 years later in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which opened the franchise to all free white persons of good character. It seems rather spergy to insist on a principle that in practice has been obsolete for 227 years.

Blogger Sam July 08, 2017 10:49 AM  

@39
Did you know that China has about 9% non-Han? Having significant minorities does not preclude a nation (aka people) from existing existing. It is actually the default state of affairs with the standardization due to nationalism in the 19th century the exception.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 10:50 AM  

@37, Why do you even think you've raised a point?

"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"

The notion of laws being familial and heritable is what makes them relational, ie "strong bonds of sympathy". Nobody has strong bonds of sympathy for a temporary or an open contract.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 10:52 AM  

Vox... It is obviously a life-time choice. You do it all 'til the day you die.

The proposition are the Sentiments that the Fathers had when they Started the Revolution.

What's the point of choosing 20th generation Anglo guy over half-Aztec dude, when anglo Guy wants to rip the constitution and install SJW-topia? Come on, you may still be paper-American, but there is no way that Genetics are the whole game.

Being English is also a voluntary choice by English people, it is not an instinct that they are born with, you are raised to be English, and you choose to maintain yourself English... 'Til the day you die.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 10:53 AM  

My mistake, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was a mere 3 years after the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. So the Founding Fathers didn't hold to the strict principle of "ourselves and our posterity" for very long at all.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 10:55 AM  

"opened the franchise to all free white persons of good character"

I am pretty sure Vox is comfortable with that. Hell, the alt-retard are comfortable with that. It doesn't exactly support the civic-nationalist cause, does it?

Personally I find it to be substantially too ethnocentrist for my preferences, but if you want to roll with it, that's your business.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 10:55 AM  

I don't understand VD's obsession with the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously.

While the meaning of "ourselves and our posterity" is clear, that definition of citizenship was superseded only 14 years later in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which opened the franchise to all free white persons of good character.

You're conflating two different things.

It seems rather spergy to insist on a principle that in practice has been obsolete for 227 years.

Either the Constitution is fit for purpose or it is not. If it is not, it is irrelevant, as is everything constructed on its foundation.

Blogger Joshua_D July 08, 2017 11:01 AM  

Salt wrote:My problem with this whole argument is, you cannot, in any form, have immigration eventuating to full heir status while simultaneously declaring the definition of American which Vox proclaims.

Why exactly would that be a problem? I can think of no moral requirement to allow immigrants into a nation.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 11:09 AM  

The Athenians definately saw no problem with kipping Immigrants as non Citizens.

Blogger Phillip George July 08, 2017 11:12 AM  

you don't need rights. You just need to be right.
The Church of England shall first be Christian.
For God King and Country, the Bible is the preamble to both the Magna Carta And Bill of Rights and Constitution..
How. You swore by it to uphold it.
What you swore by to uphold cannot be the abrogation of that by which you swore.
The bible is the preamble/

Jesus is your national flag.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 11:18 AM  

"You're conflating two different things."

How so? The Naturalization Act defines those people who may become citizens, thereby subject to all the rights and responsibilities set forth in the Constitution.

"Either the Constitution is fit for purpose or it is not."

It was fit only in the sense of a starting point, as it was necessary to change and add to it repeatedly since, both through amendments and clarifying laws and acts.

If you want to define "fit" as both necessary and sufficient, then it was not, and it is indeed irrelevant. This would seem to be the case, as "ourselves and our posterity" is irrelevant to the current U.S. citizenry.

Anonymous Sertorius July 08, 2017 11:23 AM  

Ha, you're out of your depth here--or is it not only the SJW's who double-down?

This ought to be a testable proposition. I can give you the names of Frenchmen, Germans, Dutchmen, Jews, and Poles (and probably an Indian chief if I put my mind to it) who were an integral part of the Patriot cause. You should be able to give me an example of any such non-British man who was deprived of his rights--or even social status--in the new Republic. Or barring that, if there was a political **intent** to define "posterity" in such a narrow way , give us the legal mechanisms that were drawn up that would have effected such an ideal.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 11:25 AM  

It was probably brought up in previous threads, but one of the complaints in the declaration was restrictions on immigration:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 08, 2017 11:26 AM  

'Magic dirt' hyperbolically refers to a ludicrous concept, that some token idea creates a real American, a true fellow countryman, from anyone stepping off the boat. That is functionally what a bunch of the civic nationalists believe.
However I don't think proposition nation is really wrong.


"Magic Dirt" is just a rhetorical way to ridicule "proposition nation." They're the same thing. No one actually believes the dirt is magical, not even the Catholic Charities worker who thinks you can give a Somali Muslim an apartment in the Midwest US and some job training and presto: a brand new American. They all expect the "magic" to happen because the newcomer will accept our ways -- our propositions -- because our ways are so awesome, who wouldn't?

The difference between the more sensible civic nationalists, and that idiot resettling "refugees," is that the more sensible ones think it takes time. They recognize that it doesn't happen automatically, but they think it can fairly soon. That's why they're big on assimilation -- require English, require tests on the Constitution, spread them out so they don't cluster into ghettos, that kind of thing -- and you can solve the problem that way, so people don't Have To Go Back. They're still counting on the magic of the propositions, but they think it'll take some urging.

But if it takes hundreds of years for groups to change significantly in what propositions they prefer (or can even understand), then it doesn't really matter -- believing it can happen in a generation or two is just as much magical thinking as if you believe it happens when they step off the boat.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 11:28 AM  

VD wrote:Either the Constitution is fit for purpose or it is not. If it is not, it is irrelevant, as is everything constructed on its foundation.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

The patient died.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 11:28 AM  

@53,your argument would make sense if the "posterity" in the preamble were amended. My very simple argument demonstrates that immigrant citizens are actually non-contradictory to VD's definition of "posterity", while they may conditionally be contradicted by it.

This would mean that citizenship and immigration were "at will" for the USA; a privilege that could be extended by the Posterity as and when it saw fit; which is exactly the case.

In fact, that the Naturalization Act IS an Act is a case in point, which I assume is what VD is referring to above.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 11:29 AM  

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams


I'm ok with declaring atheists and pagans fake Americans and sending them back to Europe.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 11:31 AM  

It's a civil war to destroy the evil USSA and VD is eroding the intellectual foundations of white civnat morale, so that all they're left with is geriatrics, Commies and muds.

The amazing thing is that the Alt-Retard tries to stop him from doing this. It's like they don't consider it a fair fight unless it's a 3-front war provisioned by the inverse miracle of socialist economics.

But don't worry, they've got a REALLY BIG pagan spell to cast this time. Better than the kike nuclear bomb spell, I mean. Nothing silly like injecting bull semen.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 11:33 AM  

"This would seem to be the case, as "ourselves and our posterity" is irrelevant to the current U.S. citizenry."

Thus making absurd their claim to the rights enumerated thereunder.

You're really much further Right that I am comfortable with.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 11:33 AM  

Joshua_D wrote:Salt wrote:My problem with this whole argument is, you cannot, in any form, have immigration eventuating to full heir status while simultaneously declaring the definition of American which Vox proclaims.

Why exactly would that be a problem? I can think of no moral requirement to allow immigrants into a nation.


Of course. I seriously doubt morality had one whit to do with Art 1, Sec 8 or the 1st Congress and immigration.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 11:35 AM  

The Naturalization Act defines those people who may become citizens, thereby subject to all the rights and responsibilities set forth in the Constitution.

You don't seem to grasp that "citizen" != "ourselves and our posterity". Citizens may or may not be the latter. You do not become the Posterity through obtaining U.S. citizenship any more than I would become Italian by obtaining Italian citizenship.

This would seem to be the case, as "ourselves and our posterity" is irrelevant to the current U.S. citizenry.

Exactly. The U.S. citizenry is not America, the Constitution and the federal law are entirely irrelevant, and now there is nothing left but the inevitable conflict between the various groups of fake Americans who are about as convincingly American as the average transgender activist.

Ha, you're out of your depth here--or is it not only the SJW's who double-down?

You're a moron. I don't engage in discourse with morons. You're a classic example of a midwit who thinks he's smart because he doesn't understand the relevant concepts.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence July 08, 2017 11:35 AM  

I hereby accept everyone's thanks since I am a direct descendent of King John, also a direct descendent of 13 of the 25 nobles imposing the MC and 5 of the nobles representing the King.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 11:36 AM  

"This would seem to be the case, as "ourselves and our posterity" is irrelevant to the current U.S. citizenry."

Thus making absurd their claim to the rights enumerated thereunder.


(nods)

Blogger J Melcher July 08, 2017 11:37 AM  

Ruth 1 : 16 "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."

The many-greats-grandmother of Christ himself (Matt 1 : 2) joined the tribe by proclaiming allegiance to the propositions ( and dirt ) of the tribe (along with allegiance to a personal sponsor.)

It's not at all clear to me where the line is between progeny and posterity.

Blogger PastyWhiteBoy July 08, 2017 11:38 AM  

First trip I made.to England I made.it a point to go where the Magna Carta was signed. I naively thought there would be some huge monument. Just a placard in a field down from Windsor castle about a mile or so...

Blogger Nobody of Consequence July 08, 2017 11:41 AM  

The problem with all naturalization acts at the federal level is that the federal government was NOT given power over immigration and naturalization. The ONLY power granted was "to make an uniform RULE of naturalization" since the States retained power over immigration AND the states naturalized new citizens USING the single rule, i.e. "UNIFORM". Spend some time on genealogy and you will find that the feds came late to the game of performing immigration and naturalization. As I see it, people naturalized by the federal government are NOT citizens since that is not the power that was granted.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 11:43 AM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:I'm ok with declaring atheists and pagans fake Americans and sending them back to Europe.

That's a logistical problem on par with the Japanese invasion of the west coast.

Blogger Joshua_D July 08, 2017 11:43 AM  

Salt wrote:Joshua_D wrote:Salt wrote:My problem with this whole argument is, you cannot, in any form, have immigration eventuating to full heir status while simultaneously declaring the definition of American which Vox proclaims.

Why exactly would that be a problem? I can think of no moral requirement to allow immigrants into a nation.


Of course. I seriously doubt morality had one whit to do with Art 1, Sec 8 or the 1st Congress and immigration.


Salt, can you clarify what exactly "your problem" is relating to VD's definition of Posterity and Article 1 Section 8?

Anonymous Rigel Kent July 08, 2017 11:43 AM  

VD wrote:In the argument between you and Col. Kratman, it seemed as if you were arguing two different things. He was arguing American citizenship, and you were arguing (for lack of a better term) American ethnicity.

Obviously. And the question is: to which group does Posterity refer?


That's obvious. In some ways too obvious. To the Founding Fathers I mean. I think the reason for the seeming support that Col. Kratman finds for his position in the Constitution is that the Founding Fathers never dreamed of large groups of people that weren't substantially like themselves or their ancestors ever immigrating.

And why would they? The various Asiatic peoples (except for the American Indians of course) were on the other side of the planet. And the majority of the Africans there at the time had either been brought by force, or were descended from those that had been brought by force.

As far as the Founding Fathers immigration concerns went their biggest worry was probably that too many Germanic people would show up because the language and culture would be significantly different. (Oh, for simpler times.)

The few times I've discussed this with someone I ask, "If I (a White American) emigrated to Japan and became a citizen, would I be Japanese?"

Their answer is always the same, "No, but that's different..."

To which I reply, "No it isn't, and when you figure out why we'll have something to talk about."

Well, I think I've gone on more than long enough. Thanks for your time.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 11:46 AM  

Was Paul a Roman because he had Roman citizenship?

He was free-born! A citizen of Tarsus, no mean city!

Nope. He was a Jew, after the strictest sect of the Pharisees.

He was only a Roman opportunistically, when it suited him.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 11:50 AM  

@Pasty

Funny how things are eh?

@Nobody

First and foremost: Thanks... Now on to all the Brazilian Gold those Portuguese paid you people!

Second, yeah, but... Don't the States accept them all these days? Wouldn't that make the World, America?

Anonymous aibg July 08, 2017 11:59 AM  

I wonder what % of Americans today are wholly Posterity?

10%? Maybe?

It looks like a failed project, a lesson.

Blogger Tuatha July 08, 2017 12:00 PM  

"I'm ok with declaring atheists and pagans fake Americans and sending them back to Europe"

Would this "fake-american" designation include any of the founding seed, the posterity as described in the constitution?

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 12:04 PM  

Would this "fake-american" designation include any of the founding seed, the posterity as described in the constitution?

Don't care. Paganism is European, not American. So is atheism.

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 12:07 PM  

Joshua_D wrote:Salt, can you clarify what exactly "your problem" is relating to VD's definition of Posterity and Article 1 Section 8?

@66 brings up an interesting point.

J Melcher wrote:Ruth 1 : 16 "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."

It's not at all clear to me where the line is between progeny and posterity.


We had different peoples embracing the foundational Rights of Englishmen at the time of adoption of the Constitution. These Rights were thought so imperative that the BoR was introduced to quell anti-Federalist sentiments. The Rights of Englishmen was, for practical purposes, sacred. It's my opinion that the FF did not so narrowly think of "our posterity" as purely genetic. If it were purely genetic then what of the Welsh, Dutch, and Scots-Irish present? They were hardly of the English from whom the Rights of Englishmen originated.

The Rights of Englishmen. That was the fabric created and embraced by English, Scots-Irish, Dutch, German, etc, and fully expected, even demanded, be accepted and embraced by Art 1, Sec 8 entries.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 12:09 PM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

The 1790 population was 3.9 million. 757k were black. Of the remaining 3.15 million white, 2.1 million were English. 1.15 million were non English whites.

Should posterity include all 3.15 million, or just the 2.1 million English?

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 12:12 PM  

Rights of Englishmen.
ROE
Rules of Engagement.

hmmmm...

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 12:13 PM  

Rights of Englishmen.
ROE
Rules of Engagement.

hmmmm...


RULERS OF EVIL?

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 12:20 PM  

To become Jewish required the acceptance of Judaism, all Jewish laws, Jewish dress, Jewish ritual, physical mutilation, the death penalty for contradicting Jewish orthodoxy, and your descendants STILL weren't Jewish until their maternal grandmother was Jewish.

By the standard expected of Ruth and any other, to become "posterity" would require: adopting fundamentalist Christianity, abandoning ancestral speech, dress, food, and customs of all kinds, having GOD BLESS AMERICA tattooed on your dick and that of all male descendants, none of who would get to vote until their maternal grandmother was American under the definition above.

Civic nationalists are like, crazy right-wing.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 12:24 PM  

@78, ethnically, almost all those whites were Celts or Anglo Saxon. English refers to both, since England proper included sizable and distinct enclaves of both.

The only other sizable white enclave was the French, who formed the South and of course, later there was civil war between the two, gosh, that really proves Vox a fool, right?

The German enclaves were mixed Celt, so could be expected to assimilated, since they were in part from the same ancestral populations as the English.

Blogger rumpole5 July 08, 2017 12:28 PM  

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

Firstly, as pointed out above, and conceded to be obvious by one much smarter than I, the "ourselves" here included a polyglot mixture of German, Danish, Swedish,Catholic, American Indian, free black, Jew, Protestant and Catholic. We were a mongrel country at the start.

Secondly, the USA was a lightly populated wilderness in need cheap labor to clear new land and work on what clear land existed. Therefore, further immigration was necessary "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That is the obvious context of the preamble.

I am not a civic nationalist. I think that all illegal aliens should be expelled, and that further legal immigration should be halted. I just think that the preamble "posterity" argument is not persuasive.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) July 08, 2017 12:29 PM  

@78, ethnically, almost all those whites were Celts or Anglo Saxon. English refers to both, since England proper included sizable and distinct enclaves of both.

The only other sizable white enclave was the French, who formed the South and of course, later there was civil war between the two, gosh, that really proves Vox a fool, right?

The German enclaves were mixed Celt, so could be expected to assimilated, since they were in part from the same ancestral populations as the English.


Did you even read the link? It breaks out the groups by origin.

Scots, Scots Irish, and Welsh are all separate from English.

Also, the French didn't form the South.

Claiming that ancestral population should lead to assimilation ignores the history of Great Britain as well as the history of Europe. People with common ancestral population fought and killed each other all the damn time.

Blogger Ciaran July 08, 2017 12:36 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 12:38 PM  

You don't seem to grasp that "citizen" != "ourselves and our posterity".

To the contrary, that is my point. I am arguing that the preeminence in principle of posterity as indicated in the preamble was soon preempted in fact by citizenship, as defined in the Naturalization Act and its later revisions.

Exactly. The U.S. citizenry is not America, the Constitution and the federal law are entirely irrelevant, and now there is nothing left but the inevitable conflict between the various groups of fake Americans who are about as convincingly American as the average transgender activist.

I don't disagree with this, although I will point out that while the Constitution and the federal law are entirely irrelevant to the true America, the true America is also irrelevant to the U.S. law and citizenry in its current form.

So what then is America other than a mythical lost realm? How is any of this actionable? Who is the posterity and where are they now? We hordes of invaders of various ethnicities have more sense of identity and cohesion than the attenuated, mongrelized remnants of the posterity.

Anonymous Sertorius July 08, 2017 12:41 PM  

VD @63

One of the few universally shared values in all societies and all times: if you're going to woof, you better be able to ball. You're making grandiose claims, but your sense of Early American history is about as granular and profound as that of some random Desi I'd pull out of the cafeteria line. Good luck with the whole "gens" thing, though--we'll see if it has legs.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 12:43 PM  

Should posterity include all 3.15 million, or just the 2.1 million English?

It's not a question of "should". They specified it very clearly. It includes all 3.15 million.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 12:44 PM  

Was Paul a Roman because he had Roman citizenship?

Exactly.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 12:57 PM  

@84 "Scots, Scots Irish, and Welsh are all separate from English."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/britons-still-live-in-anglo-saxon-tribal-kingdoms-oxford-univers/

"The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population."

There is significant shared Celtic ancestry, just from different Celtic groups.

@84 "also, the French didn't form the South"

You may be right, that's an older posit from "Albion's Seed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed

Which again, mea culpa, posits that they had the largest cultural influence there, with a majority in Louisiana.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 1:02 PM  

"Claiming that ancestral population should lead to assimilation ignores the history of Great Britain as well as the history of Europe."

Uh... no, it doesn't. Integration is slow. And if you add differing ancestry and differing language group you get zero integration. But closely related groups, especially with a shared language, seem to be able to form stable coalitions. And wouldja lookit that, the USA is a Federation! Knock me down with a frikkin' fevver.

I don't agree with VD's conclusions, but at least I understand his observations.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 1:11 PM  

Except that the Preamble doesn't say anything about "Rights". Of the six stated purposes, only one references posterity.

Now, I disagree with Vox on the definition of posterity here, but that argument is not readily settled by internal or external evidence, so for the sake of argument I'll address it using his definition.

The question then becomes: so what? The Constitution does not define an ethnic group. It does not define a people of shared ancestry, and the only reference contained in it to a people group is "Indians".

The Constitution is, in fact, a legal document that addresses questions of law and citizenship. Every rule for office-holding addresses a minimum length of citizenship (ranging from "five years" to "natural-born"). There are no references to issues of descent or genetic heritage.

So if the argument is about "who are the Americans?", then the Constitution *has no bearing on this whatsoever*. It's a legal document, with proscriptions for law and order. Attempting to appeal to the Preamble is inherently flawed because the document itself is written regarding *citizenship*.

If, on the other hand, this entire like of thought is merely a rhetorical device... then neither side of the argument is actually relevant or meaningful.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 1:13 PM  

For clarity, the commonality between Germans and the English is that the Anglo Saxons were a Germanic group that interbred with the Celtic groups that preceded them, and similarly several regions of Germany were actually Celtic before being subsumed culturally by Germanic peoples. Germany is a Celtic-Germanic region, very broadly speaking.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 1:15 PM  

@92, you're arguing that the stated intent of a legal document is irrelevant. Can you expand on that?

Blogger Bill Halsey July 08, 2017 1:25 PM  

".it a point to go where the Magna Carta was signed. I naively thought there would be some huge monument."

The Magna Carta memorial is reasonably well marked by British archeological monument standards now. It's got three separate memorials! The one gifted from the ABA comes with it's own little pagoda.

The British Isles are steeped multiple layers deep in archeology in a way that I think is difficult for people from the New World to grasp.

For example, also at Runnymead a mere stone's throw away, was a large late Bronze Age settlement - one of the most important late Bronze age sites ever excavated in Britain. As far as I know it hasn't got any marker - yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUfW92DxAXM

Which is another short stone's throw away from the Ankerwycke Yew - a 1,400 year old yew tree supposedly the first meeting point between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (the tree itself sits in the ruins of a 12th century Benedictine nunnery )

My local pub was built in 1460, my local church was built in 1321

If everything was marked here we'd be tripping over plinths and plaques....

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 1:26 PM  

Wreckage, I'm saying that the stated intent of the document has no bearing on who constitutes "an American". If it did, then we're going to have to expand the definition even further because freed slaves and other non-white landowners (sometimes even including women) could vote in 4-7 of the original 13 States, depending on how you draw the line. So if the representatives who outside the Constitution represented all voters... well, the "Posterity" actually did include black and Amerind, at the very least.

This my argument that "American", as Vox has defined it, is (a) different from "Posterity", (b) not defined by the Constitution, which is a legal document that references "citizens" rather than "American national of genetic descent from the 3.15 million white people in the colonies".

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar July 08, 2017 1:26 PM  

I am inclined to answer 1 for the Magna Charta.
1 and 2 for the American Revolution.
Due to the whole Taxation Without Representation angle and the Founders' fear of establishing a controlling elite.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 1:32 PM  

Outside = ordained, this = thus

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 1:34 PM  

The question then becomes: so what? The Constitution does not define an ethnic group. It does not define a people of shared ancestry, and the only reference contained in it to a people group is "Indians".

Yes. And it is worth considering if the "ourselves and posterity" of the preamble is a rhetorical or dielectic statement. In the context you describe, the former is more likely.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 1:37 PM  

And on top of all that, let's go back to the example of Paul. As a Roman citizen, though not an ethnic Roman, he was afforded all the same rights and protections that applied to Roman citizens of Roman descent; in point of fact, he was afforded more of them than non-citizens of Roman descent. The same is true of responsibilities, which is something that constantly seems to be forgotten.

The more I think about this, the more inclined I am to conclude that we're having three separate arguments at the same time (ethnicity vs. citizenship vs. assimilation).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 1:40 PM  

Eduardo wrote:The proposition are the Sentiments that the Fathers had when they Started the Revolution.

C'mon you Civic Nationalists! What's the American Proposition? What is the concise statement of truth the acceptance of which makes a person and American?

I've yet to see one that reduced to anything other than "The American Proposition is allowing in everybody, because anybody can accept the American Proposition! And don't notice Jews!"

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 1:42 PM  

This my argument that "American", as Vox has defined it, is (a) different from "Posterity", (b) not defined by the Constitution, which is a legal document that references "citizens" rather than "American national of genetic descent from the 3.15 million white people in the colonies".

Correct. American != Posterity != United States Citizen. Each transition from one concept to the next represents a pragmatic and expansionary compromise that has had consequences.

We have now reached the point that immigrants believe they can be born American to foreign parents in foreign lands and foreign leaders declare that America belongs to the world. And the expansionist genie cannot be put back in the bottle by reason or democracy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 1:43 PM  

S1AL wrote:If, on the other hand, this entire like of thought is merely a rhetorical device... then neither side of the argument is actually relevant or meaningful.
And you don't get Rhetoric.

Blogger Elder Son July 08, 2017 1:45 PM  

One thing is clearly obvious:

Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it. - John Adams

Thanks in no small part to:

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 unbounded 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 proportion 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, incoherent, distracted mass. - Thomas Jefferson

Who are the posterity?

But it probably doesn't matter. Whether posterity, or not, if this present generation where given a golden platter of freedom and liberty, that was enjoyed by the founding revolutionaries, it would puke on the platter, and flush it down the toilet.

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 1:46 PM  

As a Roman citizen, though not an ethnic Roman, he was afforded all the same rights and protections that applied to Roman citizens of Roman descent; in point of fact, he was afforded more of them than non-citizens of Roman descent. The same is true of responsibilities, which is something that constantly seems to be forgotten.

This is incorrect. He was not a Patrician. He was not afforded all the same rights as a Patrician Roman. Nor was he of the Senatorial or Equestrian class, and the various rights and responsibilities that pertained to them. He could never have walked the cursus honorum.

This protection of the Roman posterity and retention of political power in its hands may explain why Rome will likely prove to have lasted longer than the USA.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 2:09 PM  

Patricians, Equestrians, and Senators were distinct subsets of the citizenry, not automatically conferred on all Roman citizens, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm mistaken). To clarify: being a Roman by ethnicity did not, in and of itself, confer any more rights for a citizen than those possessed by non-Romans.

Now, the fact that the Framers saw fit to limit only the presidency to natural-born citizens is understandable given the demographic situation of the time, but I'm inclined to agree that it was probably a mistake in the long-term.

-------

"And you don't get Rhetoric."

Ok the contrary, I simply understand that a dialectic argument over what the Framers meant by "Posterity" neither defines an American nor matters relative to the vernacular perception. This is especially true given that I've already pointed out that "Posterity" must necessarily include non-whites on the principle of representation. So the definition of "American" certainly matters, but this argument has no bearing on it.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 2:14 PM  

"And the expansionist genie cannot be put back in the bottle by reason or democracy."

This remains to be seen. If we can merely expel illegal immigrants in the next eight years, we'll have already rolled the clock back 60-70 years in terms of enforcing the law. That's a meaningful start. I hope and pray we can accomplish it.

But I've never disagreed with the assessment that the alternative is an unspeakably large river of blood.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper July 08, 2017 2:21 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:Would this "fake-american" designation include any of the founding seed, the posterity as described in the constitution?

Don't care. Paganism is European, not American. So is atheism.




Christianity by those defintions is a Jewish sect and it parctitioners hsoudl be in the Levant . Religions travel

In any case, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists or non Supernatural Christians like Jefferson and Ben Franklin arguablly was a Satanist or an Occultist (Hellfire Club member) . Many educated people and movers and shakers were Deists at the time . Masonic Lodges who made up most of the ruling class as far as I remember required a belief in God, not Christianity . Deists were welcome

The common folk were all sorts of Christian denominations however and apparently less than 1 in 5 were religiosuly active in Church affairs reported in The Churching of America . Our psoterity was much less relgious than you think

Also Asatru at least is American as Apple Pie as are a huge number of mystical belief systems as well.

Athiesm is common among the educated and well off nearly everywhere

In any case there were huge disagreements over the role of religion, some John Adams thought the US Constituion was only fit for a moral and religious people, not everyone agreed. Some though the First Constuituional convention and its results were a stab in the back. Heck teh very Republic almost didn't happen

All that aside, you have to deal with the people you have now, not the ones you want. You might not find White people amenable to as much religion as you think they need or you doctrinal peculiarities, Pew says 70% claim to be Christian but that means little unless they are active .

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 2:26 PM  

107. S1AL

"And the expansionist genie cannot be put back in the bottle by reason or democracy."

This remains to be seen. If we can merely expel illegal immigrants in the next eight years

I will be very impressed if even 10% of those illegals get the boot (2-4 million).

Illegals however are just the tip of the iceberg.

Legal immigration and those already granted citizenship have torn a lethal hole in the side of the American Republic.

The ship is going down.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 2:32 PM  

@Snidely

Behold Snidely!

All Americans are born in the USA territory
All Americans are brought up by an American Mom and a American Dad
All Americans are bound by their Duty, by how they were raised, and by Blood if so want it to, to Defend the Intent layed by the Founding Fathers

So the proposition is the Intent of the Founding Fathers, but it doesn't have to be offered nor upheld by just anybody. Here is the Thing, why would the Fathers create documents explicitly stating their intentions for the USA just so another generation could undo all things they have accomplished, the idea is obviously to maintain the system going on for all eternity or until is over.

Now yes, maybe they assumed only English descendants could pull this off but the whole point is to continue down the path they intended. If the idea is just to say "Hey we the group of English in America wanna do this until we say otherwise" ... Then Otherwise has come, and the World has become America.

Maybe the America of the Fathers needs to be reborn, by whatever method, in order to be as it was again, even if you remove all non English, would the remains go back to Constitutional US? You sure none would conspire against or outright deny it?

Blogger Deplorable July 08, 2017 2:42 PM  

VD wrote: Correct. American != Posterity != United States Citizen. Each transition from one concept to the next represents a pragmatic and expansionary compromise that has had consequences.

Then is it correct to say that American = (only) the "Us" present at the signing of the Constitution, and not "our Heirs" (Posterity)? Or does it include Us and our Heirs?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 2:44 PM  

Eduardo wrote:So the proposition is the Intent of the Founding Fathers,
This means "I have no idea what the proposition is."

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 2:54 PM  

@Snidely

Well I wish I could put in words... But the lack of Knowledge of the American Constitution does row against me on this one.

Still... Am I not correct that the American Constitution lays a number of rules for how America shall be governed? Or maybe the Intents were to maintain the Rights of Englishmen? There are still intents there, a North to which America should follow, a threshold to which Americans must obey, etc.

Or you disagree? America is what Americans want it to be? (Which is perfectly okay, but does neutralize any importance of the Constitution.)

Blogger Lucas July 08, 2017 2:55 PM  

"Was Paul a Roman because he had Roman citizenship?

Yes, because Rome was an Empire of immigrants. Or something.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 2:56 PM  

Snidely, which you peak: SJW Anglo-Saxon White person or Half Aztec Vox Day?

Neither doesn't count!

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis July 08, 2017 2:58 PM  

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

The first 3 words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States are: "We the People". Note that "People" is capitalized. The first six words are: "We the People of the United States".

Who were "the People"? They were the citizens of the ratifying states. Poor white men, slaves, (feather) Indians, and all women were not citizens.

Regarding "our Posterity" -- this means that at the time the US Constitution was ratified, this applied only to descendants of male citizens of the individual states at the time of ratification. (Note: this was not limited to only white men, as 5 states at the time of ratification permitted black men to become citizens, but there were few of those.)

What does "our Posterity" mean today? Sadly not much, as US Constitutional amendments and case law have modified the law such as to eliminate any advantages that would otherwise have accrued to those who are the true descendants of the citizens of the ratifying states.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 3:03 PM  

American != Posterity != United States Citizen. Each transition from one concept to the next represents a pragmatic and expansionary compromise that has had consequences.

And this expansionary process started right after the signing of the Constitution. Clearly the Founders were more interested in economic and territorial expansion than ethnic purity. And it did have its consequences. For example, they let in my people - the Irish - to dig the ditches and canals that the growing country needed and clean the houses of the wealthy Posterity, and ended up with corrupt big-city Democratic machine politics which ultimately expelled them from seats of power.

And the expansionist genie cannot be put back in the bottle by reason or democracy.

Until such time as effective militias are formed, we've got to keep trying to reverse the expansion by political means. Failing a reversal, we need to buy time and slow it down.

U.S. Citizens of White, European, Christian heritage are still the majority in the U.S., and most of us have not completely succumbed to the poisonous ideologies of Cultural Marxism. We are of the West that Donald Trump spoke of in Poland. We are of Chistiandom, an ancient unifying principle based in faith, and therefore much more powerful than modern EU pretensions. I think it is rhetorically more powerful to evoke the West as DT to unify the resistance to the latest invasions than to engage in dielectically correct but politically weak divisions of Americans / Posterity / Citizens.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 3:04 PM  

112. Eduardo

Am I not correct that the American Constitution lays a number of rules for how America shall be governed?

America.

Not Japan, not China, not Africa, not the lands of Mohammad.

It wasn't a universal pattern intended for all peoples, nor is it capable of being used as such.

That truth was ignored which is why it is now failing.

The proposition nation idea is a false claim that it was and is universal. It is a myth.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 3:12 PM  

Legal immigration and those already granted citizenship have torn a lethal hole in the side of the American Republic.

The ship is going down.


It is taking on water at an alarming rate, but are we certain it's going down? Shall we close the bulkheads and man the pumps, or run for the life boats? I say the former, for one good reason: there are no life boats. And there will be no rescue; all the ships in our flotilla ran into the same iceberg, one by one, heedless of the damage inflicted on their neighbors.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 3:17 PM  

@Sharrukin

I think that Vox gives some very compelling reasons to believe that, the world, is not America by any extent. The fact that I can't be American born in Brazil is nothing I am against. However, the Idea that there is a certain Proposition to be followed doesn't that far out of whack.

Now of course, I doubt that Fathers meant THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, when they wrote, otherwise they would just say: "We the Humanity...".

Unless of course, the Fathers did not intended to grasp the best out of Humanity but rather the Best out of Englishness. In that Case, the debate falls squarely in Vox's lap.

@Snidely

BTW, pretend I didn't write PEAK instead of PICK .... thanks bro! (Is those damn meds! Or is it?)

Blogger Salt July 08, 2017 3:21 PM  

In all their writings, anecdotes, etc... how long did the Framers actually think the Constitution might possibly last? What might be Posterity's run time? I wonder this as it was born out of revolution, and as Jefferson said, a little revolution is a good thing. The only meaningful revolution was Mr. Lincoln's War, and the Constitution lost.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 3:25 PM  

118. Jake

It is taking on water at an alarming rate, but are we certain it's going down? Shall we close the bulkheads and man the pumps, or run for the life boats? I say the former, for one good reason: there are no life boats.

What exactly is it that you want to preserve of the current US government and the national social environment?

Trying to save the ship of state allows their suicidal policies to continue for longer and to continue doing damage with you working desperately to make that happen.

Is that your intent, or do you have some other objective in mind?

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 3:26 PM  

The proposition nation idea is a false claim that it was and is universal. It is a myth.

You know what is funny, being an outsider, I can tell you why anyone would imagine that as a fundamental rule of any country: You guys are rich, and everybody wants in your awesome life.

I mean just ask around, pretend you are Mexican, and ask around why people think they should have the Right to be American. You can bet, the goodies that they believe come with being American will definitely be among the reasons to be American.

Just ask yourself, do you wanna be African? why not?!? You just thought of your naked ass running around in the heat while starving to death and Blackness didn't you! Obviously there is nothing you desire from Africa, so naturally you don't wanna be African, just like the Winner of the Race does not aspire to the day he will be Runner-Up.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 3:33 PM  

"In all their writings, anecdotes, etc... how long did the Framers actually think the Constitution might possibly last?"

Benjamin Franklin expected it to last until "the people had need of tyranny". That's a rather fascinating concept, and I'm guessing he was thinking of Caesar crossing the Rubicon when he wrote it.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 3:35 PM  

122. Eduardo

the goodies that they believe come with being American will definitely be among the reasons to be American.

Those goodies can only be produced by a certain people with a certain culture, history, mindset, and legal framework.

It can't be sustained by Africans or whomever because they lack the essential elements needed to 'make the magic happen'.

We in the west live in a society that is rare among nations and have become spoiled and unaware of how the rest of the world lives.

We think these things are easy because to us they are. We say "anybody could do this", but they really can't.

Blogger Michael Maier July 08, 2017 3:39 PM  

PastyWhiteBoy wrote:First trip I made.to England I made.it a point to go where the Magna Carta was signed. I naively thought there would be some huge monument. Just a placard in a field down from Windsor castle about a mile or so...

That's a sad commentary. We shouldn't be surprised.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 3:43 PM  

@124

Maybe, because it has become to easy to live? Don't really think that First World People believe that anyone can do what they do, But rather they believe that anyone has the Right to what they have the same way that poorer people in the First World has the right to what the rich person has.

Without saying of course, that Western Society is taken for Granted from the very Start.

Maybe is too much Entitlement...

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 3:59 PM  

126. Eduardo

poorer people in the First World has the right to what the rich person has

'Rights' don't give you a claim on someone else loot.

In decent neighborhoods you can leave a $400 bike on the lawn and it will be there in the morning. You can leave your door unlocked and all will be well. You can even leave your door wide open when you leave and no one will steal anything (which I have done several times due to little ones who forgot to close the door on the way out).

That is a high trust society that does not exist in most of the world. It is vanishing in the west as the third world is invited in.

Rights create the framework for our society to prosper.

Most other peoples see rights as a way to gain an advantage over others.

Blacks born and educated for hundreds of years in western schools and western norms have never managed to become western in any real sense.

They can't be western.
It isn't in them.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 4:34 PM  

'Rights' don't give you a claim on someone else loot.

Wish my Generation could learn this one...

Now I have lived in a nice neighbourhood... mannnn it was good. Military Base what can I say! You could probably sleep outside the entire week and nothing will come of it.

Not so much where I live now.

Got the tip of the hose stolen u_u.

Anonymous Nobody in Particular July 08, 2017 4:35 PM  

Since Loyalists, who were united with Americans by the strongest blood ties and nominally included among "We the People", were deprived of their property and forbidden to return after the war, how can any reasonable person conclude that Americans cared about blood ties? Is it not 10 times more reasonable to conclude that Americans defined themselves by their allegiance to an abstract ideal? In practice, the Declaration of Independence applied to those who believed in it, not to all people of the same blood.
It makes little sense to invoke Magna Carta after a revolution whose explicit goal was severing all ties to England and whose best ally was Louis XVI. The American Constitution was based on Enlightenment ideas, alien to the English tradition of monarchic and parliamentary supremacy. It was influenced by ideas of Rousseau and Montesquieu. It was preceded by the Corsican Constitution and followed by the Polish and French Constitutions, all rather short-lived, and then by many more European constitutions 50 years later. Constitutions were fashionable in progressive circles in the 18th century.
What is the posterity of the American Constitution? Is it the British Constitution? Or is it the Polish and French ones and all the others that followed? Where is the posterity of the Declaration of Independence? Is it in some act of the British Parliament? Or is it in the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen"?
Whom did Benjamin Franklin consider to be his posterity? Was it his son? Or was it the likes of Lafayette and Kosciuszko, who went on to spread the ideals of the American Revolution abroad and, when defeated, returned to the US?
There is no reason to think of the United States, or any of the individual states, as a 19th century nation-state, using ideas of Herder or Gobineau or the Romantics, at least not before the Civil War. One can hardly speak of an American nation at all before the Civil War.
The United States are the outcome of a bloody civil war, the American Revolution, fought in the name of abstract Enlightenment ideas. This war led to the severing of blood ties, not to their strengthening.

Anonymous Eskwire July 08, 2017 4:41 PM  

Someone has to explain to me why the issue of posterity matters. The matter certainly isn't something that has ever been the basis of litigation. Furthermore, It's very difficult to find any interpretation of "posterity" by anyone of import past or present that doesn't interpret the word as merely meaning Future Generations.

What's the point of this? What's the strategic goal. It's seems it no more than a matter of fringe rhetoric.

Blogger Steve Moss July 08, 2017 4:44 PM  

I side with Col. Kratman on this subject. I think Vox is being very specific (i.e. lineal descendants) when the Founders intended a broader scope.

I did not find "posterity" defined in Johnson's Dictionary of 1755. However, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined it as:

POSTER'ITY, noun [Latin posteritas, from posterus, from post, after.]

1. Descendants; children, children's children, etc. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from a progenitor. The whole human race are the posterity of Adam.

2. In a general sense, succeeding generations; opposed to ancestors.

In the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People" are establishing the Constitution for the benefit of "our Posterity". Vox seems to claim it alleges to lineal descendants. Others claim it is future generations.

I think it is both for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the Constitution specifically contemplates adding to the "People" via naturalization. So when the Founder's said posterity, they were referring to both the descendants of "We the People" and that the "People" could be added to via naturalization and brought into the body politic.

I also think this is common sense. If an American citizen marries a French woman, has a child raised in the USA, the child is a lineal descendant of the father citizen and is his "posterity". If their child then marries a German and raises the child in Germany, the now German child is still the posterity of the American grandfather. And so on for limitless generations. Essentially after many generations the original American ancestor can have descendants who have no connection to the USA and share only a small fraction of his DNA, but they are still his lineal descendants and are therefore his "posterity." A more generalized definition so it applies to the future generations of all the People, both native and naturalized, seems to be more logical and supported by the text of the Constitution.

And the above is true regardless of skin color or religion. For example, while each state was different, several allowed free blacks the vote from day 1 of the Constitution.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 4:45 PM  

Nobody in Particular wrote:Is it not 10 times more reasonable to conclude that Americans defined themselves by their allegiance to an abstract ideal?

On sentence precis of the abstract American Ideal that Americans defined themselves by their allegiance to, please.
No bafflegab or pointing to any founding documents. What is that ideal?

Blogger VD July 08, 2017 4:53 PM  

You guys are rich, and everybody wants in your awesome life.

And they're either unwilling or unable to do the things that are required to have it. That's the problem. As we have seen, their mere presence suffices to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Is it not 10 times more reasonable to conclude that Americans defined themselves by their allegiance to an abstract ideal?

No. Because that allegiance was never defined or tested in any way, shape, or form. Including by their kicking out the British loyalists.

If America is defined by not being loyal to the British monarch, almost everyone on the planet is an American.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 4:55 PM  

VD wrote:If America is defined by not being loyal to the British monarch, almost everyone on the planet is an American.
Including most of the British.

Anonymous Eskwire July 08, 2017 5:08 PM  

"If America is defined by not being loyal to the British monarch..."

Well, the revolutionary generation that fought was thinking about much more than not being loyal to the Crown. That much is clear. And all you have to do to understand what ideas the Patriots were allied to was their numerous writings. They were disloyal to the crown because the crown violated what they considered to be their natural rights.

Anonymous Eskwire July 08, 2017 5:10 PM  

"No bafflegab or pointing to any founding documents. What is that ideal?"

You should pickup Bernard Bailyn.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 5:20 PM  

Eskwire wrote:You should pickup Bernard Bailyn.
Referring me to some CivNat historian's 400 pages of bafflegab and skirting the issue is not an answer.

One sentence. What is the American Ideal/Proposition/Idea?

What is the Proposition we are supposed to be loyal to?

I submit that you can't reduce it to words, because it's not an actual proposition. It's an emotional jab dressed up as if it were thought. When you try to state it out loud, it's so obviously stupid that you can't bear to actually follow through.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 5:20 PM  

The American proposition is simple:

Live life for Mammon, believe Harvard's lie;
Trade your soul for a TV, and your balls for a tie;
Give your daughter to college, and your wife to some guy;
And you'll get Social Security until you die.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 5:32 PM  

@121 Sharrukin

What exactly is it that you want to preserve of the current US government and the national social environment?

Trying to save the ship of state allows their suicidal policies to continue for longer and to continue doing damage with you working desperately to make that happen.

Is that your intent, or do you have some other objective in mind?


I see the U.S. as the fullest realization of the Western Enlightenment. To use the ship analogy, it is seriously damaged, not by an external force but by saboteurs within. It is sinking because Cultural Marxists have been deliberately blowing holes in the hull for decades and no-one has made an effective attempt to stop them. It's called Gramscian damage.

But it still floats, and what is the option? There is nowhere better to go. If we devolve into civil war, it will be a long time before any order can be restored, and we will spend decades (or centuries) in the dark ages of the rule of might before the rule of reason and law can be restored.

You seem to be suggesting that it is better to get on with it and let things collapse so the rebuilding can begin. But immediate collapse isn't the obvious outcome. The more likely outcome is decades or centuries of increasingly tyrannical rule by the regressive left. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation", and things can continue to get worse for a very long time. We are near the apogee of human civilization - it's a long way down from here. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in that decent.

I think it is still possible to reverse the course of Cultural Marxism by mostly political means. I think the Left is much weaker than they sometimes appear, and can be beaten back. But it will require a cultural and generational shift. We may be witnessing the start of that shift now. I don't want to give up before the real fight starts.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 5:40 PM  

Jake wrote:I see the U.S. as the fullest realization of the Western Enlightenment.
you say that as if it were a good thing.
To use the ship analogy, it is seriously damaged, not by an external force but by saboteurs within. It is sinking because Cultural Marxists have been deliberately blowing holes in the hull for decades and no-one has made an effective attempt to stop them. It's called Gramscian damage.
Our current collapse is the inevitable result of "Enlightenment" thinking. Atheist Marxism is the political posterity of Enlightenment Humanism. Gramsci is merely the widening of Marxism beyond mere economics.

Anonymous Eakwire July 08, 2017 5:42 PM  

"Referring me to some CivNat historian's 400 pages of bafflegab and skirting the issue is not an answer."

You didn't appreciate Bailyn?

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 5:43 PM  

Snidely, since nobody else will rise to the occasion, I'll put forth the notion that the "proposition" that best defines the American people is the first two sections of the Declaration of Independence. The simple truth of the matter is that Americans, even in the strictest definition offered thus far, are an amalgamation people. We were formed from political and religious refugees and migrants from a dozen European nations to start, and conjoined from the beginning with freed slaves and Amerind peoples. We were inspired by a great diversity of political philosophies and practices.

And yet, as a nation, there was (and remains) a distinct British core and character, though forged by the wilderness of a sparsely inhabited continent and the westward expansion.

We have welcomed immigration from the first day, explicated by the first Congress. But the expectation, until recently, is that any immigrant would conform himself to American culture, learn and speak English, and respect the laws of the nation. This is the necessary practice for assimilation into "We the People".

The problem is that so many of our modern immigrants are wholely unwilling to be joined to the nation, and there are too many. We have to undo what has been done, or else be fractured. There's no proposition that can overcome that simple fact.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 5:45 PM  

In simpler language, is also like to point out that, as bad as things are, I'm not seeing a lot of places on the planet I'd rather live. Fixing what's gone wrong here is by far the best option.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 5:47 PM  

@130 Eskwire

What's the point of this? What's the strategic goal. It's seems it no more than a matter of fringe rhetoric.

I think it is a counter-argument to the "Zeroth Ammendment": that everyone in the world has an inalienable right to move to America and become an American. It is also a counter-argument to the "proposition nation", the idea one can become an American simply by subscribing to certain abstract ideas. It is formulating a very restrictive nativist definition of American. Nativism defines a people in terms of kith and kin, not adherence to abstract propositions. This is taking kith and kin to the extreme - the only real Americans are the descendents of those colonists who declared their independence of England and formed their own country.

That excludes most of us on the alt-something right. So it seems like a losing rhetorical and political position, regardless any dielectic argument VD makes for it.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 5:51 PM  

Mass migration, far beyond any previous concept, at least in our time, of immigration, was created and intended to destroy America and the West.

This was because Marxists MUST believe that America and the West are the global Bosses holding onto the wealth of the global Workers, or their entire religion explodes in a shower of shyte; having failed to secure their own Revolution, they are attempting a global one.

So, I think Vox has very neatly identified both their intent and their error.

My one comfort is that they always fail. Always and without exception. But they also have absolutely no moral ceiling on the amount of bloodshed they are willing to permit or participate in, to get their way.

So we will see. I think that they have overestimated their strength and the volatility of reality; volatility they have proven, time and time again, to be incapable of observing, predicting, or coping with. The world is more fluid now than ever, and the rational, and the Right, are advantaged by that.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 5:56 PM  

"That excludes most of us on the alt-something right."

Nope. Genetic studies have shown that over the last hundred years white America has changed very little. Hell, they've shown that in over a thousand years, the UK has changed very little.

The whole "only 10% of us would count as posterity" is patently false. Genetically, the great majority of white Americans are very close to 100% "posterity", or of the same national ethnic groups as "posterity".

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 5:59 PM  

> Genetically, the great majority of white Americans are very close to 100% "posterity", or of the same national ethnic groups as "posterity".

News to me. What study is that?

Blogger John Williams July 08, 2017 6:06 PM  

@Sertorious
Ha, I'm not sure that a bunch of armorially-obsessed aristocrats usage of the term necessarily defines its connotation for a bunch of rough-and-ready commoners centuries later on a different continent.
For 150 years, the colonists lived under the guidelines of the Magna Carta. Jury trials, no searches without a warrant, representative government, etc. As Englishmem, these rights were ingrained. When trampled on, the colonists reacted the same exact way as other Englishmen did (The Barons War) when the Magna Carta was stepped on in an earlier age. Nobles or common men, their rights and expectations were the same as their reaction. Your whole statement and following argument are wrong and show a severe lack of historical understanding.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 6:07 PM  

@140 Snidely Whiplash,

Our current collapse is the inevitable result of "Enlightenment" thinking.

Yes, I recognize that the Liberal Enlightenment is intrinsically unstable, and has lasted as long as it has only due to the stabilizing influence of non-liberal elements such as religion and tradition. Cultural Marxism is a sort of cancer formed from a toxic mutation of secular liberalism. If the cultural immune system of faith and religion becomes weak, this cancer metastasizes and eventually consumes its host.

However, the modern era has been a huge success in many ways and I don't desire to live in premodern ignorance or postmodern ruin. I think it may take a decidedly less liberal period of theocracy to push back Cultural Marxism and preserve the gains of modernity. In that light, Margret Atwood's Handmaids Tale was an accidentally insightful novel.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 6:10 PM  

@140

Agreed Mr BaffleBag.
Call me PotatoBag.
No wait... You are the English one...
Okay we Switch!
We will be the BagBros!

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

By the way... What exactly can you guys do to get the Genetical Posterity back in Power? And who Knows, get the Constitution to be more than just paper.

I mean, you can trace who is who in the USA, so you can definitely find the correct people to bring under your wing and start the Republic all over again, even if only De Facto for a while. You can take over parties and stir Politics into your favor.

I mean, there are some nice picks there: Scalzi a true American or Vox "The Aztec" Day...

I guess you white folks will have to have the Ruinator right?

/sarc

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis July 08, 2017 6:11 PM  

Steve Moss wrote:In the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People" are establishing the Constitution for the benefit of "our Posterity". Vox seems to claim it alleges to lineal descendants. Others claim it is future generations.

I think it is both for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the Constitution specifically contemplates adding to the "People" via naturalization. So when the Founder's said posterity, they were referring to both the descendants of "We the People" and that the "People" could be added to via naturalization and brought into the body politic.


Clarity may be found in the the first act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (1790): "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Note also the act of 1795 which provided further clarification, but specified such persons shall be male (he/his), and white, and free; and further that they shall "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". This specifically excludes non-whites, white indentured servants, slaves, and women.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 6:13 PM  

oh oh.... apparently Scalzi is an Italian Family... Well I tried. damn it Scalzi! not even for a ludicrous decision you are worth for something!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 6:16 PM  

S1AL wrote:I'll put forth the notion that the "proposition" that best defines the American people is the first two sections of the Declaration of Independence.
So the Introduction, which sets out the legal case for the right to assert independence. It's not really germaine.
and the preamble, presumably meaning the Egalitarian's favorite sentence:
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 these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

At what time in American history was allegiance to this idea ever required for admittance or citizenship in the US?
If you are an Atheist, which is a simple and clear denial of this proposition, are you no longer an American?

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 6:17 PM  

@146 wreckage,

Nope. Genetic studies have shown that over the last hundred years white America has changed very little. Hell, they've shown that in over a thousand years, the UK has changed very little.

That only means that most immigrants to America were genetically similar to the Founders. Most Northern Europeans descend from the same large scale migrations, give or take - the post-ice age hunter gatherers, the first farmers from the Near East, the Bronze age herders from the steppes of Central Asia.

But most U.S. Citizens do not descend from people who were American Citizens in 1787 when the Constitution was signed. And even those who have original American ancestors have many other ancestors who arrived in the U.S. much later as immigrants from European countries other than England.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 6:23 PM  

"At what time in American history was allegiance to this idea ever required for admittance or citizenship in the US?
If you are an Atheist, which is a simple and clear denial of this proposition, are you no longer an American?"

I'm not defending the notion of the "proposition nation" as anything more than the idea around which the USA first coalesced. The Declaration is, of course, rhetoric of the first order ("hey, we already made our decision, but let us tell you why"). If anything, the "proposition" is a cultural anchor. Attempting to base legal doctrine or immigration policy on it is foolish.

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis July 08, 2017 6:24 PM  

Now you may wonder what they meant by "white". In 1923 SCOTUS considered this and said: "The words of familiar speech, which were used by the original framers of the law, were intended to include only the type of man whom they knew as white. The immigration of that day was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forbears had come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” it was these immigrants—bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh—and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind. " Note also that citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. If a white woman had a child with a non-white father, the child was not eligible for citizenship.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 6:31 PM  

@156

"it was these immigrants—bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh—and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind."

So the founders extended the notion of kith and kin across the European nations.

If a white woman had a child with a non-white father, the child was not eligible for citizenship.

The Founders did not look kindly on mudsharking! Heartiste would be pleased.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 6:31 PM  

"But most U.S. Citizens do not descend from people who were American Citizens in 1787 when the Constitution was signed. And even those who have original American ancestors have many other ancestors who arrived in the U.S. much later as immigrants from European countries other than England."

This is a really complicated argument to make or contradict, because the idea of "citizenship" wasn't really fleshed out properly at the time. Moreover, everyone knew that national =/= citizen. In many ways, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was a much an expansion as a restriction - it created a uniform method by which any resident (who met the criteria) had the RIGHT to petition for citizenship. And citizenship did not grant voting rights - those were still reserved to the states to define.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 6:51 PM  

S1AL wrote:I'm not defending the notion of the "proposition nation" as anything more than the idea around which the USA first coalesced.
I apologize if I'm making this personal. I have a hard time telling when I do that. I'm arguing against the idea, not against you.
I would contend that the ideas around which the USA first coalesced were "F*** YOU KING GEORGE!" and "Well, here we are."
In other words, the fight for independence was exactly that. They were fighting for their traditional culture, and after a few years it became clear that they would have to prune the German from the top of the political tree, as it were.
Then having won their independence, they did their best to put together a system that embodied their traditional political culture in a form that prevented anything like a king from having the power to take away their rights, while allowing the several nations (which is what the the term "state" derives from) to coexist in a single federal polity.
They only formed a federal polity because they feared that the individual states could pretty easily be isolated and swallowed by one European power or another, eventually becoming something like the Caribbean, North Africa or Central America.

The essential meaning or "All men are created equal" is simply "you have no right to rule me."

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 7:02 PM  

144. Jake

That excludes most of us on the alt-something right. So it seems like a losing rhetorical and political position

The 7th Cavalry isn't coming to the rescue. It's more of a postmortem analysis.

The patient is dead. There is no winning this one.

People need to face the reality that the constitution is a dead letter. It may inform future peoples as to what they should, or should not do, but as far as the American Republic is concerned, it's done.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 7:03 PM  

It is the particular genius of America that all men are created equal, but not all women are like that, and some colors require extra equality to make up for inequality that occurred before they were created.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 7:07 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:I apologize if I'm making this personal. I have a hard time telling when I do that. I'm arguing against the idea, not against you.

Oh, no worries. I just wanted to clarify that I was offering a definition of the proposition, rather than arguing that it's a legitimate basis for the nation as such.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:I would contend that the ideas around which the USA first coalesced were "F*** YOU KING GEORGE!" and "Well, here we are."

Depends on the point in time where you draw the line. I'd say that's the impetus that led the individual states to separate, while the Declaration lays out the reasons they joined together in the first place.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:In other words, the fight for independence was exactly that. They were fighting for their traditional culture, and after a few years it became clear that they would have to prune the German from the top of the political tree, as it were.

Then having won their independence, they did their best to put together a system that embodied their traditional political culture in a form that prevented anything like a king from having the power to take away their rights, while allowing the several nations (which is what the the term "state" derives from) to coexist in a single federal polity.

They only formed a federal polity because they feared that the individual states could pretty easily be isolated and swallowed by one European power or another, eventually becoming something like the Caribbean, North Africa or Central America.


This goes back to the oft-overlooked reality that the United States was a prototype for modern nation-states. Sure, you had the Swiss, but they were a MUCH looser federation than even the states under the Articles of Confederation. At some point I'm going to actually dedicate some time to figuring out how much the formation of the USA defined world history. I suspect it's our single largest contribution to the planet.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The essential meaning or "All men are created equal" is simply "you have no right to rule me."

Yes, I don't see how any honest perusal of the context leads to anything other than a variant of that statement.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 08, 2017 7:25 PM  

The essential meaning or "All men are created equal" is simply "you have no right to rule me."

It was rhetoric suitable for the circumstance of revolution, not something the Founders literally believed. There are mountains of evidence to support this.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 7:31 PM  

@163

*Eats Popcorn*

Dude, can you give that evidence, this whole American Posterity talk is fun XD.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 7:37 PM  

@Snidely

By the way Snidely... gotta job yet?

------

U_U or can we go fight crime as the Bagbros? I got our BagSignal ready to go!

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 7:43 PM  

Isn't being Brazilian a daily exercise in looking out the window / hole in the wall at a socioeconomic layer cake with a white frosted top and a burnt bottom?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 08, 2017 7:48 PM  

@164 Sure. The most obvious example is the Founders' attitudes toward blacks and slavery. Thomas Jefferson disliked the institution of slavery but struggled with what should be done with freed slaves. He freed James Hemmings, who became a drunkard and committed suicide, which reinforced Jefferson's fears that blacks would be unable to successfully integrate into white society. In his later attempts to end the practice of slavery in the United States, Jefferson's plans involved resettling freed blacks to locations either in Africa or the Caribbean. He did not propose to give blacks equal rights and simply turn them loose in the US.

One must either conclude that Jefferson's assertion that "All men are created equal" was hyperbole or that he did not consider blacks to be men at all.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 08, 2017 7:59 PM  

It should be worth mentioning that the Magna Carta lasted all of a few days. King John affixed his seal to the document while all the Barons were assembled, but as soon as they were gone, he ripped up the document and declared it null.
.
Haven't we see this ourselves?
In 1987, President Reagan wanted to put an end to the illegal alien problem, once and for all. There would never, ever be another amnesty....besides it was ONLY going to be one million (which turned into four million, once chain immigration kicked in). In return for this undeserved amnesty, WE THE PEOPLE would receive a long list of ENFORCEMENT measures that would effectively keep the problem from every happening again. So what happened? The illegals....plus three million more of their "relatives", some who had never set foot in the USA, got instant citizenship. As soon as that was done, the Congress began to Welsh on the deal, slowly clawing back every one of the enforcement mechanisms that had been bought and paid for by the blanket amnesty....until finally, we had Open Borders and surges across the border with tens of thousands of "unaccompanied children". Like King John, our enemies got what they wanted and stopped payment on the check. Now we have the present situation, far worse than we had in 1987, when we were guaranteed this would never, ever happen again.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:04 PM  

@166

Not really...

It is true that the higher classes represent a small percentage, but there is a huge amount of people that are middle class (Like me). The most lower classes are condensed to certain areas: Favelas, Northeast small towns, Indigenous people lands... The rest of the people leads a rather okay life and if you are in the European part of the Country then your life is pretty good (Except when Northeastern people immigrate there... then is not AS GOOD as it should be)

I mean is by no means rich, it is a poor country, but if you are a rural type, you can probably have a good life.

Anonymous DonReynolds July 08, 2017 8:13 PM  

@167 Noah B The Savage Gardener
"One must either conclude that Jefferson's assertion that "All men are created equal" was hyperbole or that he did not consider blacks to be men at all."

The Declaration of Independence was not Jefferson's product alone. Congress took the draft that had already been altered by the committee and voted some 115 separate changes to the document before approving it. There was no hyperbole nor would any have survived the process.

"All Men are Created Equal" was well understood to men at the time to be a deliberate poke in the eye for King George III, who ruled by Divine Right of Kings. It did not mean that slaves were equal to their owners, or men were equal to women, or rich were equal to poor....and there was no one who would have thought so!
The phrase (and the entire Declaration) was addressed to the King himself as a refutation of the idea that he ruled by Divine authority, that he was born to rule over the rest of us, and that his birth was any different from anyone else's. His kingship was nothing more than an accident of birth, not dependent on his abilities or his divinely derived authority.

Some people want the phrase to mean what they want it to mean, when actually it has a meaning of it's own, which was clearly known to the entire Continental Congress at the time. There is no mystery or ambiguity or contradiction in the phrase.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 8:21 PM  

Some of us do not want a good life. We want to give our uploaded posterity a head start to the stars on the ravening demon-possessed digital-life corporate-bacteriums that will come boiling up out of the Silent Planet's gravity well.

Blogger 1337kestrel July 08, 2017 8:23 PM  

What's the point of choosing 20th generation Anglo guy over half-Aztec dude, when anglo Guy wants to rip the constitution and install SJW-topia?

1) Reversion to the mean. A heretical WASP SJW is likely to have average WASP children. A freedom-loving secular Arab Muslim is likely to have a gay terrorist mass murderer child.

2) Why would you think the primary goal of our ideology is to purify itself by attacking opponents and welcoming adherents? The purpose of ideology is to serve God and our Nation, even if our nation abandons God and Ideals.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 08, 2017 8:26 PM  

There was no hyperbole nor would any have survived the process.

You have no convincing argument that hyperbole would have been inappropriate in the Declaration of Independence. It's like when we say "SJWs always lie." We know it's not literally true. They probably slip up and tell the truth once in a while.

There is no mystery or ambiguity or contradiction in the phrase.

Provided you understand that it was hyperbole/rhetorical. Otherwise you have to conclude that it's total nonsense.

Blogger wreckage July 08, 2017 8:41 PM  

Look, I'm not especially interested in being everyone else's fact-bitch, particularly not when the questions get retrospectively changed. I don't agree with the intensity of Vox's focus on ethno-nationalism, but the defeaters proposed by you guys are wishful thinking or contrary to facts.

I've shown where facts can be found and how they can be found, I demonstrated very clearly that I check my facts and report my own errors, I suggest you just go and actually do some bloody reading instead of endlessly nitpicking then moving the goalposts exactly one nit's-breadth.

For crying out loud, my arguments and sources can be used to create a coherent argument for the inclusion of "not-posterity" with "posterity" if you just stop trying to prove the unprovable and synthesize the damned argument sequentially!

Now bugger off and put some actual effort into it!

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:43 PM  

@Noah B

Interesting, I heard Lincoln had the same general feelings about Black People. now seriously, Black, like reaaaaallly Black people in Brazil aren't all like that (I mean not as bad as). Brown people though, now that is fudged up. Maybe that whole Brazil got the better slaves might true. Or maybe I am wrong, maybe it is just a local minimum, but I do believe ghettofication plays a large hole in creating disfunctional people.

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

You know side note and totally off-topic, but I always laugh at the day that I was taking my Red-Haired Blue-eyed friend to her porch as a nice gentleman, just to have her ask: "WHAT YOU DOING!" and me answering in a calm voice "Just taking to your porch ma'am" XD.

Oh man, I am such a Assburgers XD. but it bothers me how being gentle and truthful with other people gets them to think you want "that" or "this".

Oh yeah and pretending to be dumb to be funny doesn't count as a lie! XD

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 8:44 PM  

@174

It is a friendly talk Wreckage, you don't have to straight everybody's ships all the time.

Anonymous aibg July 08, 2017 8:52 PM  

wreckage wrote:"That excludes most of us on the alt-something right."

Nope. Genetic studies have shown that over the last hundred years white America has changed very little. Hell, they've shown that in over a thousand years, the UK has changed very little.

The whole "only 10% of us would count as posterity" is patently false. Genetically, the great majority of white Americans are very close to 100% "posterity", or of the same national ethnic groups as "posterity".


https://infogalactic.com/info/English_Americans
The 2008 census puts English ancestry at 9%. It also shows 5.9% who claim to be solely "American," so we can maximally assume that 15% of Americans are of English descent. But how many of them really have no other immigrant nationality mixed in there? And, 3 million British immigrated from 1820-1970 alone. How many of the Posterity do you think never mixed with those British immigrants?

I am changing my original estimate from 10% to 0%. I doubt that there is a single 100% pure-bred nuclear family of Posterity remaining; and if there is, good luck getting them to marry into a second.

So, I guess according to VD America is dead?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 08, 2017 9:04 PM  

So, I guess according to VD America is dead?
No, according to Vox you need to be a better father to your wife's son.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 9:08 PM  

@ 160 Sharrukin

The patient is dead. There is no winning this one.

No way man. We’re going to win so much! As the God Emperor said in Poland, "I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph."

All hail the God Emperor.

And anyway, fuck it, I want to fight. Whether a meme war or a shooting war, win or lose, it will be glorious. If the patient is already dead, then it will be vengeance upon those who killed it.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 9:08 PM  

177. aibg


https://infogalactic.com/info/English_Americans
The 2008 census puts English ancestry at 9%


From your link...

In the 1980 United States Census, over 49 million (49,598,035) Americans claimed English ancestry, at the time around 26.34% of the total population and largest reported group which, even today, would make them the largest ethnic group in the United States.

1980 50 million (26%)

to

2008 27 million (9%)

A massive hidden genocide has clearly taken place...or maybe it's just damn statistics put out for political purposes?

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 9:10 PM  

That's awesome! America is dead, so it's time to WHITE POWER and KILL COMMIES and RAPE HARVARD.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 9:11 PM  

179. Jake

And anyway, fuck it, I want to fight.

We will all get to take part in the festivities.

Anonymous Jake July 08, 2017 9:12 PM  

@177 aibg,

It also shows 5.9% who claim to be solely "American,"

A lot of those are Scots Irish hillbillies, not English. And many of those are not outbred yet. Inbred is more like it. So you'll probably find VD's truest Americans deep in the hills of Appalachia.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 9:19 PM  

That's awesome! America is dead, so it's time to WHITE POWER and KILL COMMIES and RAPE HARVARD.

Seems to be the general direction of what's being fomented.

Anonymous badhairday July 08, 2017 9:23 PM  

Its Rhetoric.

Vox has joined a shortened version of clause 1 of the Magna Carter and clause 2 into a single apparent clause.

Clause 1 deals with the rights and liberties of the English church. Specifically the churches rights over its own elections.

"Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve and protect the Rights of Englishmen," -VOX

-These are not the rights of Englishmen but the right of the English church so clause 1 issues are not really relevant here.

Clause 2 deals with the property rights of free men. (in this context 'free men' is thought to refer to land owners only)

The word heirs is used in two slightly different contexts in clauses 1&2. It is used in both 1&2 as in 'heir to the throne' (ie future kings) and the law that flows from a medieval monarch. But is only used in 2 in the context of 'a person who inherits land'

I can see that a case can be made for equating 'posterity' and 'heirs' but not by representing two distinct clauses of the MC as a single clause.

With this in mind option 2 in the multiple choice is too vague as it does not indicate whether it makes a distinction between the medieval concept of an heir (as the person who receives land as an inheritance) and the modern meaning (as a person who has the right to inherit)

I personally don't think that it is valid to use the Magna Carter's 2nd clause as a justification for interpreting 'posterity' as genetic descendent as heirs don't actually have to be genetic descendants.

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 9:26 PM  

@184

Where FarCry 5 will OCCUR! Vox Day is the Illuminatti confirmed!

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis July 08, 2017 9:32 PM  

The secondary Alt-Right movie: They Live - http://www.watchfree.to/watch-e41-They-Live-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
Actual original Alt-Right move is the Invasion of the Body Snatchers: http://www.watchfree.to/watch-5689b-Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
They are both allegories.
The Invasion movie was 1956. We did not listen.
They Live was 1988 and we still did not believe.
So now. We now live fully invaded, occupied, with the insanity widespread, and argue about who is white, the usefulness of Christianity, civic versus ethnic nationalism, the stupidity of SJWs, and the meaning of Western Civilization.
Meanwhile we are being slowly exterminated.

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 9:35 PM  

Reminder: The English weren't pure-bred British. At the point you start obsessing over that level of ethnic purity, your conclusions are not relevant to life on this planet.

Blogger Koanic July 08, 2017 9:36 PM  

Now that we have reached the tipping point of inevitable success, it is safe to reveal Texas' master plan to revenge the Yankee Tyrant's trampling of our battle-forged rights as a voluntary member of the free Several States.

We are like the Greece of the EU, bringing down the evil empire from within using nothing but expendable pavement apes.

Texas had two enemies: Mexico and the Union. Soon she will have zero!

Blogger S1AL July 08, 2017 9:36 PM  

"Meanwhile we are being slowly exterminated."

Speak for yourself. White people who live in the red zones are having children and own guns.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 08, 2017 9:40 PM  

184. Laramie Hirsch

Seems to be the general direction of what's being fomented.

Yes it does.

Hunt & Kill All White Women’ Facebook Post Deemed Not Hate Speech

Texas A&M won't fire professor who called for killing white people

“All I want for Christmas is white genocide."

In a follow-up message, he said: “When the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.” - Drexel University professor

"We [blacks] must eliminate the white man before we can draw a free breath on this planet" - Amiri Baraka

Anonymous Eduardo July 08, 2017 10:38 PM  

Was great guys. Gotta admit, I see the Strength in Vox's argument, but I would to see more of the debate with The Kratman!

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 08, 2017 11:37 PM  

The founders and other architects of Americanism would be severely pissed to be referred to as Englishmen. They wanted nothing to do with them after the divorce from the West.

Blogger Elder Son July 09, 2017 12:19 AM  

Yes, this is their posterity they were talking about:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Mexican+flag+and+rioting&FORM=HDRSC2

And here is more of their posterity:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Blacks+rioting&t=ffab&iax=1&ia=images

And, even more of the founding revolutionaries posterity:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Muslims+in+America&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=1&ia=images

Just some of the posterity that wants you to either assimilate, and/or want your white ass dead.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 09, 2017 12:20 AM  

Also, as long as we are deifying the Founders as the supreme archons of all white Americans, allow me to interrupt this Apotheosis for a moment to state that even John Adams believed that The principles of liberty--those magical rights that only white people are capable of having--that those principles are universal:

"Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

Though, I'm sure one of you bright lads have already pointed this out.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 09, 2017 12:20 AM  

Eternal and immutable.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2017 12:24 AM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:even John Adams believed that The principles of liberty--those magical rights that only white people are capable of having--that those principles are universal:
So what?
He was obviously wrong. It was obvious even at the time he wrote those words.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch July 09, 2017 12:34 AM  

No niggers in God's Eternal Heaven, eh Snidley?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 09, 2017 12:38 AM  

You conflate political arrangements with salvation Laramie?
That's straight-up blasphemous.

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts