ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 07, 2016

That which goes unlinked

I found this guest poster's response, to a commenter on a blog which may or may not be this one, to be interesting in its dedication to a) detail and b) avoiding the central issue at hand:
This is an interesting mix of “truthiness” and bigotry. Sarah is American by belief and choice, accused of being a “traitor” by people who think their ancestry and presence on the landmass of the US since birth make them guardians of the US nation-state. Aside from the incoherence (how can she be a traitor if she is not a member of the tribe?), the commenter attempts to other her by lumping her in with the virtue-signalling SJWs.

This commenter is sadly unAmerican in his resort to racist and sexist issue framing, completely misapplied to Sarah Hoyt. It’s unfortunate that the loud outpourings of these people, few in number but egging each other on in the fever swamps of sites like this blog-which-shall-go-unlinked, can so easily be used by progressive scribblers elsewhere to tar all dissenters from the Progressive program of thought control as racists, misogynists, and neo-Nazis (or worse!)

Which brings up a valid point these people have made: if Americanism is a bundle of individualist beliefs and attitudes, what about those with deep roots in the US, born and raised for generations there, who don’t accept those beliefs? If tolerance of difference is a watchword, then should those who don’t tolerate differences be suppressed or removed?

Our answer starts with looking at how we got to this point, where government has expanded and encroached on the private sphere of business and social organizations to the point where private action is viewed with suspicion, and a significant percentage of the population believes democracy means subjecting every action of business to the political process and regulation.

Americans were formerly known for their commitment to private charity and self-help organizations; the America of Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 teemed with churches and private social organizations and lacked the inherited privilege and concentrations of unearned wealth and power seen in Europe. But he worried that “… a despotism under a democracy could see ‘a multitude of men’, uniformly alike, equal, ‘constantly circling for petty pleasures’, unaware of fellow citizens, and subject to the will of a powerful state which exerted an ‘immense protective power’. Tocqueville compared a potentially despotic democratic government to a protective parent who wants to keep its citizens (children) as ‘perpetual children’, and which doesn’t break men’s wills but rather guides it, and presides over people in the same way as a shepherd looking after a ‘flock of timid animals’. He also wrote that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

He was prescient. We have arrived at that state.
First, everyone would do well to settle down. Sarah Hoyt didn't threaten to punch anyone. One of her white knights threatened to punch me if he ever encountered me, presumably due to my crimethink. As we see, their dedication to the propositions they profess doesn't run terribly deep. But this is an intellectual dispute, and there is no need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, or for fisticuffs.

Second, and more importantly, the post is mistitled. The situation is not "Sons of Liberty vs National Front" because in this particular case the Sons of Liberty are the National Front. Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers, a posterity that excludes, among many, many other U.S. citizens, Sarah Hoyt.

Needless to say, they will try to redefine "posterity" just as they have redefined "American" and "democracy" and "liberal". But if your position requires historical falsehoods, retrofittings, and redefinitions, your position is inherently flawed.

But the post does serve to nicely illustrate the intrinsically dishonest, pernicious, and untenable nature of the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join "by belief and choice". Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety, and is intrinsically totalitarian in a way that the most authoritarian "blood and soil" regime could never be.

It is no surprise that as a result of immigration and the necessary redefinition of what it is to be American, the country has become considerably less free despite the influx of these "belief and choice" citizens. The Know-Nothings were, more or less, correct. Indeed, the present situation is a direct consequence of the inability of 19th century immigrants to fully grasp the Rights of Englishmen, because they were never English and they will never be what might be described as Americans version 1.0. More recent arrivals are observably even less able to do so.

It's rather ironic to observe that just as my maternal ancestors were robbed of their land and their heritage by one wave of colonists, my paternal ancesters are now being robbed of their birthright, their heritage, and even their name by succeeding waves of invaders.

The astonishing thing is that these advocates of the absurdity known as "the proposition nation" believe, genuinely believe, that they are the good guys. But they have confused rhetoric for reality, which is why their arguments inevitably end in either incoherence or untruths.

A Swedish reader comments: "The only mystery is why Swedish politicians have got it in their heads that everyone who sets foot on Swedish soil will immediately embrace our values, our view of women and our traditions."

And so we see, the pernicious lie of the proposition nation spreads.

Labels: ,

82 Comments:

Blogger The Other Robot March 07, 2016 9:47 AM  

It is so hard to understand:

Hard right stuns with huge election gains in Frankfurt

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau March 07, 2016 9:53 AM  

The Invaders will eagerly embrace Swedish Women but not much else.

Anonymous Faceless March 07, 2016 9:58 AM  

I mean, even Mr. Gillan understood, from his base in Florida, that he was at best three states away from a Texas state of mind.

"Sarah is American by belief and choice, accused of being a “traitor” by people who think their ancestry and presence on the landmass of the US since birth make them guardians of the US nation-state."

Did she not have to get consent from these horrible people who occupied the landmass to grant her US citizenship? So, given that they had the authority to grant this to her when she came asking - and they did not, by contrast, genuflect upon learning of her opinions - yes, the people who occupy a piece of land decide who gets to be in or out of that state of land.

Nice country - if you can keep it - is the rule of the world. She should know this when her ancestral people fought their way back from the high country to reclaim their fair coastal towns down the peninsula, or how her people camped out in Brazil while the imperialist Spanish denied them their home.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2016 10:01 AM  

"Rhetoric for reality" women in a nutshell. If a man can deal with their little bitchy fits that they throw trying to obtain conformity then he can assert dominance and women love that even as they squeal.

And the white knighters hate Game, if so they hate women.

Sarah go make us a sandwich, white knighters go kill yourselves.

Blogger Gaiseric March 07, 2016 10:07 AM  

So bizarre. By their logic, Sarah cannot be a traitor because she doesn't have the "blood and soil" lineage; but they struggle to understand what blood and soil lineage Americans who don't believe in Americanism actually are? Duh. Traitors.

Someone like Sarah would be relatively welcome in a time in which our country is not on the verge of being swamped. As the spouse of a (presumably) honest to goodness American in the blood and soil definition, hardly anyone I know of would deny her the privileges of citizenship.

They've made a mistake of scale and scope. Because in small numbers the right-minded types of people can come to America and assimilate, therefore, there can be no limit to the amount of people that can come to America and assimilate? The experiences that led to the quotas of the Page Act of 1875, the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, should anyone care to get any context into why those acts were passed in the first place, proves that that position is a-historical and frankly pretty ridiculous.

This is similar to the dogma of open borders and free trade in that it's simply dogmatic, and a conservative version of virtue-signaling.

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 07, 2016 10:15 AM  

What happens to a dream engaged?
Does it enhance reality?
Increase fealty?
Or does it invade?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 07, 2016 10:15 AM  

61 million migrants, 17.5 million illegals in US and the estimate of illegals is low. Way low, probably.

Propositionals should have to explain how that many people can be acculturated. Because frankly, they can't. And they aren't.

Colonization must stop.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2016 10:16 AM  

Imagine white people without virtue signaling, imagine the world without white people playing pretend god if they lose their virtue signaling soapbox.

I wonder what non-whites gather of this nonsense, do they think we are all insane?

Blogger Christopher Yost March 07, 2016 10:17 AM  

I had that sort o' encounter on her site (when I was first becoming aware of Hugo, puppies, etc.).

I pretty much ended callin' 'em all CHORFies. It's exactly how they bahaved.

Throughout the nonsense, I kept trying to have an intelligent conversation but they continued to SJW the ever-lovin' hell outta it.

She states she and they are puppies but that only appears to be the case in a very few instances.

Never met her, don't know her...and I don't trust her nor her hard-core followers.

Anonymous Faceless March 07, 2016 10:20 AM  

@5

To follow you, one would like to see some cleaving to the new country in the honoring of our peculiar and strange process whereby citizenship is conferred. Claiming to have been a citizen by idea while actually a citizen of another land is a weird definition of citizenship the trivializes and mocks the process. This says nothing about the person - she's certainly a credit to America and we're good to have stolen her from Portugal.

I heard Melania Trump talking to Greta Van Susteren, and Mrs. Trump seemed to be be proud of having followed the process, humbled to have become American, and clearly pointed to when she got the documents and took the oath as to when she became an American. She did not trivialize the peculiar process.

The American oath of citizenship used to be a beautiful thing, written with the best language we could find in a country of gentlemen farmers and factory workers. They were going to change it because abjuring prince or potentate no longer made sense to people; I hope they haven't.

Anonymous Roundtine March 07, 2016 10:21 AM  

You can solve for American liberty by being broadly bigoted against ethnicities and religions that have history of being liberty destructive or aggressively policing the "proposition nation." Thanks to Facebook and other social media, totalitarian policing isn't as hard as it sounds. You could probably write a citizenship algorithm to select people from social media, and their offline contacts would probably cover 99% of all people who truly support liberty. If the left wants to write a similar algorithm to kick us out, that works too.

Anonymous Gen. Kong March 07, 2016 10:24 AM  

At the end of the day, if you scratch a cuck there's always an SJW under the the shiny, flag-waving surface.

Blogger CarpeOro March 07, 2016 10:28 AM  

If you can be an "American" by thought and in your heart and be allowed to immigrate - does that mean we should add to the entrance requirements some kind of "rightthink" test? Complete with lie detectors and sodium-peneathol checks?

Tangential to the topic, looking up Sacco and Vanzetti I noted that newer ballistic tests make it appear that Sacco was indeed guilty at the least. Personally, if you sport the same political dogma as the guilty guy (which was not at all American) and hang out with the guilty guy regularly, deportation should be the best for which you can hope.

Blogger Salt March 07, 2016 10:30 AM  

Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers, a posterity that excludes, among many, many other U.S. citizens, Sarah Hoyt.

Those concepts also extend their protections to the immigrant. Because of this, they claim that posterity includes them. It does not. Is it possible for subsequent generations down the road issuing from the immigrant to achieve inclusion? Indeed it is. Sarah admits to such.

"Then there was the fact that Dan could never be REALLY Portuguese, even if he moved there, learned the language and acculturated completely. He’d still be a foreigner living there. Being Portuguese means sharing ancestry. Our kids would be considered mestizos. Our grandkids would probably bear “the Americans” as a nickname. Our great grandkids might too, and by the sixth or seventh generation, THEN they would be Portuguese (and might not remember why they had that nickname, and might think it was just some ancestor who liked American movies.)"

Needless to say, they will try to redefine "posterity" just as they have redefined "American" and "democracy" and "liberal".

Since I do not identify with America being a propositional nation, I'm less of an American than Sarah the Citizen, who, as far as I'm concerned, got off the boat yesterday.

Blogger Nate March 07, 2016 10:36 AM  

Sarah's white knights really need to settle down.

Blogger pyrrhus March 07, 2016 10:58 AM  

The Rights of Englishmen, not the rights of Germans, Irish, Iraqis, etc.....Bullseye

Anonymous MarriedWorker March 07, 2016 10:58 AM  

"Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers"

Strange that they weren't called the "Rights of Americans", then, isn't it? But that's a moot point; if only English-Americans count then the other 90% of the country has long since won that fight.

At least Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen should still survive in England, right? If the genes they shared with the American Founding Fathers mattered but the propositions they disagreed on did not, then surely a country that is still 80% English must have reverted to the mean, and become a bastion of liberty?

(crickets chirping)

Perhaps even those English are just the wrong kind of English? If Germanic people coming to America scuttled liberty here, it seems odd to place our hopes on the descendants of the Angles. Or of the Saxons. Or the Jutes... who exactly are we rooting for, again? The Britons? The Picts? Presumably the Normans are out of the question.

Blogger Student in Blue March 07, 2016 10:59 AM  

This commenter is sadly unAmerican in his resort to racist and sexist issue framing, completely misapplied to Sarah Hoyt.

He didn't agree with a woman! Sexism!

Blogger tz March 07, 2016 10:59 AM  

But the post does serve to nicely illustrate the intrinsically dishonest, pernicious, and untenable nature of the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join "by belief and choice". Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety, and is intrinsically totalitarian in a way that the most authoritarian "blood and soil" regime could never be.

Hence the idea you can have a propositional nation based on liberty is a contradiction in terms. Liberty and tolerance require you to allow people who have sworn to kill and destroy you and who have blasphemous and abominable habits and customs. Socialism fails economically, though not totally, but works as a proposition - you let a hundred flowers bloom so you can take the scythe to them.

The Englishmen spread across the British Empire, but their "rights" didn't follow even when by any objective measure they were superior. When the empire left, the few whites who stayed were deposed. Even South Africa, lots of whites left for other places including the US west coast.

And even the English - When we look back at the Founding Fathers, we forget they looked back on centuries of blood, tyranny, wars, economic collapse - The South Seas company anyone? 1720! Cromwell. Henry VIII couldn't take More. The levelers. The Magna Charta. The Declaration and Constitution did not arise in vacuum or spring forth fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus. The blood, sweat, and tears over a thousand years went into it.

And even if we didn't abandon these rights of nature and nature's God which the English discovered most fully first, the ideas would still need perfecting.

Even their neighbors in Europe - well educated with a similar temperament couldn't do it. England itself didn't realize it as fully, but at least came closer with Acton, but they are now socialist.

Liberty is HARD. I have great disdain for libertarians who assume one read of Rothbard will make everyone free. Even Jesus couldn't do that. To expect far more alien cultures in one generation to turn into Acton-Burke-Englishmen and have their mindset rooted in their culture and history is stupid and insane.

Even Sarah. Especially Sarah. Ask her to describe what America is and more importantly the why - as it shows understanding - and you will get platitudes, or something very superficial. Not even Ameriboo. If she did, she would be calling for far more drastic measures to return to America 1.0, not try to fix or explain 3.0 or 4.0. Does she even know the unsanitized non-comic-book history of Lincoln's war and Reconstruction? The Wilsonian destruction of the Republic? She took an oath to the Constitution, but doesn't understand what it means or what it should require of her. American? In what way? Globalist lite maybe. If she really wants to be an American, she has a lot of work to do. It isn't just cramming for the citizenship quiz.

But the poster does have one fair point. As a grandchild of immigrants, I know more about what America was and should be than those who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower but like Obama. They have emigrated in their minds to some socialist utopia, but are staying here.

Also: Miner mispelling: more ore less

Anonymous Bobby Farr March 07, 2016 11:06 AM  

On a positive note, it is a serious sign of progress when even a douche like this guy, whose writing is filled with virtue signaling, SJW-style name calling, factual inaccuracies, full acceptance of the left's premises etc., is calling for a ban on Muslim immigration.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 07, 2016 11:07 AM  

the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join "by belief and choice". Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety...

The most interesting (especially if you are an American by birth) aspect of the Propositional Nation is the idea that once these people have joined "by belief and choice", they apparently feel free to expel people already here for not having what they consider the proper beliefs or for making the wrong choices.

Now where have I seen that sort of concept before?

The astonishing thing is that these advocates of the absurdity known as "the proposition nation" believe, genuinely believe, that they are the good guys.

The villain in a good story always thinks he's the hero.

Blogger praetorian March 07, 2016 11:07 AM  

There is nothing so terrifying to the thoughtful modern individualist mind as: genetics may determine a lot of my behavior and beliefs... and maybe my genetics suck.

And so America becomes Brazil upon Nuke Arsenal.

Anonymous Mike March 07, 2016 11:13 AM  

Well, of course all who THINK of themselves as Americans are American.

And Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Anonymous WINDUP March 07, 2016 11:14 AM  

@12

Conservative bleed blue. I can't tell the difference between a Cuckservative and a Libertarian. I don't think I've even met a SJW.

Blogger Rusty Fife March 07, 2016 11:19 AM  

tz wrote:I know more about what America was and should be than those who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower but like Obama.

"Mayflower" there is the problem. Brownist, Cathederalist Cucks from the get go. Yankees are only famous for being too stupid to feed themselves and having to be rescued by savages.

"Susan Constant, Godspeed and Discovery" are the ships you should be looking at for Rights of Englishmen influence in America.

Anonymous Tim W Burke March 07, 2016 11:20 AM  

When Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, how did he expect the continent to be populated?

Anonymous Steve March 07, 2016 11:22 AM  

All I got from that boring wall of text over at The Hoyt Locker was:

a) The author is super concerned about appearances; and

b) the free market will fix it!

Well, allow me to retort:

a) Mel & Kim were right

b) LOL.

Blogger Gaiseric March 07, 2016 11:25 AM  

Strange that they weren't called the "Rights of Americans", then, isn't it?

They are, dimwit. The Founding Fathers clearly understood that they were building upon the Rights of Englishmen to create new, improved "Rights of Americans."

But that's a moot point; if only English-Americans count then the other 90% of the country has long since won that fight.

Math is really hard. So is a tiny bit of research.

At least Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen should still survive in England, right? If the genes they shared with the American Founding Fathers mattered but the propositions they disagreed on did not, then surely a country that is still 80% English must have reverted to the mean, and become a bastion of liberty?

(crickets chirping)


What kind of stupid red herring is that, and why do you expect anyone to go chase after it?

Perhaps even those English are just the wrong kind of English? If Germanic people coming to America scuttled liberty here, it seems odd to place our hopes on the descendants of the Angles. Or of the Saxons. Or the Jutes... who exactly are we rooting for, again? The Britons? The Picts? Presumably the Normans are out of the question.

Do you even know what the concept of the Rights of Englishmen is? You are clearly attempting to argue from a vast misunderstanding of what the point actually is.

Anonymous Facile Libertatas March 07, 2016 11:26 AM  

Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers, a posterity that excludes, among many, many other U.S. citizens, Sarah Hoyt.

There are many here who support your view point without understanding that they are not included in the “posterity of the American Founding Fathers”. They view ‘American Nationalism’ as being the same as ‘White American Nationalism’, not realizing that Germain-American Nationalism or Irish-American Nationalism or -Nationalism are oxymorons.

This is important to get right, because any dreamt of nationalist ‘America’ that includes X-Americans will only eventually descend to the same anti-liberty.

Even English-Americans whose ancestors hadn’t arrived before the mid-1780s can’t claim the birthright, and it would be a mistake to conflate them. Englishmen in England and those in America diverged, genetically and culturally, so completely that a modern Englishman in England’s understanding of concepts like liberty are completely inconsistent with those of the Founding Fathers.

Those of mixed back grounds are a stickier wicket. My gut reaction is that it doesn’t take too much intermingling, combined with a lifetime of exposure to modern Western culture, to make it impossible for them to ever really understand the Founding Fathers.

Blogger tz March 07, 2016 11:27 AM  

If the first generation of immigrants are only 80% Englishmen culturally, and they don't turn their children into 100%, the next generation will be 64%, then 51%, and the resulting mix will dilute everything to where it ceases to have an effect. America was English biblical nonconformist protestant even for all the talk of liberty. The problem has been the erosion of all of those cultural frameworks. There's a reason Latin America isn't/wasn't like the USA. Even Argentina which was ascendent in the 1930s but never recovered from Peron. I'm Catholic, but the traditional Protestant paradigm works better. I'm not English, but their common law and practice works better. It is good to tolerate, but you need to keep the foundation and realize you are tolerating something alien, not adopting or accepting it.

Blogger frigger611 March 07, 2016 11:27 AM  

I think this "proposition nation" has some roots in the libertarian train of thought, and IIRC Ayn Rand was one who claimed that she was an "American by choice." Not that I agree with her, but I think the USA was indeed a stronger and better country when the immigrants coming here were better instructed in American history and political philosophy and our leaders made sure assimilation was paramount (English only, voting franchise tightly controlled, etc)

But with the rise of cultural Marxism the greatness and the wisdom of our founders have been derided and ridiculed, the constitution they crafted is toilet paper, and with Hart-Celler of 1965 now we have immigrants who are openly hostile to the founders' vision, and our multi-culti progressive leaders have said that assimilation is racist and therefore Home Depot parking lot camps of Mexican laborers and para Espanol, marque dos.

I would have to agree with Sarah H and Ayn Rand that America is healthier when her immigrants do indeed revere the founders and the founding documents, v. the La Raza mestizos who think they are part of a reconquering effort - but yes, that is missing the point.

Anonymous Michael Maier March 07, 2016 11:28 AM  

This crap is exactly why Western Civilization is doomed. Too many idiots who at first look are "on our side" but have no real thoughts, no principles and no capacity for introspection.

I am fine with being outgunned, outnumbered and going down with the ship. I just wish for better enemies. These lukewarm fools are just... meh.

I'd rather be raped by a bear.

Blogger Rusty Fife March 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

tz wrote:America was English biblical nonconformist protestant even for all the talk of liberty. The problem has been the erosion of all of those cultural frameworks.

Only in Yankeeland.

Blogger tz March 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

@25 - thanks for the correction. I need to put higher a few history books on my to-read stack.

Anonymous BGKB March 07, 2016 11:35 AM  

If tolerance of difference is a watchword,then should those who don’t tolerate differences be suppressed or removed?

Didn't she know tolerance only goes one way?

The Invaders will eagerly embrace Swedish Women but not much else.

http://newobserveronline.com/german-govt-promotes-interracial-sex/
"The German government has set up an explicitly-illustrated website dedicated exclusively to promoting interracial sex between the nonwhite “refugees” and Europeans.

The new website, called “Zanzu—My body in words and images”—was set up by the Ministry of Health’s Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (“Federal Center for Health Education,” BZgA) in cooperation with a Belgian-government funded “Expertise Center for Sexual Health” called Sensoa."

And the white knighters hate Game, if so they hate women

They say you have to chose between loving women and understanding them, that's why being gay is a choice.

Blogger VD March 07, 2016 11:35 AM  

a) Mel & Kim were right

Sad but true. We aren't ever going to be respectable.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau March 07, 2016 11:36 AM  

The Invaders will eagerly embrace Swedish Women but not much else.

Anonymous BGKB March 07, 2016 11:39 AM  

Here is a Mexican 5 generations on the dole talking about TRUMP

"“If these people get what they want, Trump in there, I guarantee you — you think the Mexicans are going to lay down that easily? We don’t ever say nothing,” said Ronald Gonzales, a resident of Dallas, Texas.

Gonzales was part of a small group protesting against a Donald Trump rally in Fort Worth.

He said “You really want the Mexicans to really, really stir, really get mad? Y’all don’t understand — we aren’t the minority anymore. We own Texas. Texas is Mexican-made. I’m five generations deep right here.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/29/hispanic-anti-trump-protester-warns-white-voters-of-the-consequences-of-electing-trump-we-own-texas/

Blogger John Williams March 07, 2016 11:40 AM  

Sarah's white knights really need to settle down.
They're seeking her approval. How can you expect them to settle down when she might bat an eye at The One, the special knight with the virtue to stand out from all the others. They aren't so much white knights as they are hatchlings in a nest squawking for momma to give them a regurgitated chunk of worm.

Anonymous Tim W Burke March 07, 2016 11:42 AM  

Sorry about my silly question.

Blogger The Other Robot March 07, 2016 11:51 AM  

A Swedish reader comments: "The only mystery is why Swedish politicians have got it in their heads that everyone who sets foot on Swedish soil will immediately embrace our values, our view of women and our traditions."

Because Never Again!

Blogger frigger611 March 07, 2016 11:56 AM  

BGKB, I really dislike Glenn Beck, so I don't visit the Blaze much at all, but I clicked on the link to see what the La Raza guy 5 generations deep was saying. Yep. No love for the founders there.
It was heartening to see that all the commenters were on the side of Trump, which goes against all the bile Beck has been spewing, and this on his own site.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2016 12:02 PM  

Roundtine wrote:You could probably write a citizenship algorithm to select people from social media, and their offline contacts would probably cover 99% of all people who truly support liberty

And if you got them all together in one place, you would watch it devolve immediately to war. The differing cultures, social cues, expectations and backgrounds would absolutely require it.
Diversity + Proximity = War.

Blogger praetorian March 07, 2016 12:04 PM  

I wonder what non-whites gather of this nonsense, do they think we are all insane?


You do have to wonder what an honest Chinaman would say about the whole thing, if we were able to really sit him down and explain it all without him leaving out of boredom mixed with contempt.

Blogger tz March 07, 2016 12:08 PM  

@33 - thanks, I should have been clearer.

Some examples of the freakshow fall, military edition
not telling HIV isn't assault featured as just one example in Women in Combat

Blogger Rantor March 07, 2016 12:12 PM  

Actually the feminization of Sweden means that very few foreigners will accept Swedish ideas about women because they are irrational. Swedish men must rise up and defend their land or lose it to the invaders.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 12:14 PM  

I don't really care about Sarah Hoyt, so I am going to pass over that topic to address the more important issue, i.e. Anglo heritage and posterity.

I have been saying for two decades that the importation of white Catholic populations from Ireland, Poland, and Italy was the beginning of the decline of America simply because Papists have a much different world view on how society should be ordered, and also our relationship with God as independent moral beings.

The notion of natural rights bestowed on individual men is not something that agrees with Catholic thought and belief. And it was the gift of rights from God directly to mankind WITHOUT PRIESTLY INTERMEDIARIES that is foundational to the ideas of liberty espoused in the Declaration of Independence, which is by far a more important founding document than the Constitution.

To some extant, German immigrants were always more assimilable because of their Protestant (Lutheran) traditions than those populations that come from Catholic dominated nations such as France, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Italy, and other Orthodox societies.

To wit: Concerning the current Presidential campaign. One of the big differences between Cruz and Rubio is their religious foundation as children. Rubio hails from the tradition Hispanic Catholic background, and you can see it in how he approaches governing. On the other hand, Cruz's father outright rejected Catholism, and embraced one of the most anti-Catholic Protestant denominations after his conversion. Also, his mother, née Wilson, is firmly is the Anglo posterity heritage. This explains Cruz's commitment to founding principles.

Trump, on the other hand is from more recent immigrant stock than the mother of Cruz. He is German and Scottish. But this heritage also is grounded in Protestant tradition, which is why he also finds attachment to the same principles, albeit more loosely than Cruz.

I fail to understand how Vox Day's patriarchal claim to Anglo heritage is more relevant to his nationalistic ideology than Cruz and his matriarchal claim to the same heritage. Also, the Baptist strain of Protestantism is more virulent than the Lutheran strain so predominant in Minnesota.

Nevertheless, you can see the effect of Protestant heritage in both Trump and Cruz, even if Cruz is actually part of the Anglo posterity while Trump is not.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 12:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ahazuerus March 07, 2016 12:19 PM  

Did a man really write "that shall not be linked?

Because I can't even fathom a woman being that pathetically cowed. As a young man we had a parallel phrase: "pink kindergarten girl's blouse".

But even that is too complimentary.

Blogger VD March 07, 2016 12:23 PM  

I fail to understand how Vox Day's patriarchal claim to Anglo heritage is more relevant to his nationalistic ideology than Cruz and his matriarchal claim to the same heritage. Also, the Baptist strain of Protestantism is more virulent than the Lutheran strain so predominant in Minnesota.

Who ever said it was? At what point have I said anything about how I am the one true American? In fact, I have stated precisely the opposite.

Moreover, I grew up in the Baptist church. They have those in Minnesota too....

Blogger pyrrhus March 07, 2016 12:34 PM  

@48 Yes. One part of my family is Swiss-German, and spoke German at home 100 years ago. Great people, but in a very Germanic, obedient to authority at all times, way. Not Englishmen in their way of thought. It didn't matter back then, since federal authority didn't exist in rural areas......But the genes are still there. Apparently I got more of the English, Viking and Scots-Irish genes....

Anonymous BGKB March 07, 2016 12:39 PM  

Magic dirt failure, Statues of Lee and Jackson to be replaced by Statue of ugly Tranny known for literally eating feces.

http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/baltimore-set-to-ban-lee-and-jackson-to-welcome-degenerate-divine/

Blogger Cecil Henry March 07, 2016 12:39 PM  

Racial groups exist, and they have every right to defend their interests and live in a territory of their own, for those interests.

If you want to imitate what that group does-- go ahead and do it. You have no right, and no expectation to be allowed to live in that territory and destroy those interests.

Strangely for anti-white one worlders, the ONLY way to allow non-whites people's to prosper is to pour into All white countries and only White countries.

The hypocrisy amounts to White genocide, and is in itself very racially aggressive and intolerant. They just refuse to acknowledge it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2016 12:42 PM  

Scott6584 wrote:On the other hand, Cruz's father outright rejected Catholism, and embraced one of the most anti-Catholic Protestant denominations after his conversion. Also, his mother, née Wilson, is firmly is the Anglo posterity heritage. This explains Cruz's commitment to founding principles.

Ummm.... you realize that Cruz' parents started out as ateists (and his father claims to have been a member of Castro's REvolucion), and embraced Mormonism when he was young and spent several years in the LDS?
His father's Christian bona fides date from after Ted was an adult.

Also, pro tip, you might want to know something about Catholicism before your start denigrating it.

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 07, 2016 12:51 PM  

"My sons know exactly six words of Portuguese — in the order I say them when I burn myself."

So when the fire is on, she reverts to Portuguese. That is by definition unAmerican.

Anonymous joe doakes March 07, 2016 12:59 PM  

If being an American is not a matter of ideal or mind-set, but strictly a matter of heredity passed down to descendants of the original Englishmen who founded the nation, then:

Only descendants of Englishmen can be Americans.

There are no pure blood descendants of Englishmen left in America.

There are no Americans in America.


Blogger kudzu bob March 07, 2016 1:04 PM  

Sarah Hoyt is to Americans what wiggers are to Blacks.

Blogger Ahazuerus March 07, 2016 1:05 PM  

Snidely

Where did he denigrate Catholicism? Expressing a preference is not denigrating.

If someone came here and called you a racist for expressing a preference for white women, what would you say to that?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2016 1:05 PM  

@joe doakes. I hope to God you don't have any guns.

Blogger frigger611 March 07, 2016 1:25 PM  

@52

Wow, BGKB, another link and another treasure trove of information regarding how our "progressive" fellow citizens are choosing filth and rot over beauty and noble virtues. I've witnessed thousands of little stories like this in my 52 years of life, all leading downward, in a spiral, with the accumulated weight of a zoo's century-output of dung.

Anonymous BluePony March 07, 2016 1:28 PM  

When did "other" become a verb?

Blogger Gaiseric March 07, 2016 1:28 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Ummm.... you realize that Cruz' parents started out as ateists (and his father claims to have been a member of Castro's REvolucion), and embraced Mormonism when he was young and spent several years in the LDS?

His father's Christian bona fides date from after Ted was an adult.

Also, pro tip, you might want to know something about Catholicism before your start denigrating it.

And you might want to know something about Ted Cruz before you start haphazardly applying a handful of details of Marco Rubio's history to him.

Anonymous joe doakes March 07, 2016 2:41 PM  

@59 None that I care to mention over the internet, Snidely.

But perhaps I misconstrued your comment. Were you suggesting "Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers, a posterity that excludes, among many, many other U.S. citizens . . ." doesn't mean what I think it means?

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 3:14 PM  

Scott6584 wrote:Rubio's family was the one that converted to Mormonism when they lived in Las Vegas, not Cruz. You need to get your facts straignt. You can google Ted Cruz's Presidential Candidacy announcement at Liberty University to get the story of his father's conversion directly from the candidate, if so inclined.

Also, vis-a-vis dual citizenship, I was married to a woman whose father was in the US state department. Although she and her twin brother were born in Texas, her two sisters were born in Mexico City, Mexico, and Sao Paolo, Brazil. Both had dual citizenship.

Prior to 1967, dual citizenship was illegal in the USA. So, it is not surprising that Parents of children born around that time may have been confused about dual citizenship. According to Cruz, his mother informed him that he was an American by birth, and that he had to make a positive claim of citizenship in Canada in order for Canada to consider him a citizen, since neither of his parents were Canadians. That turned out to be untrue, but it is understandable that a child would believe his mother, even if she was confused about dual citizenship that had only been legal for 3 years prior to his birth.

One of the reasons for the confusion may have been the flight of many Americans avoiding the draft during the late 60's and 70's. The "refugees" from America were given status in Canada that was called "landed immigrant" status. (BTW, the reason I am aware of this is because I lived in New Brunswick, Canada from 1979-1981 as a young teenager. My father worked in the Energy business, much like Cruz's father).

A landed immigrant had to make a positive declaration that he was seeking Canadian citizenship as a refugee from America. So, it is unsurprising that Cruz's mother would be confused about getting Canadian citizenship. Since neither she, nor Rafael Cruz were refugees, but Rafael was a temporary worker operating on a work Visa (like my father a few years later), it follows that she didn't understand that Ted Cruz was given birthright citizenship in Canada. Hence, it is rational to believe that he grew up believing that he ONLY had American citizenship, and only repudiated his Canadian citizenship after he found out his mother was wrong.

I remember, as a 14 year old when I moved to Canada, being surprised by how many former Americans were living there. Since I was a brash Texan (which didn't go over well in school), my parents never explained how many traitors had fled to Canada to avoid the draft until after we had moved back to the States in March of 1981.

Bottom line: It makes sense to me, based on my own experience, why Cruz's mother would be confused, and told Ted Cruz that he would only be a Canadian citizen if he made a "positive" claim to be one, due to two things: 1) the relative newness of the right to have dual citizenship in the USA, and 2) the atmosphere of having a bunch of Draft dodgers in Canada trying to "positively" claim Canadian Citizenship - something Cruz's parents never did.

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2016 3:16 PM  

@8 Mr.MantraMan
I wonder what non-whites gather of this nonsense, do they think we are all insane?
---

Whatever they think, they all apparently think they are entitled to all of our stuff.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 3:19 PM  

VD: If you were raised Baptist, your attitudes toward nationalism make more sense than if you were raised a Lutheran. Do you give no credence to Cruz's similar upbringing?

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2016 3:21 PM  

@17 MarriedWorker

It's always year zero for SJWs and Cucks.
Maybe you haven't thought that the fact that those things are going away now is what we are fighting against.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 3:28 PM  

One more comment concerning assimilation of German peoples vs. immigrants from Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox dominated cultures. Many of the early German immigrants were actually Catholic refugees from Protestant Germany - at least that is true in Texas, where Catholic Germans immigrated to Texas when it was still part of Mexico. So, some German populations retain that collectivist mindset inherent in Orthodox world views. And the Germans are notorious, much like the Russians, for preferring Authoritarian style government. So even if some German populations were more likely to assimilate due to there Protestant backgrounds, some were not. Hence, it is still the Anglo population that has the most legitimate claim to the posterity of the Founders. I myself am almost 100% Anglo, with less than 5% combination (3/64th) Choctaw and Cherokee Indian. I am also related to 6 different US Presidents, multiple judges, Supreme Court Justices, and a long line of Preachers going back generations. My father, in addition to working in Nuclear Power Plants, was also an ordained Baptist Minister with a degree in Divinity from Arlington Baptist College in Texas. I joke that I attended seminary (I was an infant/toddler) from 1966-1969.

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2016 3:36 PM  

@57 kudzu bob
Sarah Hoyt is to Americans what wiggers are to Blacks.
---

Now you've done it. Expect to be visited soon by Captain Transafricanamerica!

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2016 3:40 PM  

Going on about Germans and such assimilating, and then trying to somehow shoehorn a Cuban Canadian as excluded from that...

It's beautiful man

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 3:57 PM  

Were-Puppy,

You completely missed the point.

1) Cruz is 1/2 Anglo
2) Cruz was not raised in the Cuban Catholic culture, he was raised in a white Baptist culture.
3) Even with Cruz's father being raised in Cuba, he was a rebel against Baptiste, who was a socialist tyrant in his own right, before Castro came to power, and he rejected the Catholic Cuban culture when he converted to Baptist after being "born again."
4) all of those things dramatically impact Cruz's world view, his paradism about how he sees the world. It is dramatically different than others from South Florida who were hoping to return to Cuba when it was liberated. The upbringing of Cruz and Rubio were dramatically different. Rubio's was based in Catholic Hispanic culture of Cuba, in a cuban enclave of Cuban expatriots in Florida. Cruz was raised in a white, Anglo dominant, Baptist culture with an Anglo mother. Big, big difference.

That is why Rubio and Cruz are so antagonistic toward one another.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 4:07 PM  

By the way, Cruz did not marry a Hispanic. His wife, Heidi, is 1/2 Anglo, 1/2 Finnish. She was raised 7th Day Adventist - another fiercely independent Protestant denomination. Her Dentist father (Nelson), worked as a Missionary.

My point is not to impress anyone with Cruz's religious affiliations. My only point is that religion affects a person's overall world-view, especially if they take their religion seriously, as both Ted Cruz's, and his wife's parents did. Both are steeped in Anglo-protestant tradition via their background and upbringing. It affects how they view politics.

Blogger Scott6584 March 07, 2016 5:20 PM  

Snidely,

I wasn't denigrating Catholicism. I was simply making the point that the Catholic religion is contrary to the founding principles of the USA. You can take that as a positive or a negative depending upon your point of view.

But in his pamphlet "Common Sense", which galvanized American colonial opposition to the authority of the British Crown, Thomas Paine specifically refers to anti-Papism as justification for the Revolutionary War. It's a historical fact that is indisputable.

You can certainly make an argument that anti-Papism wasn't the main reason for the revolt against King George, but Paine was making the argument that revolting against the King was the logical extension of revolting against the Catholic Church, and tied the "divine right" of kings to Papal enforcement.

So, asserting that Catholicism was contrary to the founding principles should be uncontroversial. You can also argue that America became better by changing to incorporate Catholics with their particular world view. But that would be endorsing a change from the founding principles - which many Americans do endorse. So that puts you in the same camp as many others. It's still not what the founding principles were based upon. That's just a fact, not a denigration of Catholicism.

Blogger Dutchman March 07, 2016 6:02 PM  

"....the intrinsically dishonest, pernicious, and untenable nature of the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join "by belief and choice". Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety, and is intrinsically totalitarian in a way that the most authoritarian "blood and soil" regime could never be."

Ideologically based identities which are theoretically open to anyone have this weakness of subversion from within by oportunististic converts. Such societies must inevitably police the beliefs of their members to prevent this. The experience of the inquisition in Spain is an example of this.

This also implies that people like myself, a actual descendent of the founding population of this nation, am not an American since I don't share this belief in the proposition nation, and that I am therefore a threat to the nation. How can anyone believe that was the intent of the founders?

Blogger VD March 07, 2016 6:50 PM  

Do you give no credence to Cruz's similar upbringing?

No. Because I had the same chance to enter into the world of the globalist elite, and I chose to walk away from it.

Blogger Escoffier March 07, 2016 7:04 PM  

They are, dimwit.

This one's so dense I think we need a new term. How about darkwit?

Blogger Escoffier March 07, 2016 7:19 PM  

BluePony
When did "other" become a verb?


And when did othering the other become a bad thing?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 07, 2016 7:40 PM  

My apologies, You are correct, I confused the one Cuban's story for the other's.

Anonymous Anonymous March 07, 2016 8:39 PM  

"...the America of Alexis de Tocqueville"
It's sick that these people are using some frog's writing as their model of what america was and should forever be. Should we be dictating Japan's poltics based on Megatokyo? Better give Johnny Foreigner the heave-ho, he doesn't just steal your land he robs you of your history while he's at it.

Blogger Thordaddy March 07, 2016 9:50 PM  

These people are eternally crazy... Truly homeless self-annihilators...

http://andrewbartlett.com/another-native-title-success/

Blogger Were-Puppy March 07, 2016 10:37 PM  

@71 Scott6584

When exactly did Teddy disavow his Canadian citizenship?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politics/ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/index.html

Just think about what you are saying.

As if being a Canadian citizen was a paperwork slip up that can be slid under the rug.

Blogger Rusty Fife March 08, 2016 4:37 AM  

Scott6584 wrote:One more comment concerning assimilation of German peoples vs. immigrants from Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox dominated cultures. Many of the early German immigrants were actually Catholic refugees from Protestant Germany - at least that is true in Texas, where Catholic Germans immigrated to Texas when it was still part of Mexico. So, some German populations retain that collectivist mindset inherent in Orthodox world views. And the Germans are notorious, much like the Russians, for preferring Authoritarian style government.

Yep. The Poles in Floresville are always worried the Germans will swoop in from Fredricksberg and forcibly rearrange their peanut statue.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts