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

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

The rise of the white tribe

David Marcus is about a decade too late, but his observation that the Left and the various non-white American tribes have created a growing white tribal consciousness is correct, even though he foolishly laments it rather than celebrates it:
White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.

A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched.

All of this comes at a time when the last immigrants from the great wave of white immigration from 1850-1920 have died off. In the past, most whites identified with their European ethnicity: Irish, Italian, German, etc. As white people gravitate away from such identities, many see themselves as a neutral, “non racial” population. The Left criticizes this refusal to see themselves as “white,” but it is far preferable to the alternative: an American white population that views itself as a special-interest group.
There is no "white nationalism" in Europe. The EU was an attempt to create a merely continental consciousness - as opposed to the white racial consciousness of the white nationalists - and it has utterly failed. The various European nationalists consider each other allies against the continental globalists and the Arab and African invaders, of course, but there is no confusing the Soldiers of Odin with UKIP or La Lega Nord. Italian nationalism is very different than German or Swedish nationalism.

However, due to the replacement of European identities with a generic American one, combined with the anti-white tribalism of the blacks, Asians, Jews, Mexicans, and other self-identified tribes, a white tribal consciousness has been created. It falls well short of nationalism per se, but it has strong historical roots, as in fact, no other tribe has any historical claim to call itself American.

Let me repeat that: with two partial exceptions, American Indians belonging to Federally-recognized tribes and black slaves, no non-white tribe has any historical claim to be American. Americans are white, and this is a long-established matter of historical and legal record.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character.

Moreover, this remained the rule of American citizenship for more than half of the country's history. As the Supreme Court unanimously declared in 1922 in TAKAO OZAWA v. United States, to be American was to be white.
In all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906 the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons [260 U.S. 178, 193], although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms....

If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation 'white' were Negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thought that under the statute the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include and having ascertained that it follows, as a necessary corollary, that all others are to be excluded.
Now, you can argue "progress" and "things have changed" and "dual nationalities" and so forth. But that way lies incoherence and madness, to say nothing of the obvious fact that what has changed can be changed again. The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written. (Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

You may be a United States citizen, you may be a resident of the United States, and you may be part-American in the sense that many individuals are part-German or part-Dutch, but you are not an American in any legitimate sense of the word, regardless of what ideas and ideals and propositions you happen to hold in your heart at the moment.

You may now commence the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Do try to keep two things in mind. First, your argument is not with me, it is with history. The facts are what they are. It's not my problem if you find them uncomfortable. Second, yes, I recognize that I am only part-American and I have absolutely no problem with that.

Tribalism begets tribalism. The rise of white nationalism, and eventually, white separatism, became inevitable once the minority population of the United States rose beyond a modest level. Once whites realize they have become a minority, they will rapidly become every bit as tribal as every other minority competing for wealth and political power. But neither white nationalism nor white separatism are synonymous with white supremacism, and anyone who attempts to equate the former two with the latter is, at best disingenuous.

Labels: ,

372 Comments:

1 – 200 of 372 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Phillip George May 24, 2016 5:21 AM  

That begets an interesting question. What percentage of residents are now progeny of the original white settlement? If they are the 'only' Americans how do they vote? But then a new question arises abruptly. Were the unites states of America replaced with The United States of America Inc. domiciled in the non state of Washington D.C. ? domiciled somewhere like Puerto Rico. Honestly don't know.
Legal Fiction in color of Law courts was another rabbit warren. The Universal Commercial Code another.
What have they done in the name of preserving "Legal Tender"?
My personal solution. Christianity is the meta-national/ transnational/ historical confederacy of Commonwealth Nations glue, proven track record solution. There is no other fix to science, history, politics, or economics.

Of course Freemason will try something else. Secularists will try something else. Humanists will try something else. Identitarians will try something else. Libertarians will try something else. CINO's and RINO's and Democrats are already perfectly spent. They threw everything "they got" at it and failed.

still by far the most interesting blog on the web.

Blogger Phillip George May 24, 2016 5:30 AM  

The hardest question in all law: What is a birth right?

Anonymous average bob May 24, 2016 5:37 AM  

Speaking of tribes and tribalism, David Marcus is jewish, if this is the David marcus formerly of PayPal and now with facebook. With Jews publically pushing this narrative, it is not going to end well for them.

Anonymous M.414 May 24, 2016 5:40 AM  

Things have changed? Yes, by any yardstick for the worse.

Anonymous average bob May 24, 2016 5:41 AM  

Sorry, wrong David marcus.

Anonymous Bobby Farr May 24, 2016 5:44 AM  

Most whites identified with their European ethnicity? I was surprised by this level of ignorance until confirming that the author was a NY-based foreigner.

Still, I don't think defining American ethnicity as being 100% English/British is accurate. I haven't been able to relocate the source but I had read that as of 1920 over 80% of white Americans could trace at least one ancestor back to the pre-1776 American colonies. This would suggest that to a large extent the colonials and the old stock Northern European immigrants had blended to form what constituted the White American ethnic group. Limiting the definition to 100% Brits would essentially relegate Americans to the status of Goths or other extinct tribe without a modern culture, continued common ancestry or relevance. It becomes a pro-immigrant definition by placing many whites with significant colonial/old stock ancestry in the foreign category (where only Eastern and Southern Europeans belong).

Blogger weka May 24, 2016 5:45 AM  

Since I am not American, some observations.

1. The way the USA describes race/ethnicity is stupid.
2. Race does exist: any GWAS (Genome wide association study) identifies it and has to filter for it.
3. White tribes will win any race war. We are numerous, and (if Brit led) vicious. If we have a 60 plus percent of the population, and it comes to blood, we win.

Personally? I'm Pakeha: NZ European. Fifth generation. Family arrived during the land wars, beat the crap out of the local Maori tribes, took their land.

And I have zero guilt over that.

If anyone (there is a stupid twitter troll who tells me this) says I should go back to England the get scorn. If they tell me it's my fault they get sarcasm. And if they rebel I will, as my grandfathers and their grandfathers did, fight.

Anonymous average bob May 24, 2016 5:46 AM  

He is jewish, even makes jew jokes on twitter

Anonymous Bobby Farr May 24, 2016 5:46 AM  

@3 Marcus is Jewish. He tweeted the fact within the last 12 hours.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 5:47 AM  

This would suggest that to a large extent the colonials and the old stock Northern European immigrants had blended to form what constituted the White American ethnic group. Limiting the definition to 100% Brits would essentially relegate Americans to the status of Goths or other extinct tribe without a modern culture, continued common ancestry or relevance.

It is important not to confuse the historical and legal definition of American with the developing tribal consciousness of the American white tribe. The former is a subset of the latter. And the former is not subject to modification, regardless of whether that would be desirable or not.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 5:49 AM  

White tribes will win any race war.

I wouldn't be so certain of that. White complacency and sense of their own superiority is what has led to the invasion of the white countries.

Blogger Lovekraft May 24, 2016 6:00 AM  

Would like to see this guy's family reunion with the lesbians, cuckolds, adopted africans etc. This gathering would be a microcosm of the United Nations. Count me out.

Blogger Ron May 24, 2016 6:03 AM  

he simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written. (Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

You may be a United States citizen, you may be a resident of the United States, and you may be part-American in the sense that many individuals are part-German or part-Dutch, but you are not an American in any legitimate sense of the word, regardless of what ideas and ideals and propositions you happen to hold in your heart at the moment.


As I understand your argument, you are saying there is a real difference between being a Citizen or being a National.

If that is correct, then what is the difference between being an American citizen or being an American national? Is it only theoretical or is there a practical difference? Who exactly is it limited to?

Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.

This is the most confusing part.

First, although this may be repeating the previous question I had, are you saying being "part of that posterity" and being a national is the same thing? Or is "national" the wrong word?

Second, assuming "national" and "part of the posterity" are the same thing, are you also saying that only the original inhabitants of the country and their descendants are nationals? For example, a number of Irish came into the country after that period, would they be considered nationals?

Blogger Keyser Soze May 24, 2016 6:08 AM  

He's right, white tribes will win any race war. The higher IQ along with the highest propensity to collaborate and coordinate makes whites particularly effective at creating and building things and consequently at destroying or eradicating things or foes. It's just a question of when whites will get pissed enough to take action.

Anonymous Determinator May 24, 2016 6:09 AM  

I would assume that when all is said and done, after the purges and the civil war(s), America as we know it will be split into multiple nations that will grandfather in whoever is currently still living within its respective borders.

Blogger Ahazuerus May 24, 2016 6:21 AM  

I also tend to the view that once we end the complacency we also end our enemies.

My only concern is this: what will it take to end that complacency, when

1. It's taken centuries of dominance to build up
2. It's encouraged daily by our political and media classes(largely the same thing now)
3. All opposing action is heavily discouraged, likewise

Plainly, the general sentiment is changing, polarising and likely hardening. That bodes for deepening conflict before things get better.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 6:29 AM  

If that is correct, then what is the difference between being an American citizen or being an American national?

Paperwork vs genetics.

Second, assuming "national" and "part of the posterity" are the same thing, are you also saying that only the original inhabitants of the country and their descendants are nationals? For example, a number of Irish came into the country after that period, would they be considered nationals?

You're confusing "American national" with "white national".

Blogger stevev May 24, 2016 6:32 AM  

My mother traced her ancestry to a Dutch immigrant to New Amsterdam(pre-1620), and an English immigrant also in the 1600's. My father's grandfather emigrated from Austria (now Slovakia) to America in 1890. An ancestor of my mother fought in the American Revolution. By one definition, I am American, by another (Slovakian G-grandfather) I am a white immigrant and therefore -at least in part - not American.
Do I understand correctly?

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 6:38 AM  

Do I understand correctly?

Yes, although it would be more accurate to say "mostly American". For some reason, some people who have no problem telling me that I am not exactly the same as a full Objibwe Indian suddenly can't grasp the concept when the national ancestry in question is the historical American one.

Blogger Sherwood family May 24, 2016 6:49 AM  

Anishinaabeg? Which band?

Blogger Phillip George May 24, 2016 7:13 AM  

I've slept in a real tribe of people whose real forefathers were literal not metaphorical cannibals. They are all now mainly presbyterians, methodists, baptists and seventh day adventists.

speaking from experience: the only way to honour your forefathers, wherever they are, whatever they are is to build a nation for Jesus. It worked before, it still works now. Notwithstanding Yellowstone type super calderas, the total bond market implosion, nibiru type three body gravitational instabilities, solar flares, magnetic pole inversions, genetic entropy, and shape shifting nephilim-reptilian eugenicsinspired world wars of total annihilation. Smile, you might have chanced upon uniformed blogs.

Blogger Stilicho May 24, 2016 7:16 AM  

Spent some time at a large family friendly venue in a large midwestern city over the weekend. A few dindus, several Hindus, no Asians, one group of hajis, several aztecs, one mudshark and overwhelming numbers of whites with lots and lots of children. No doubt there is some self selection involved in the attendee makeup, but I am still encouraged by what I saw. Demographics can change rapidly and I sense the reversal of the trend. If rabbits sense it too, it would explain some of their desperation to import barbarian hordes immediately and in overwhelming numbers.

Anonymous Spinrad's Agent May 24, 2016 7:26 AM  

VD wrote: For some reason, some people who have no problem telling me that I am not exactly the same as a full Objibwe Indian suddenly can't grasp the concept when the national ancestry in question is the historical American one.

Nail. Hammer.

Blogger Josh May 24, 2016 7:28 AM  

Most whites identified with their European ethnicity? I was surprised by this level of ignorance until confirming that the author was a NY-based foreigner.

Look at the 2000 census maps. Outside of the South and Greater Appalachia, white Americans identify by their ethnic background.

Blogger Sherwood family May 24, 2016 7:33 AM  

Well, if you want to win against barbarian hordes there are two methods: superior discipline/tactics and bringing a bigger horde.

Americans will have get back to doing both if they want to hold to what they have.

Blogger Josh May 24, 2016 7:34 AM  

Map of America by ancestry

Blogger Josh May 24, 2016 7:35 AM  

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 7:46 AM  

Look at the 2000 census maps. Outside of the South and Greater Appalachia, white Americans identify by their ethnic background.

They don't stick together by them anymore, though. That's one reason generic white nationalism is rising. The more important one, of course, is that whites are being attacked on the basis of being white, not due to being German-American, Dutch-American, or Norwegian-American.

In like manner, many Ashkenazi Jews thought of themselves as German until they were attacked for being Jews. That solidified their Jewish identity.

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 7:47 AM  

Stilicho wrote:Spent some time at a large family friendly venue in a large midwestern city over the weekend. A few dindus, several Hindus, no Asians, one group of hajis, several aztecs, one mudshark and overwhelming numbers of whites with lots and lots of children. No doubt there is some self selection involved in the attendee makeup, but I am still encouraged by what I saw. Demographics can change rapidly and I sense the reversal of the trend. If rabbits sense it too, it would explain some of their desperation to import barbarian hordes immediately and in overwhelming numbers.
Given that fact that some 80 off percent of the Hispanic population has, according to Pew research, openly admitted that they're just here for work and don't intend on "settling" in America, I think that the demographics can change really rapidly if the climate gets even marginally more unfriendly towards them—or they perceive it to be so.

Blogger Sherwood family May 24, 2016 7:51 AM  

That is an interesting thought, Gaiseric. The repatriation of large numbers of illegals would shift the demographics rapidly. It would also put paid to the useless GOP strategy of trying to co-opt the Hispanic vote.

The bigger issue is anchor babies/chain migration. Unless something is done to address those issues the ability to have a baby on U.S. soil and in twenty years get the whole family to the U.S. will shift things inevitably in the other direction.

Blogger CM May 24, 2016 7:56 AM  

The primary issue with Old Immigrants is if we don't belong here, where do we belong?

We are not Dutch, German or Irish. We are a hodge podge of watered down ancestry that effectively disinherits us from the nations of our forefathers and the ambiguity of what is an American has given us a place to call our own.

If this is the definition of the American Nation then most whites have no nation (hence the rise of white nationalism). We are effectively orphans.

While it was briefly mentioned in passing that this is the greatest crime of miscegenation, immigration was supposed to be a type of "adoption". Israel required complete and total conformity to her God, customs, laws, and circumcision before being allowed in to the tribe, but once there, they were considered a part of Israel, fully sharing in the inheritance.

The issue with this full conformity, however,is that we then end up back at what makes one an American and the proposition nation.

There must be some room for grafting in new members, right?

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 24, 2016 7:58 AM  

The rising White Nationalism in America is rather unique in that it was created by white people...


...Who hate White People.

No one else has ever managed that trick. To actively and deliberately try to make themselves a hated minority.

Take that ridiculous Huffington Post Editorial Board picture, They were all so busy rubbing themselves in their private area over being all women, that they completely missed the fact that they were all fish belly white.

Anonymous Hengist Montgomery Greaves May 24, 2016 8:02 AM  

The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written. (Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

I must respectfully disagree. The most useful definition of American (unhyphenated) is "one who is descended from the original British settlers of America or one who is descended from those who came after but who is assimilated to the degree as to be indistinguishable from the descendants of the original British settlers." This is analogous to the way in which an Englishman might be described as "one who is descended from the original Germanic settlers of England (Angles, Jutes, Saxons) or one who is descended from those who came after (Vikings, Normans) but who is assimilated to the degree as to be indistinguishable from the descendants of the original Germanic settlers."

Surely no one would argue that an Englishman with a surname indicating remote Norman or Danish ancestry was not, per se, an Englishman.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 24, 2016 8:03 AM  

@21. Stilicho

I've seen that in my neck of the woods too. I talked to a young father recently and he said they were going to take the financial hit and have a third kid.

Good guy.

Blogger John Saunders May 24, 2016 8:08 AM  

Vox makes a decent point, but he's indulging in his own personal theoro-topia here by trying to impose Quadroon/ Octoroon/ Nuremberg one-drop definitions on everything, which only serves to confuse the issue.

Tho no doubt it amuses Vox's intellect.

The Marcus quote Vox cites pretty much tells the tale. The 1850-1920 (actually 1790-1920) wave of white immigration has just about totally died off as distinct ethnicities and assimilated to the Anglo "Founder" culture and colonial heritage as "Generic American Whites" that largely self-identify as "American."

Trying to parse it down more than that is foolish and an exercise in self-defeat, because such parsing promotes sub-tribalism within the "Generic American White" tribe.

And both Marcus and Vox are correct - the emergence of explicit tribalism among "Generic American Whites" will have consequences. Major consequences. A united minority of 40% can rule easily. It just needs to abandon some quaint illusions. Like democracy.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 8:09 AM  

white privilege as a concept... turns out to be the straw that broke the camel's back. When you take a group that doesn't think of itself as a group... and attack label it as a group and attack it... you shouldn't find yourself surprised to have created a unified enemy.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 8:13 AM  

"We are not Dutch, German or Irish. We are a hodge podge of watered down ancestry that effectively disinherits us from the nations of our forefathers and the ambiguity of what is an American has given us a place to call our own."

the nations of your forefathers were also watered down.

Anonymous mature craig May 24, 2016 8:14 AM  

Was wondering if Sicilian Americans are considered white. I would guess no. You could almost see some African in them

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 8:17 AM  

Vox makes a decent point, but he's indulging in his own personal theoro-topia here by trying to impose Quadroon/ Octoroon/ Nuremberg one-drop definitions on everything, which only serves to confuse the issue.

I'm not doing anything of the kind. Nor am I imposing anything. How deeply stupid do you have to be to imagine that I am inventing very clear definitions that are matters of historical record that preceded my birth?

Trying to parse it down more than that is foolish and an exercise in self-defeat, because such parsing promotes sub-tribalism within the "Generic American White" tribe.

This demonstrates the difference between the ideologue and the intellectual. The intellectual observes something because it is true. The ideologue attempts to pretend the truth does not exist because it does not suit his purposes.

The most useful definition of American

The truth has nothing to do with what is or is not useful. You might as reasonably call everyone Chinese. Think of all the allies that would create!

If this is the definition of the American Nation then most whites have no nation (hence the rise of white nationalism).

Most whites IN AMERICA have no nation. That is correct, and that is why we can safely expect white nationalism to become increasingly explicit and popular in the USA as whites band together to defend their interests against the rival US tribes.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 24, 2016 8:18 AM  

"Whites win" depends on the definition of winning.
Kicking every non-white (defined how?) out of the contiguous 48+AK? Highly unlikely.

Forming a geographically separate polity? Hopeful, since the alternative really is extinction.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 8:19 AM  

an exercise in self-defeat

No, it is not, because I'm an American Indian.

OpenID paworldandtimes May 24, 2016 8:22 AM  

white privilege as a concept... turns out to be the straw that broke the camel's back. When you take a group that doesn't think of itself as a group... and attack label it as a group and attack it... you shouldn't find yourself surprised to have created a unified enemy.

Exactly. It's like when nogs murdered a Bosnian immigrant in the Ferguson riot and the media attempted to frame that event, to much incredility, as a handwringing over anti-Bosnian bigotry.

On a completely unrelated subject, I finalized my Memorial Day plans, after an extended destination-planning effort centered on avoiding the gorgeous state parks within day-trip's driving distance that are expected to be filled with fat Mestizo family clusters grilling and playing noisy radios.

PA

Anonymous VFM#1819 May 24, 2016 8:24 AM  

When will the talk of founding a new nation begin? It is obvious at this point that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were flawed at their inception but nothing prevents us from trying again.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 24, 2016 8:24 AM  

"Paperwork vs genetics."

I like that. I trace my biological roots to a lieutenant in Gen. Washington's army while my adoptive family was all Orange-Irish immigrant (still close enough.)

Blogger Chris Mallory May 24, 2016 8:24 AM  

@13 "a number of Irish came into the country after that period, would they be considered nationals?"

No, neither are the Germans, Italians, and other swarthy races.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 24, 2016 8:26 AM  

Besides VD the rest of you can probably start swimming or walking home, both sides of the family pre-Rev War colonists. I do have a litmus test, if you would cross the Delaware river with General Washington you are on your way to being an American. More than likely most people of color will be drawn to blood and I won't have to implement any silly race laws to include or exclude.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 8:32 AM  

the funny thing here is... this is just a cycle. Another part of a long cycle of empire.

Successful rich empires always attract immigrants. Often they bring the immigrants in deliberately.

Over time the immigrants change the population... but as the wealth falls away... people fall back to their natural inclinations of l ike-flocking-together. And so one very large empire ends up segmenting and splitting into what appear to homogenous individual nations.

They were all mutts though.

Englishmen? Mutts. Germans? Mutts. Greeks? Mutts. Italians? Mutts.

so why on earth would you worry that the Americans are also mutts?

Anonymous Hengist Montgomery Greaves May 24, 2016 8:35 AM  

The most useful definition of American

The truth has nothing to do with what is or is not useful. You might as reasonably call everyone Chinese. Think of all the allies that would create!


Apologies - please substitute "true" for "most useful". I do not advocate that definition because we can use it but rather because it happens to be true, as I believe the analogy I've provided demonstrates. If I am in error I would appreciate it if you'd explain how, Vox.

Thank you.

Blogger Joe Doakes May 24, 2016 8:37 AM  

Anecdotal evidence supports some of Vox's tribe theory of America. St. Paul, Minnesota, was settled in mid-1800's - first by fur trappers but later by real estate speculators selling investment opportunities to folks Back East. The nice parts of town belonged to people named Ramsey, Rice, Stinson and Irvine. Outlying areas self-segregated by nationality in Swede Hollow, Little Italy and most notoriously, Frogtown, where French-Canadians who couldn't even speak proper English but croaked like frogs, lived side-by-side with half-breeds (offspring of French-Canadian fur trappers and local Indian women - shunned by both societies).

Nowadays, different tribes occupy those neighborhoods (Southeast Asian and East African mostly) but there still are identifiable tribal neighborhoods and everybody knows where they are.


Blogger John Saunders May 24, 2016 8:41 AM  

This demonstrates the difference between the ideologue and the intellectual. The intellectual observes something because it is true. The ideologue attempts to pretend the truth does not exist because it does not suit his purposes.


Actually I'm indulging in practicality and the reality of "American" Asabiyyah as it exists today as elaborated and developed between roughly, oh, 1812 through 1965.

Hell, what few remnants remain of the Anglo ethnics you call "American" (as contrasted to your "White") are the nonbreeding core of Progressive America that refuse to call themselves American and are happily marching to their own extinction. Pay suicides no mind; they are contemptible.


No, it is not, because I'm an American Indian.


LOL!

Now whose indulging in ideology at the expense of the intellect?

No Vox, you're white.

http://www.azquotes.com/public/pictures/authors/38/0b/380b3dfb30de341fb2acdadb061e6abc/5438ee1ab3b15_theodore_beale.jpg

An American expatriate who has renounced his loyalties. And that's fine.

Anonymous WinstonWebb May 24, 2016 8:43 AM  

Partial-American here (by the historical metrics pointed out by VD, and I have no problem with that). My wife is a Daughter of the American Revolution. Does that make my children fully American, or does it only reduce the percentage of their "Partial"-ness?

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 8:45 AM  

Actually I'm indulging in practicality

You don't say.

Now whose indulging in ideology at the expense of the intellect? No Vox, you're white.

You are. DNA does not lie. I am part-white. I simply happen to look more like one parent than the other one.

Anonymous Polllllll May 24, 2016 8:46 AM  

I was looking into the history of the 14th amendment and how both sides of the political divide insisted it apply to any race, regardless of that race being Chinese, gypsy or whatever. How does that vye with/ relate to the above text?

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 8:46 AM  

Does that make my children fully American, or does it only reduce the percentage of their "Partial"-ness?

We can't know where the eventual dividing lines will be. I suspect "American" will come to mean "white nationalist American" in time.

People tend to forget that a changing definition is not going to remain what it is today.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 8:48 AM  

"The intellectual observes something because it is true."

On the contrary, the modern intellectual, who is deeply UNintelligent, and their running dogs, the intelligentsia, live uncontradicted and uninformed amidst the fever swamps contained within their own neutronium-dense skulls. This is why no one of any intelligence ought to claim the title of intellectual; it's an insult, not an approbation.

Blogger Joshua_D May 24, 2016 8:51 AM  

Y'all seen Edge of Tomorrow? It's a pretty good movie. Would recommend. Anyway, I was reminded of this clip.

You're an American

Blogger CM May 24, 2016 8:54 AM  

@VD
--We can't know where the eventual dividing lines will be. I suspect "American" will come to mean "white nationalist American" in time.

People tend to forget that a changing definition is not going to remain what it is today.--

Just to clarify (because a changing definition sounds like the definition could have changed w any immigration act), you are anchoring the definition in the Constitution because, more or less, we are still a country that pays homage to it?

And that when the constitution is completely abandoned and things settle and a new founding document emerges, the definition will change to the New American?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 8:54 AM  

"We can't know where the eventual dividing lines will be. I suspect "American" will come to mean "white nationalist American" in time."

No one drop rule, then, do you think?

Blogger The Hammer May 24, 2016 8:55 AM  

To answer the question at the beginning about what percent of American citizens are the "posterity" referred to in the preamble, basically, I refer to this I recently came across.

"Immigration remained restricted-and heavily biased toward Northern Europeans-until the early 1950s. Despite the scale of immigration, immigration, newcomers were always a small minority. The proportion of foreign-born remained at about 10 percent of the U.S. population throughout the period, peaking at 14 percent in 1914. Its cumulative effect was important but not overwhelming. Even after adding together all immigrants between 1790 and 2000-66 million altogether-and their descendents, demographers have calculated that immigration accounts for only about half the early twenty-first century population of the United States. In other words, if the United States had sealed its borders in 1790, in the year 2000 it would still have a population of about 125 million instead of 250 million. The 1820-1924 immigration was enormous, but it was never truly overpowering."

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 24, 2016 8:57 AM  

The Left is the major driver and creator of White Nationalism, they do a bang up job and will continue to do a bang up job of creating White Nationalism, conservatives by nature cannot stop them, suck it National Review.

FTR I agree with VD on the weaknesses of WN, and if you read enough of the WN in the alt-right they are mainly intellectuals as Kratman describes intellectuals.

WN owes its existence to the Left

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 9:00 AM  

Nate wrote:Englishmen? Mutts. Germans? Mutts. Greeks? Mutts. Italians? Mutts.

so why on earth would you worry that the Americans are also mutts?

Ethnogenesis always starts with "mutts" who develop a sense of identity and build it over time. I think the exercise of parsing out exactly how much "genetic" fidelity to the original American nation one has is neither one that Americans are particularly interested in, nor particularly knowledgeable about. Even hardliners would hardly call white European immigrants who came in later waves, like the post potato famine Irish, for instance, non-Americans at this point. (Although if I'm wrong, I can proudly point to 1600s arrival dates for my ancestors on both my father and mother's side; an ancestor of mine rode with Francis Marion in the Revolutionary War. But I doubt that that will matter.)

The way population genetics works, there really isn't much genetic difference between the vairous "mutt" populations of Europe; or rather, they share enough ancestry as to make that a quixotic measure to quantify.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

Blogger Josh May 24, 2016 9:01 AM  

The more important one, of course, is that whites are being attacked on the basis of being white, not due to being German-American, Dutch-American, or Norwegian-American.

I agree.

I would amend my statement to say that historically Americans outside the South were more likely to identify by ethnicity.

I also would not be surprised to see a reluctance in German American identification beginning in world war one.

Anonymous Opus May 24, 2016 9:06 AM  

I am not American but this concerns me as my country (England) seems intent on imitating the worst aspects towards which America seemingly is descending. Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia had a lot to say about the growth of America's population and was opposed to doing so by way of immigrants and surely rightly was convinced that a large American population could be home-grown within a few generations. Look what happened! - and your countries failure to be robust about the Negro population hardly aids confidence about your now larger problem.

May I also say that - somewhat off-topic - I am always amused by American's near-desperation of being able to trace their common ancestor to somewhere in The British Isles. Few (I think ) can do so truly and even fewer can do so back to the 17th century. You may claim to be [insert country]-American but to me you are all Americans and very obviously so even though most have utterly un-English and frequently un-pronouncable surnames.

As one of my ancestors (as I think he must surely have been - though I cannot be sure) was thrown out of the Massachussettes colony in the 1640s for being too extreme (!) I tend to think that I had a narrow escape in not being American.

Anonymous mature craig May 24, 2016 9:08 AM  

I like what John Kasich said it's the UNITED states of America


Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 9:08 AM  

"Even hardliners would hardly call white European immigrants who came in later waves, like the post potato famine Irish, for instance, non-Americans at this point."

Interestingly enough, the _real_ immigration disaster was the post-famine Irish. They were highly capable, with vast organizational skills and a strong ethnic consciousness, and they came here fleeing an unnecessarily horrid disaster which _convinced_ them that when things go to shit government must step in to fix the problem.

Blogger Phillip George May 24, 2016 9:12 AM  

There must be some room for grafting in new members, right?

how do you assimilate any group? Rule over any group? Create first, second or third class citizens?

Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage did a very ordinary job of arguing against the Statue of Liberty plaque inscription.

It has this adjectival clause. A modifying adjectival phrase. "yearning to be free". Freedom is the word no-one went near. It's like free speech. There never was and never will be. It's the limits of freedom that requires exacting detail and micro management. You aren't free to makes threats to kill, you aren't free to walk naked through a ball game. You aren't free to enter another man's home and empty his wallet.

America can with the common law. The common law sits on a bible. The bible has no other God. QED.

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 9:16 AM  

(Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either.)

But what is you are a white immigrant of British descent who really, really, feels like a giant squid?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 9:16 AM  

"Look what happened! - and your countries failure to be robust about the Negro population hardly aids confidence about your now larger problem."

There never really was a good solution to it, if you mean by that deportation. It was tried. It was thought upon and proposed. It just foundered for a number of reasons, not least the scale and not least the absence of any place to send them _to_. And also not least in the sense that they had a degree of "sweat equity" in the country, and blood equity from service in the Civil War, that would have made deportation deeply wrong.

Blogger skiballa May 24, 2016 9:17 AM  

@62

Opus,I've noticed no such desperation to trace back to the British Isles, though there has been an awful lot of advertising lately for various geneaology and DNA websites and services.

And yes, being able to trace lineage back in Europe in general is pretty uncommon, barring living ancestors still resident there. My family is unusual in that we can trace our patrilineal back to ~1350.

OpenID littl3x May 24, 2016 9:18 AM  

How does that take into account the settlers who were given American citizenship after territorial acquisition? I mean the French of Louisiana, Mexicans of the south west, and the Spanish of Florida.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 9:21 AM  

"I am always amused by American's near-desperation of being able to trace their common ancestor to somewhere in The British Isles. Few (I think ) can do so truly and even fewer can do so back to the 17th century."

Actually, huge percentages of us can trace to the British Isles. 17th Century is much less common. So far as I know, I cannot, though I can trace to before the Revolution, so called. However, during the Revolution it would appear that this slice of my ancestors were on the Crown's side, fleeing to Canada afterwards, and returning to Boston in the 1800s.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 9:22 AM  

Perhaps Ameriboo in a more strict sense - respecting the rights of Englishmen and acting as one.

Note the Mormons were a white tribe until 1978.

Benedict Arnold was an Englishman. And today many traitors are among us, however the Brexit gives hope.

This is another spiritual bomb - the one dropped on the nuclear family to destroy Fatherhood was one, but note:
Destroy the family, destroy the tribe.
Destroy the tribe, destroy the culture (culture from cult, worship)
Destroy the culture destroy the nation.

The identical SJWing of equality as interchangeability that applies to single mothers and to trannies applies to cultures and nations.

The attack is the same.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 9:29 AM  

"Interestingly enough, the _real_ immigration disaster was the post-famine Irish. They were highly capable, with vast organizational skills and a strong ethnic consciousness, and they came here fleeing an unnecessarily horrid disaster which _convinced_ them that when things go to shit government must step in to fix the problem."

And that's why they call it Tammany Hall politics - not because they were the first, but because they were the first to do it effectively.

"Of course, if you are a white immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, you are not part of that posterity either."

This strikes me as pedantic. I have ancestors who came to these shores in the early 1600's and the early 1900's. Both sides are equally American in thought, loyalty, and culture. Both sides are (mostly) white. But unlike your comparison to your tribal ancestry, there's no genetic basis for distinction between the two sides, and after 4 generations there's no cultural basis for it, either.

Or are you going to start telling all the white people in England that they aren't "real British" because of their Norman or Scandinavian or Roman ancestry?

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 9:30 AM  

Germany is alarmed increased polarization among Germans.

I thought that was Murky's intent. Was I wrong?

Blogger James Dixon May 24, 2016 9:30 AM  

> But neither white nationalism nor white separatism are synonymous with white supremacism, and anyone who attempts to equate the former two with the latter is, at best disingenuous.

Well, there are obviously those who do believe that whites are a superior race and must be kept from unifying least they demonstrate the same. Most of those who believe this probably aren't whites, of course.

> White complacency and sense of their own superiority is what has led to the invasion of the white countries.

Agreed. Such things can change rapidly though.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 9:33 AM  

Assuming some natural disaster doesn't hit, the feet of clay mixed with iron is brittle and will crack when the economic cataclysm hits.

The best possible outcome is we re-create the rights of Englishmen and those who aren't comfortable self-deport or are exiled. I suspect several WASP nests will need relocation as well as the convenience of having the Nation of Israel.

If Mexicans want to be more like the US, they can take their guns and fix their own government.

Thatcher didn't complete the thought. When socialists run out of Other People's Money, they seek more Other Peoples.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 9:35 AM  

Daniel 2:42

Blogger Beefy Levinson May 24, 2016 9:37 AM  

My direct patrilineal descent is German. My great-grandfather came to the United States from Germany in 1896 and married my great-grandmother who could trace her ancestry back to Jamestown. I'm comfortable being a partial American per Vox's definition. My lineage may not be pure American, but white America is my tribe. If any SJW has a problem with it, I'll tell them I identify as a cishet white American male shitlord and to go find a safe space to cry about it.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 24, 2016 9:39 AM  

After reading, "White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more.",

One thought ran through my head.

Uh oh, they shouldna oughta done that.



" 38. Blogger VD May 24, 2016 8:17 AM
...
Most whites IN AMERICA have no nation. That is correct, and that is why we can safely expect white nationalism to become increasingly explicit and popular in the USA as whites band together to defend their interests against the rival US tribes."


Regular folks won't like it, because color-blind Christianity, but they will eventually see the neccessity. Otherwise there won't be any descendents.

The funny thing I expect to see spring up are majority Christian white nationalist political groups with quite a few black and brown faces in them.

My favorite part of this sea change in American culture are all the exploding heads. If you have any tendency toward schadenfreude this is a great time to be alive.

Anonymous mature craig May 24, 2016 9:41 AM  

When socialists run out of other people's money they seek other people. I like that

Blogger ZhukovG May 24, 2016 9:47 AM  

My family dates back to the Virginia Colony (late 1620’s) and has always resided in The South. Barring unexpected results from a DNA test, I am about as American as a person can be. This is not a boast, just a simple fact.

The thing I think to remember, and Vox himself is an excellent example of this, is that one need not be an American National to adopt the American National Culture. No, you can never be fully American National, but you can participate in the American Identity by completely subordinating any other heritage to the American National Culture. I think a lot of the later European immigrants understood this. Which is where you hear stories of immigrant parents that beat the hell out of their kids for not speaking English, even at home.

So, it doesn’t matter if you are German, Italian or the Grandson of a Mexican revolutionary you can still participate fully in the American National Culture. You can adopt the American Identity, just don’t confuse it with being an actual American National.

The mistake was allowing too much immigration, even from Northern Europe, such that people no longer had to abandon their old culture. This lead to the situation we have today.

Fortunately the pressures of the current situation will cause people to, even if unconsciously, abandon their old cultures and embrace American National Culture. Heck, you will eventually see Latinos and African-Americans start to do the same thing. Though I think the African-Americans will be more successful at it, they’ll have no choice, they have nowhere else to go.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 9:48 AM  

Differences do not mean inferiority, as polar v. black bears show. They are adapted differently.

Even Muslims. In the Arab world, I don't think early Saxons would have adapted to Bedouin life.

Because nature's role for them is different, men and women are different.

Whites are different even within, Norwegians are not Greeks. Russians are not Celts.

Even the church realizes Christ has one body, but the local culture and custom will differ.

Interesting that post Vatican 2 we ended Italian only and got Polish, German, and then a Peronista Pope.

Blogger CarpeOro May 24, 2016 9:49 AM  

Josh wrote:Most whites identified with their European ethnicity? I was surprised by this level of ignorance until confirming that the author was a NY-based foreigner.

Look at the 2000 census maps. Outside of the South and Greater Appalachia, white Americans identify by their ethnic background.


You also have to take into account the wording of questionnaires. I don't recall being questioned myself, but have always considered myself an American. My German surname doesn't mean much really. My ancestry is probably more English than German (one of these days I need to bug my cousin for the family records tracing us back to the Carolinas well before the War Between the States). Irish, Scottish, French are thrown in the mix also. In the end, I simply asked myself - how would any of those nationalities see me? As American. As time goes by my attitudes seems to align more with the Southern than Yankee. If you dig a bit you would find to be true in much of the rural Michigan - there are a lot more immigrants like my family that came up for jobs.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 9:50 AM  

@79 "seek other peopleS" - the plural was not a typo. It also applies to colonialism.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 9:50 AM  

"My lineage may not be pure American"

I'm unconvinced that "pure American" even means anything worthwhile. Surely the descendant of the Mayflower and Jamestown Colony, whose ancestor signed the Declaration, fought through the Revolution (again, so called), and later sat at the Constitutional Convention, but who has him- or herself become a lefty, an SJW, a traitor to America, has effectively renounced being an American in a way as to overcome any blood connection or blood based entitlement.

That's perhaps the big, indeed, insurmountable, flaw I find in Vox's reasoning, that the people he thinks of or claims to be real Americans or pure Americans are precisely the people who've ruined the country.

Anonymous Gordian May 24, 2016 9:52 AM  

VD, could you clarify?

Socio-political identities form through conflict. The Anglo-Saxon identity which undergird the Founders was formed either (or both) through the efforts of Alfred and his successors (who was the first to use the title rex anglosaxonum) and/or the Norman Conquest, which replaced the division between Mercian, Northumbrian, and West Saxon with one between Norman and Saxon. Are you arguing that American culture is undergoing a similar movement, where the old division of Anglo-Saxons versus Celtic and Continental Whites becomes irrelevant in the face of nonwhite identity politics, or are you arguing for the intractability of these intra-racial differences? Or are these two different levels of analysis, socio-political versus ethnographic?

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 9:55 AM  

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks my nationality heritage is.

I'm a Confederate.

Blogger James Dixon May 24, 2016 9:55 AM  

> It is obvious at this point that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were flawed at their inception but nothing prevents us from trying again.

They were as good as you're going to get. The problem wasn't with the documents, but with the people who allowed them to be subverted.

There is only flaw I will grant however: Any document which strives to limit government power has to start by explicitly limiting it's taxation authority and not allowing that to be changed under any circumstances.

> I also would not be surprised to see a reluctance in German American identification beginning in world war one.

There's a reason Keyser, WV is spelled the way it is. :)

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 9:57 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Interestingly enough, the _real_ immigration disaster was the post-famine Irish. They were highly capable, with vast organizational skills and a strong ethnic consciousness, and they came here fleeing an unnecessarily horrid disaster which _convinced_ them that when things go to shit government must step in to fix the problem.
Agreed, but my point is; how do you separate the descendants of those immigrants from the descendants of the original settlers, when many Americans can claim descent from both, to varying degrees?

I suspect that the ethnogenesis of a true American ethnos, while making a nod to the past, is a forward looking process in the end.

And as you said in another post; the original Americans are by and large responsible for the damage done to America.

Well, between them and some other (((earlier immigrant groups.)))

Blogger James Dixon May 24, 2016 10:01 AM  

> Agreed, but my point is; how do you separate the descendants of those immigrants from the descendants of the original settlers, when many Americans can claim descent from both, to varying degrees?

How we would choose to do so isn't really important. It's looking more and more like it will be decided by which side you choose (and are allowed to choose) when the shooting starts.

Blogger Ron May 24, 2016 10:10 AM  

@Nate

I'm a Confederate

A proud people.

Blogger CM May 24, 2016 10:14 AM  

--How we would choose to do so isn't really important. It's looking more and more like it will be decided by which side you choose (and are allowed to choose) when the shooting starts.--

Every time this subject comes up, it turns into a genealogy quagmire of who is a real American. But yes,at this point, if you are willing to die for a group, then perhaps you should belong to that group.

Clearly the Revolutionaries and Loyalists were of the same genetic stock with completely opposing group loyalties.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 10:15 AM  

"There is only flaw I will grant however: Any document which strives to limit government power has to start by explicitly limiting it's taxation authority and not allowing that to be changed under any circumstances."

This misunderstands the nature of power; there is no way that any document, or anything less than the Divinity, Himself, can prevent something under any circumstances. As long as the power exists to change it, and the will exists to change it, it will be changed.

Blogger CM May 24, 2016 10:16 AM  

JD - Jermantown, VA (I think?)

I was laughing over that one this past weekend. Can't remember what state we were in though.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 10:18 AM  

Also... you folks jabbering about tracing your roots back to the Revolutionary war? You should probably remember that the vast majority of colonists did not support the war at all.

Not to mention the fact that the spanish and french were doing just as much settling as the englishmen were... just in different parts of north america.

The oldest cities in north america weren't built by englishmen. They were built by spaniards and frogs.

Blogger Josh May 24, 2016 10:18 AM  

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks my nationality heritage is.

I'm a Confederate.


Deo Vindice

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 24, 2016 10:24 AM  

“Let me repeat that: with two partial exceptions, American Indians belonging to Federally-recognized tribes and black slaves, no non-white tribe has any historical claim to be American. Americans are white, and this is a long-established matter of historical and legal record.”

Long-established historical and legal record up until the 14th Amendment for African Americans and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Of course it is not surprising that the naturalization law of 1790 reflected the national character at the time—white and European.

HOWEVER, Congress was given the right to redefine citizenship, which is a game changer.

“Moreover, this remained the rule of American citizenship for more than half of the country's history.”

1790-1868 compared to 1868-present. Not half.

“As the Supreme Court unanimously declared in 1922 in TAKAO OZAWA v. United States, to be American was to be white.”

The Supreme Court conceded that Takao Ozawa “…was well qualified by character and education for citizenship.” 

Regardless, this case is no longer applicable in light of the 1952 McCarran-Walker Act.

“The simple fact of the matter is that if you are not white, your nationality is not American and you are not part of the posterity for whom the Constitution was written.”

ORIGINALLY written, yes. But Congress was granted to liberty to redefine what is posterity through the passage of legislation and constitutional amendments.

Anonymous Determinator May 24, 2016 10:26 AM  

"But yes,at this point, if you are willing to die for a group, then perhaps you should belong to that group."

There's a good chance that will be what it comes down to. Anyone not obviously white will have to declare allegiances early, or they won't have an opportunity to make that decision later.

Anonymous Cassie May 24, 2016 10:26 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:"My lineage may not be pure American"

I'm unconvinced that "pure American" even means anything worthwhile. Surely the descendant of the Mayflower and Jamestown Colony, whose ancestor signed the Declaration, fought through the Revolution (again, so called), and later sat at the Constitutional Convention, but who has him- or herself become a lefty, an SJW, a traitor to America, has effectively renounced being an American in a way as to overcome any blood connection or blood based entitlement.

That's perhaps the big, indeed, insurmountable, flaw I find in Vox's reasoning, that the people he thinks of or claims to be real Americans or pure Americans are precisely the people who've ruined the country.


Tom, there's a big difference between being a national and being a loyal citizen. "National" refers to ancestry and ancestry alone, it doesn't say anything about whether an individual is a traitor to his people or not.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 10:30 AM  

"You should probably remember that the vast majority of colonists did not support the war at all."

This is one of those wholly misleading half truths; I suspect one that originates in lefty circles, ever eager to discredit the very _idea_ of America, the better to destroy it. It seems short of any actual documentary evidence, neglects that things may have changed over time, neglects that things were different in different colonies at different times, neglects salience, and neglects that, after all, the revolutionaries won, so they must have had something going for them other than their minority status. Yes, yes, accustomed as we are today to minority status trumping all other factors, bringing with it a presumption inherent purity and virtue, it's easy to be misled. At the time, minority status, coupled with anti-establishment violence, got you coupled to a rope coupled to a tree.


Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 10:31 AM  

Perhaps, Cas, but what difference does that make when the ones presumed to be nationals have renounced and denounced their nationality, in the process ruining the nation to which that nationality is supposed to relate?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 10:32 AM  

Short version: how can they be nationals of a nation they've destroyed?

Anonymous Roundtine May 24, 2016 10:41 AM  

Chinese are disappointed when their American English teacher is not white.

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 10:42 AM  

I'm unconvinced that "pure American" even means anything worthwhile. Surely the descendant of the Mayflower and Jamestown Colony, whose ancestor signed the Declaration, fought through the Revolution (again, so called), and later sat at the Constitutional Convention, but who has him- or herself become a lefty, an SJW, a traitor to America, has effectively renounced being an American in a way as to overcome any blood connection or blood based entitlement.

So, Tom, the vast majority of people are willing to be lead and bend to whatever wind blows in their direction that they might have a more comfortable life.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I seem to remember that George Washington abjured the idiocies of the trappings of power after a while. I suspect he was more a doer than a grasper.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 10:43 AM  

"revolutionaries won, so they must have had something going for them other than their minority status. "

Ever heard the saying 80% of the people do 20% of the work and 20% of the people do 80% of the work?

Its usually used as a bait-and-switch. It comes from historical studies that claim about 20% of the population was actively involved in the war effort. Which, as a military man, I'm sure you'll immediately recognize as a high figure. That doesn't mean that the other 80% were against the war. it means they weren't doing anything to support it directly.

That said... public opinion from before the war was deeply divided. Mostly because war is scary to people... and change is scary to people... and we are talking about a big war and big changes.



Blogger Harsh May 24, 2016 10:44 AM  

Rhetoric Man wrote:ORIGINALLY written, yes. But Congress was granted to liberty to redefine what is posterity through the passage of legislation and constitutional amendments.

And that which can be redefined can be redefined again.

Anonymous mature craig May 24, 2016 10:45 AM  

One thing I don't like is the show law and order the villain is
Almost always white men I would call it racist

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 10:45 AM  

There's a good chance that will be what it comes down to. Anyone not obviously white will have to declare allegiances early, or they won't have an opportunity to make that decision later.

Sure, but the decision of whether to expend a then precious bullet will be easier in some cases than others.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 10:45 AM  

"Short version: how can they be nationals of a nation they've destroyed?"

I'm with Tom. A nation is not an idea... so one may not join a nation by adopting an idea.

But just because you cannot choose to join a group does not mean you cannot leave a group.

Anonymous Moonbear May 24, 2016 10:45 AM  

I feel relatively certain that if the migration into Europe continues, and as a result the different white ethnicities in the US start to lose their self-identification within these European people which they "belong" to; Civil war and a fractured country seems inevitable.

A diverse country is not a nation, but an empire.
As we know empires tend to fall.

I'm not immediately worried about the European people though, they seem to be waking up rather quickly now, especially the men.

I've also heard a theory recently (by Stefan); if children are raised without a father, it means there is a war on and the children will biologically prepare as such. Question is, what effect does all these single moms have on the male children, does it herald war in these young men even if there is no war?

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 10:46 AM  

Rhetoric Man wrote:ORIGINALLY written, yes. But Congress was granted to liberty to redefine what is posterity through the passage of legislation and constitutional amendments.
You're totally missing the point. "The Nation" is not something that law can define. You are not a national just because someone issues you some paperwork, passes a statute and declares that you are by fiat.

This is what comes from misunderstanding the semantic drift that occurred in America. As the states lost their sovereign power and became, essentially, merely provinces rather than states but yet retained their label, we had to cast about for another label to use to define the State. We've largely settled on the Nation, but that means that we misuse the word nation quite often. The Nation is not America. We are not One Nation under God—both because we are not one nation and because we are not under God.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 10:48 AM  

"Deeply divided" isn't what you said, Nate. What you said was "vast majority." There is, after all, a difference between them. One suspects that, in 1775, about a third were willing and eager, a third would have preferred to stick with the devil they knew, but most of whom weren't willing to bleed over it, and a third were of the wait and see persuasion. One would be terribly surprised if, by 1781 or so, this hadn't changed massively. Relatively few, after all, chose to leave after the war and of pro-British traitors 30 years later there were few if any but runaway slaves.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 10:56 AM  

" What you said was "vast majority." "

Yep. and if we talking about 1760 or 1770 I stand by that statement completely.

As you say... by about 1781 it would've been a very very different picture. Folks do tend to flock to a winner. There is a big difference between helping fight a war... and sitting back and deciding at the end that you're glad the winning side won.

The point is a lot of these folks will assume that just because they had kin folks that were here in 1760 that they were therefore in favor of the war. its likely that most of them are wrong.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 24, 2016 11:01 AM  

Most whites IN AMERICA have no nation. That is correct, and that is why we can safely expect white nationalism to become increasingly explicit and popular in the USA as whites band together to defend their interests against the rival US tribes.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops. Clearly, things are in flux regarding white Americans. They'll never form a single nation, although they'll be forced into banding together and backing each other up as prog and nonwhite oppression worsens.

I suppose we could define Old vs. New (white) Americans. The whites in the South and Appalachia are the closest thing we have to identifiable Old Americans. New Americans may be defined as those who are in fact part-Old American (of colonial English and/or Scots-Irish descent) and identify enough with the American nation. And New Americans have regional identities of their own.

But there are large numbers of white Americans who aren't even what could be called "New American", and are nascent nations of their own. Essentially, these are the three biggest large groups of white Americans who lack any Old American background whatsoever:

1) Those too-nice Germanic people in the Upper Midwest who hate Trump.

2) The Italians and Irish in New York and surrounding states who do like Trump but are quite different from other white Americans in most other ways are another couple of nations. (Maybe one if they interbreed.)

3) The Mormons -- defined as those of white English / NW European background, as opposed to their recent Latino and South Sea Islander converts in Chile or Tonga or wherever.

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 11:01 AM  

There is an awful lot of irony in that song.

Who would have thought.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 24, 2016 11:03 AM  

Scratch that last remark about the Mormons, at least insofar as their lacking Old American ancestry. They do have it through their original founders. But otherwise, yes, they are their own ethnic group.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:04 AM  

"You're totally missing the point. "The Nation" is not something that law can define. You are not a national just because someone issues you some paperwork, passes a statute and declares that you are by fiat."

This seems to me a kind of linguistic matricide, too. Who so defines a nation? Why should we accept it? What makes it inherently superior as a definition to some other that brings with it greater power? Why is the tiny nation, as defined solely by blood received, superior to the greater nation defined as by blood shed? Why is Germany a nation, when Bavarians tend to detest Prussians to whom they are not all that closely related by blood? If we split our polity down to the smallest group where everyone is related to every other, how much satisfaction with there be when everyone (who survives the conquest) is auctioned off by the group that was a little more tolerant of less closely inter-related tribes?

Martha Nussbaum, another modern intellectual, which is to say a well educated but deeply unintelligent sort, addicted to her own fantasies, postulates that once we draw some circles we must continue to draw ever narrower circles. The flaw in this line of thinking is that it neglects the outside hostile world. Rather than drawing the smallest possible circles, if you wish to survive and for your posterity to survive you draw the largest possible circles consistent with being able to obtain an emotional attachment to the same things, land boundaries, ideals, institutions, whatever it takes.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:05 AM  

"its likely that most of them are wrong."

Since mine appear to have been United Empire Loyalists, I am sure this is true.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 11:07 AM  

@7634 - How very seaboard.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 11:10 AM  

"Since mine appear to have been United Empire Loyalists, I am sure this is true."

hey... I've got a buddy who's family was in florida long before the mayflower landed. I'd love to know how this all applies to him.. after all... He's a spaniard.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 11:11 AM  

Or are you going to start telling all the white people in England that they aren't "real British" because of their Norman or Scandinavian or Roman ancestry?

Yes, I am, most certainly. Because the white people in England aren't Scandinavian or Roman. Read the latest stories about DNA studies in Britain.

Are the WELSH the truest Brits? English genomes share German and French DNA - while Romans and Vikings left no trace.

Science is a bitch. Do try to keep up.

OpenID littl3x May 24, 2016 11:17 AM  

I know that this a troll post, but I'll bite to make a broader point.
Because of my race (Mediterranean), ethnicity (Hispanic)and choice of marriage(Italian), I was able to run a social experiment. When I first married, I did not change my last name. This was something we both didn't care about at the time and it served us well. I lived in the south and because of my last name, was recipient of what some mentally ill people would call "micro aggressions." People would avoid certain topics around me or assume my national food was spicy and used tortillas. I was never mistreated or made to feel unwelcome, but certainly there was a sense of difference.
After I become pregnant with my first child, I changed my name. Lo and behold, it disappeared. I became wholey white overnight. Mind you, I'm not light, I am like Antonio banderas or Catherine zeta jones.

So yes, they are now considered white. I also like to frequent anthro boards, and I have yet to see any Sicilian score any ssa at all, not even marginal amounts.

You may not like them, and that's fine. But at the moment, they are "white enough" as far as those who hate white people are concerned. When the smoke clears, we may indulge in some north vs south posturing, but at the moment we can't afford it.

Remember, the biggest reason we Europeans conquered the Indian (outside of disease) was not due to their lack of bravery or number, but lack of unity.

Anonymous BGKB May 24, 2016 11:17 AM  

There are several places in America that have German volksmarches.

American Indians belonging to Federally-recognized tribes and black slaves, no non-white tribe has any historical claim to be American

Indians have been fighting to unload blacks from their tribes for years.

White tribes will win any race war.

The problem is they actually have to notice they are in a war, leftist media has been hiding the fact groids are at war with them now. When Philly figured out it was blacks attacking whites with the knockout game & started getting CCWs in mass, Philly's black police chief said " dey be childrens don't be shooting the chitlens". Cut off food stamps and power in any die verse city and the free stuff army will take care of any liberals within walking distance.

Would like to see this guy's family reunion with the lesbians, cuckolds, adopted africans etc.

Maybe he is related to "I would like to take an immigrant child into my home" jewish pedo?

white privilege as a concept... turns out to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Did the 7yo white breaker boys have white male privilege when they worked in coal mines to help feed their families or was it when they grew old and had their taxes pay for Puerto Ricans in PR to collect social security disability for No SPEAK ENGLISH?

Blogger The Other Robot May 24, 2016 11:22 AM  

Rather than drawing the smallest possible circles, if you wish to survive and for your posterity to survive you draw the largest possible circles consistent with being able to obtain an emotional attachment to the same things, land boundaries, ideals, institutions, whatever it takes.

This seems like a coherent idea to me.

Anonymous Cassie May 24, 2016 11:22 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Short version: how can they be nationals of a nation they've destroyed?

Category error. They were born nationals and remain nationals, even if they're pinko commie traitors who want to erase white ethnicity through miscegenation like some of the trolls who've wandered by here.

Nate wrote:
But just because you cannot choose to join a group does not mean you cannot leave a group.


You can renounce citizenship or adopt a different culture but you cannot leave a group defined by your DNA.

"National" is not synonymous with "nationalist." And yes, that means "national" isn't terribly useful as a metric, except to make people's heads explode. There's no "ought" implied in recognizing that some people are fully American nationals, some are part-national, and some aren't American nationals at all, no matter what their citizenship status or ideological position might be.

Of course, I may be misunderstanding Vox's point here, as I'm just baffled at why so many people are trying to force "national" to mean something more than its clear definition.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 11:27 AM  

Most whites IN AMERICA have no nation. That is correct, and that is why we can safely expect white nationalism to become increasingly explicit and popular in the USA as whites band together to defend their interests against the rival US tribes.

This is true and getting more so with each generation. Going back to my Granparents 3/4 were 100% homogenous in their ethnicity, but all were of different nationalities. German, Irish, Welsh/English.

Similarly my wife's heritage was even more homogenous. Her father was 100% Pollock, her mother 100% Norwegian.

Two generations later my kids are: 6.25% Welsh, 6.25% English, 12.5% Irish, 25% German, 25% Norwegian, 25% Polish.

What the hell are they supposed to say besides "White American".

This ties in with Vox's opinions on free trade and free movement of people and what this has done to the American people.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 11:27 AM  

"You can renounce citizenship or adopt a different culture but you cannot leave a group defined by your DNA. "

That's a very modern mindset.

I would say you belong so long as you are CLAIMED to belong.

Note.. not what you claim... but what others claim about you.

For example... a roman child was not a child at all unless their parents claimed them. Much like the modern practice of abortion... if romans didn't want a new born.. they exposed it. meaning they simply took the child to a place near the city dump and left it.

This was not murder... because according to roman law it wasn't a child at all.

So I would flip the whole identity concept on its head.

Are you an american?

Well that depends.

Do Americans claim you as Americans?

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 11:30 AM  

i would note that my metric explains why Vox is always thrown in with whites. Whites claim him. the fact that he doesn't claim them doesn't matter. his dna does't matter either.

Whites claim him.

Blogger Joshua_D May 24, 2016 11:31 AM  

120. Nate May 24, 2016 11:10 AM

He's a spaniard.


So, wouldn't he be Spanish?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:31 AM  

"This seems like a coherent idea to me."

One tries.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:32 AM  

Category error

Logical error; they cannot be members of something that doesn't exist.

Blogger praetorian May 24, 2016 11:35 AM  

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks my nationality heritage is.

I'm a Confederate.


Behold: a Nation.

Us non-Muh-Dix whites are gonna need a bigger culture.

Anonymous Case May 24, 2016 11:36 AM  

Whites in America must accept their tribalism as quickly as possible considering the situation in Europe. If not, whites from America will be sent to put down the white rebellion against multiculturalism in Europe.

Whites can no longer afford to participate in self genocide.

Anonymous BGKB May 24, 2016 11:39 AM  

"Whites win" depends on the definition of winning. Kicking every non-white (defined how?) out of the contiguous 48+AK? Highly unlikely.

You do realize that non Asian minorities only need to travel 6 feet in order for us to win.

unnecessarily horrid disaster which _convinced_ them that when things go to shit government must step in to fix the problem

I would have thought Kratman would know the government caused the potato famine problem with sending food from Ireland to England.

Differences do not mean inferiority, as polar v. black bears show. They are adapted differently.

The genes that let blacks resist sleeping sickness are associated with kidney failure, those that give resistance to malaria produce sickle cell with a host of negatives. How much IQ would you be wiling to sacrifice in order to survive till breeding age if whitey didn't create cures yet? The adaption to build/store/plan for winters with little food growing lucky have few drawbacks.

Ever heard the saying 80% of the people do 20% of the work and 20% of the people do 80% of the work?

For white people its even less. “Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.” ― Heraclitus This statistical narrative falls in line with the US Revolution, where 3% were the firebrands and active pushers. 33% was Loyalist. 33% was moderate or stuck on the fence looking. 33% was slightly in support

Anonymous Moonbear May 24, 2016 11:41 AM  

allyn71 wrote:
What the hell are they supposed to say besides "White American".

Well, I believe the descriptive word is Mutt?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:41 AM  

"I would have thought Kratman would know the government caused the potato famine problem with sending food from Ireland to England."

That exacerbated the disaster but didn't cause it.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 11:45 AM  

"Yes, I am, most certainly. Because the white people in England aren't Scandinavian or Roman. Read the latest stories about DNA studies in Britain."

Fair enough on the Romans. I said Scandinavian, not Danish, and the Norse did leave relevant DNA in a few places.

So, instead, let's talk about all the French and German ancestry... by your standards, most of the populace is "partial British"... so why should they give a damn?

Equally, why should the average American give a damn about his partial ancestry? If we're all partial Americans, how can we possibly care about maintaining something that no longer exists?

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 11:52 AM  

@135

Well, I believe the descriptive word is Mutt?

I agree 100% and it will only become more so when they marry and have kids. It is extremely unlikely they will marry with someone that is homogeneous 100% 'X' nationality. The only common thread will be they are all white.

That is the point, there is nothing besides race for them to identify and unify with.

People want to belong to a group, especially when times are difficult. The free movement and mixing of the different european nationalities has led to the creation of a country populated by mutts. A new people has been created and will coalesce around their common identity, the white race.

Anonymous TS May 24, 2016 11:52 AM  

"Whites claim him."

No, Vox is Native American. We claim him.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 11:53 AM  

"Whites claim him."

I used to see an interesting phenom down in the 193rd in Panama; the selection of sides in bar fights. First off, soldiers would always stick with their company, irrespective of color or other ethnic marker (hispanic was big down there, go figure, more or less an American foreign legion). Soldiers of different companies would side with their own battalion in any fight involving another battalion. Army would always side with Army over Marine, Navy, or Air Force. Army would side with Marines over the other two, and, in the final resort, would pound on the Air Force on behalf of Navy or Marines.

Blogger VD May 24, 2016 11:54 AM  

I used to see an interesting phenom down in the 193rd in Panama; the selection of sides in bar fights.

Men left on their own form their own tribes. Once women and children are in the mix, not so much.

Blogger David Power May 24, 2016 11:56 AM  

The Greatest lie ever told:

"Diversity is our Strength"

Anonymous Bobby Farr May 24, 2016 11:56 AM  

@85 How do you magically stop being part of an ethnic group based on your politics? There is nothing about being of white American ethnicity that precludes a person from being an SJW or other type of degenerate.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 11:57 AM  

@140

I used to see an interesting phenom down in the 193rd in Panama; the selection of sides in bar fights. First off, soldiers would always stick with their company, irrespective of color or other ethnic marker (hispanic was big down there, go figure, more or less an American foreign legion).

That is because they identified with their unit more than any other group and then join up with the next most similar ally.

In the US what identity will people identify with greater than race?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 12:03 PM  

Allyn, I don't know that they will identify with anything else, given how thoroughly the left has succeeded in making the races enemies of each other. I offer it mainly to point out that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, at least in all circumstances.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

Stick to the terms, would you, Bobby?

Blogger CM May 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

--Of course, I may be misunderstanding Vox's point here, as I'm just baffled at why so many people are trying to force "national" to mean something more than its clear definition--

Because taken at VD's definition, it is extremely limiting while being entirely to expansive.

On one hand, you aren't a member without blood, yet you are a member even if you seek its destruction. I would expect this definition for tribes, but nation should be more expansive than a tribe.

Because it is an easy reference and is useful for historical norms of ancient peoples, Israel was a nation of tribes. One in which Rahab and Ruth were welcomed into with little question despite their complete lack of blood relation, while Joseph's sons (blood relatives) were split into two lesser half tribes. We presume because they were half Egyptian, but all other brothers took wives outside of their tribal nation, so that isn't quite good enough. It makes sense that they were raised Egyptian even if Joseph shared thee God of Abraham with them and had them circumcised.

Hagar and Ishmael were banished, in spite of Ishmael's blood relation.

Scripture talks a lot about grafting and cutting off, so limiting a nation to blood only while expanding it to traitors appears to be an inadequate definition.

I don't know if VD's point is to show how useless "national" is as a descriptor, but this entire argument is enough for me to write it off as a descriptor of my politics. However, I am not entirely sold on this definition of Nation as blood only.

--Do Americans claim you as Americans?--

This, at first appearance, makes more sense to me in the entire concept of heritage that includes banishment and adoption. It also is cohesive with the idea that Americans became Americans when the British stopped seeing them as British.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

"No, Vox is Native American. We claim him."

there aren't enough of you to claim anyone.

Blogger James Dixon May 24, 2016 12:07 PM  

> This misunderstands the nature of power; there is no way that any document, or anything less than the Divinity, Himself, can prevent something under any circumstances. As long as the power exists to change it, and the will exists to change it, it will be changed.

I didn't say the document was sufficient, Tom.

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 12:11 PM  

@147 CM: Which is why I say that the process of ethnogenesis is only partially backwards looking. It does matter where you come from, but it's not the most important ingredient in ethnogenesis.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 12:17 PM  

One dissent - I don't think that America is magic DNA any more than magic dirt. Remember there were "Englishment" with their rights in (what was later) Canada, the West Indies, the Loyalists here, and the Englishmen in England.

One profound difference was the Bible and more specifically non-conformist protestantism, and I'm sure many don't accept America as a covenant nation, but we had a vastly different Culture here although the genetics was the same.

America is a Christian Nation. You would turn it into a pagan tribe.

The problem is two-fold.

The first is given by Paul in Galatians and Romans and elsewhere. Being descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't count for anything. There were twelve tribes. Zero of them were justified by their ancestry. Zero of them were justified by their circumcitizenship ceremony.

The Church Christ established did away with tribalism, at least for anything relevant to salvation, or worse, Jewish tribalism is their specific cause of their damnation (But for some reason we think differently of Israel, Saudi Ariabia, and Zimbabwe). They don't wish to be saved if their Jewishness doesn't count - Non Serviam! Christians can have trade with Pagans, but must recognize they aren't Christians.

The second is the reductio ad absurdum of "just believe", "Love and do what thou wilt". No, you have to obey the commandments, and most of them aren't complicated or obscure.

How this applies to America is that much of our problem comes from the members of the tribe that is being lauded here becoming traitors by joining a cargo-cult writ large. It isn't Mexicans that pushed NAFTA. It isn't Italians and Slavs that pushed trade with China. Who are the technocrats on Wall Street, the Fed, and Treasury? Somehow the magic DNA isn't creating some tribal, ancestral memory of the Constitution and America 1.0.

The second part is we cannot even properly ask if the USA is or can be a propositional nation without properly defining the proposition. There are a lot of constitutionalist Christians who don't have the magic DNA, but are homeschooling teaching America 1.0's version of the Constitution - including deep diving into the bible (some read it in its entirety on a yearly basis) and they can discuss the English common law and the rights of Englishmen and the history in depth though they can trace no ancestry.

Blogger tz May 24, 2016 12:17 PM  

(continued)

There was a recent heresy that somehow the UK, England were the lost tribes of Israel and were somehow special. Some - though not all - of the "tribalism" sounds a lot like this. That somehow that Englishmen were or are God's chosen people.

But no pagan tribalism will result in liberty. It is likely to result in a tyranny not dissimilar to the Nazis, and I'm not trolling, I mean that as an historic template - Ayranism, the requirement to publicly pledge fealty to the leaders, a caste system. Jesus will not be king of such a system.

Nor is it likely to turn back the Caliphate. Only Christ - and Christians in submission to Christ can do that. It will take blood but only the precious blood assures victory.

The left has rejected Christ through their raising to sacraments Abortion, Divorce, and sexual immorality.

But what is the point in any opposition that seeks to restore or establish - I literally have no idea what they are trying to restore or establish. White tribalism? Without any virtues - keep the demographic suicidal birth rate? Where are the Christians? You might say the "Natural Conservatives" which would not "tear down a Cathedral to replace it with a strip-mall", but they would leave the Cathedral empty, or pass a preservation law so it can be turned into a Disco (Literally - Steve Taylor's "This Disco Used to be a Cute Cathedral" is based on one in New York).

We are in a spiritual war, but instead of getting out our bibles and praying and fasting, we seek a different devil to be our master and are negotiating with him.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 12:19 PM  

@ Tom K

Longer response got eaten.

Agree with the idea that there are things higher than race that people identify with. Religion historically has been the first alternate but freedom of religion in the US has pretty much nullified that. "Christian" is about the best compromise we could ever get to. See any Catholic vs Protestant thread here for exhibit A.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 24, 2016 12:26 PM  

I think Gordian is right, identity is forged through conflict. Englishmen stopped being Normans and Anglo-Saxons fighting with each other when they banded together to fight against the French and Spanish. Nate's comment that he is a Confederate supports this too - prior to the Civil War, there were Virginians, Georgians, etc., but it took the war to forge a unified Confederate identity.

Ironically, or perhaps not, northerners almost certainly saw southerners as a unified group before southerners saw themselves as such. Same as "white nationalism" today - it's the anti-white groups who saw and treated us as a unified group before we started thinking of ourselves as one.

So I predict what will be accepted as "American" in, say, the year 2050, will be anyone who's visibly white and the majority of who's ancestors arrived prior to 1964 (Blacks and Amerindians being given the exception Vox noted at the start, though with less tolerance for misbehavior than recently).

As to the Mutt argument, the main issue is that once you've become a Mutt, you don't have a homeland to go back to - you've got to defend the place you're in.

Blogger The Hammer May 24, 2016 12:37 PM  

I think if you're talking about about the historical American ethnicity, you have to say it's the major cultures/populations in the colonies. This rules out the French and Spaniards elsewhere in NA.

As for others granted citizenship, I think what y'all said about being claimed by the broader culture would be a good boundary marker. Also 2-4 generations.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 12:41 PM  

". Nate's comment that he is a Confederate supports this too - prior to the Civil War, there were Virginians, Georgians, etc., but it took the war to forge a unified Confederate identity. "

I don't know about that. The north and south were seen as distinctly different populations with different and cultures. The founders were fretting over that 150 years before the war started. Tennesseans still see themselves as Tennesseans.

its never been one nation. thus.. fretting about how to keep it one nation is an exercise in futility

Blogger kmbr May 24, 2016 12:43 PM  

@128

We can't spare the man. He fights.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 12:43 PM  

"The Church Christ established did away with tribalism, at least for anything relevant to salvation, or worse, Jewish tribalism is their specific cause of their damnation (But for some reason we think differently of Israel, Saudi Ariabia, and Zimbabwe). "

No it didn't.

It just established a new Tribe.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 24, 2016 12:47 PM  

So I predict what will be accepted as "American" in, say, the year 2050, will be anyone who's visibly white and the majority of who's ancestors arrived prior to 1964 (Blacks and Amerindians being given the exception Vox noted at the start, though with less tolerance for misbehavior than recently).

@154 Jack Amok
By 2050, I imagine whites will be so sick of TNB that they might end up having turned on the blacks like Europeans might against their Muslim invaders. It's not as if blacks are very well-blessed with self reflection about their own disgusting behavior -- if anything, their behavior will continue to get worse, not better.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 24, 2016 12:48 PM  

@140
My son’s Army Reserve unit was activated shortly after 9/11 and the activation station was Fort Leonard Wood. He called asn asked if I would bring his motorcycle out to him from SE Ohio. After we gave him the bike my wife and I decided to get a motel room and went across the street. We were told there were no vacancies and the reason was the kids from the Engineer Schools would get rooms off post.

The desk clerk then regaled us with tales of the local color. Usually, she said, it consisted of the Army and Marines fighting each other with the Navy and USAF egging them on.

@145
I don’t see people grouping on anything other than race these days. Major exceptions will probably be those that served in the Military and true Christianity. There might be something else that would bridge the racial divide, but I don’t see any other at this point.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 12:50 PM  

its never been one nation. thus.. fretting about how to keep it one nation is an exercise in futility

There are two distinct areas that might identify at a higher level than race in the US:

1) Mormons- They have a pretty defined land area and identify by religion more than race, mostly because they are >95% white.
2) Southerner's- The whites are a given but not sure that the blacks would go along with that.

The rest are just a bunch of mutts, more so the farther west you go.

It isn't about preserving a non-existent nation as much as it is about drawing up the sides. God only knows how it sorts itself out but it won't be pretty.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 12:56 PM  

Meanwhile, as I've said before, we Westerners are looking at you all like you're a bunch of fruits griping over a war that is long since passed from living memory.

And simultaneously wishing California's fault line would finally crack.

Blogger kmbr May 24, 2016 12:59 PM  

**Remember, the biggest reason we Europeans conquered the Indian (outside of disease) was not due to their lack of bravery or number, but lack of unity.**

Agreed.

I had some person from Twitter contact me VIA DM and try to get me to do some meet ups. I think he thought I was a dude.

Anyhow, after a few back and forths telling him I didn't meet the profile, I finally laid the bomb on him that my husband was half Asian, half Scottish/Irish. Granted, I have been married for 20 years, have kids that are at the tops of their classes, lived all over the world--etc. etc. My kids are 75% European-. My son was a blond hair, light eyed kid. My daughter has dark hair and blue eyes--LOL, he was ready to throw me out with the bath water. Which, I had no problem with, I had no desire to meet up with them--

OK, yeah, I mucked up the gene line 20 years ago (:--but really these are issues that the "alt right" has to deal with in a more realistic and less self defeating manner.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 1:05 PM  

"Meanwhile, as I've said before, we Westerners are looking at you all like you're a bunch of fruits griping over a war that is long since passed from living memory."

odd considering how many of you suffered under the same army that fought the CSA.

Ever noticed your streets are named after the same yankee generals that fought the south?

That army came west... and it left a hell of a mark.

Not a pretty one either.

That's largely why there is kinship between the south and west. We ain't the same... but we have some experiences that maybe didn't exactly repeat... but rhymed.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 24, 2016 1:07 PM  

This Texas born Micksican is even more confused than usual now.

Viva La Jameson?

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

"Odd considering how many of you suffered under the same army that fought the CSA."

That aren't didn't do a whole lot out here except fight Red Indians. And most of the people who came out this way, excepting the California gold rush, were independent sorts who thought the whole war was a giant nuisance and a waste of blood and treasure. At the same time, a lot of the people here thought slavery was stupid and sympathized with the Northern view on the issue (see above regarding independent streak).

But we're just one of many nations now, and not even close to the largest.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

@163 kmbr:
"but really these are issues that the "alt right" has to deal with in a more realistic and less self defeating manner."

These enlightening discussions are a good start.

Blogger tublecane May 24, 2016 1:13 PM  

You rely on that posterity clause like progressives have long (since Lincoln, at least) relied on the "all men are created equal" clause. It's almost a fetish with them. Which isn't to say that I don't agree. But I'd use a different argument; it's not very convincing rhetoric. Most people will say, "Who cares what it says in the preamble?" They'd be right in so asking, because I don't know if a soul voted to ratify the Constitution based on the high falutin opening paragraph.

The Declaration, on the other hand, people remember because it's drilled into their brains in propaganda factories, err, public schools. So the equality argument beats the posterity argument, just going by Musty, Old Document Rhetoric.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 1:13 PM  

That's largely why there is kinship between the south and west. We ain't the same... but we have some experiences that maybe didn't exactly repeat... but rhymed.

Reconstructionist policies enacted in the South and Federal land management in the West have a lot in common. Forced on the populace by the same people too.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 1:18 PM  

"That aren't didn't do a whole lot out here except fight Red Indians."

There are a lot of dots you haven't connected.

Blogger Nate May 24, 2016 1:19 PM  

"Reconstructionist policies enacted in the South and Federal land management in the West have a lot in common. Forced on the populace by the same people too."

DING DING DING

Blogger tublecane May 24, 2016 1:20 PM  

Also, the Constitution is no longer in force (a conclusion you must draw when comparing what it says to how our government operates), so it has about as much meaning as the "organic law" of the Declaration. Which is of historical curiosity only.

Again, not that I disagree with your premise.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 24, 2016 1:22 PM  

@S1AL @Nate

The most Southern states in the West are probably Montana and Wyoming. The Pacific Northwest is otherwise an extension of the Midwest. Except the coast, which is an extension of Northern California. Arizona is about like Southern California in the '90s.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 1:23 PM  

Forget sufficient, James; a mere document is nigh unto irrelevant.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 1:29 PM  

"its never been one nation. thus.. fretting about how to keep it one nation is an exercise in futility"

And it still looks like the definition of "nation" is being perverted or prostituted to be something no greater than tribe. Sadly, we already have a word for tribe. We pronounce it "tribe."

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 1:30 PM  

@Nate - Oh, don't get me wrong, there's plenty of grumbling about how BLM and BIA have handled some issues, but a lot of that is overstated. Overall the states individually have a lot more say with regards to resources and mineral rights. And the national parks are handled really well in Colorado/Wyoming, so there's not too much to complain about. There's a big difference between interfering government (accepted as a fact of life) and an invading force.

@#7634 - You're half right. Rural Oregon =/= Portland/Eugene. Rural Oregon is actually hardliner conservative. That's also true of a good portion of northern California and parts of Washington.

Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are pretty similar in temperament to Montana and Wyoming, and Idaho is a lot like Utah and Nevada's non-Vegas populace (just with way more White trash).

There's a reason that Cruz has so much support out here. We don't particularly care for Yankee bluster.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 24, 2016 1:34 PM  

@95 Nate
Also... you folks jabbering about tracing your roots back to the Revolutionary war? You should probably remember that the vast majority of colonists did not support the war at all.
--

I hate to agree with this, but it's true. I've learned recently that we trace back to at least 2 that fought for England during the Revolutionary War.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 24, 2016 1:37 PM  

@97 Rhetoric
ORIGINALLY written, yes. But Congress was granted to liberty to redefine what is posterity through the passage of legislation and constitutional amendments.
---

Please elaborate. The congress can amend the Preamble?

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 1:37 PM  

"Men left on their own form their own tribes."

The first couple of levels were clearly tribal. After that it would become an exercise in perceived relative commonality outside the tribe.

Anonymous cheddarman May 24, 2016 1:37 PM  

It is my understanding that a lot of southerners went west after the war of northern agression. They have imo left their foot print on the western culture in many ways. Westerners kind of remind me of southerners but with a different accent.

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 1:38 PM  

allyn71 wrote:Reconstructionist policies enacted in the South and Federal land management in the West have a lot in common. Forced on the populace by the same people too.
Yeah, but there's a big difference between the movement conservatism of the West and the realpolitik conservatism of the South. You could even see that pretty clearly demarcated in the Republican primaries just a few months ago.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 1:39 PM  

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's plenty of grumbling about how BLM and BIA have handled some issues, but a lot of that is overstated. Overall the states individually have a lot more say with regards to resources and mineral rights.

That is complete bullshit. The only people out here that think like that came from somewhere else and live in a city. Go to any rural town surrounded by BLM or USFS land and ask them if they think the Feds are doing a good job. You'll probably get your ass kicked just for asking. The native people, not the transplants living in the suburbs, hate the feds and look at them as an occupying force by and large.

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 1:40 PM  

Nate wrote:"That aren't didn't do a whole lot out here except fight Red Indians."

There are a lot of dots you haven't connected.

That's because they were feather Indians, not dot Indians...

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 1:42 PM  

Yeah, but there's a big difference between the movement conservatism of the West and the realpolitik conservatism of the South. You could even see that pretty clearly demarcated in the Republican primaries just a few months ago.

That had more to due with the Mormon block than anything else, but as Nate said they are not the same, they just rhyme.

Anonymous cheddarman May 24, 2016 1:45 PM  

I think we all more or less agree that the USA will likely break up in the future along regional and cultural lines, and form smaller ethnically homogenous states. I would like to see a blog post where we can put our individual ideas of how/when/why it will happen and what the resulting new nations will look like in terms of people and place. I have my own set of ideas and would like to see what others think.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 1:46 PM  

@allyn71 - There's a difference between "the Feds are incompetent" and "the Feds are evil". More people, native-born or sympathetic transplant, fall into the former category than the latter. I live in central Wyoming, FYI.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 1:50 PM  

It is my understanding that a lot of southerners went west after the war of northern agression.

The gold fields of SW Idaho are full of references to the South. Look up Atlanta, ID. Named by Southerner's on the false rumor of a southern victory over Sherman in the Battle for Atlanta. See also Dixie, ID.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 1:51 PM  

"I think we all more or less agree that the USA will likely break up in the future along regional and cultural lines, and form smaller ethnically homogenous states. "

I don't, actually. Oh, a breakup is somewhat likely, but more likely to involve wandering hordes of starving, cannibalistic subhumans than anything we'd recognize as homogenous states. It's not something to cheer for. It's not something to work toward. It's something that killing a hundred million or more people would be worth doing if it would prevent, it because the ultimate body count is going to be higher than that.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 24, 2016 1:55 PM  

Opus wrote:May I also say that - somewhat off-topic - I am always amused by American's near-desperation of being able to trace their common ancestor to somewhere in The British Isles. Few (I think ) can do so truly and even fewer can do so back to the 17th century. You may claim to be [insert country]-American but to me you are all Americans and very obviously so even though most have utterly un-English and frequently un-pronouncable surnames.

hmmmm
To us you are all more-or-less British, Scots, Welsh, Kiwi, Australian and Irish included. Frankly, your perspective as an outsider is of no relevance whatsoever. What's important is how we see each other.

The "desperate" attempt to trace lineage to England is simply a figment of your imagination. Perhaps it's colored by your experience of living in England, where a substantial portion of the Americans you meet will be people looking up their English ancestry.
At least until recently, English ancestry was considered boring and pedestrian, compared with Irish (really) or Italian descent. I think largely because Irish and Italians still had a tribal identity going, which was re-enforced by religion and culture. For a child of mixed ethnicity, when the most important part of your identity was Catholicism, that pretty naturally lead to identifying with the Irish or Italian side of the family.

Blogger Gaiseric May 24, 2016 1:56 PM  

@184: allyn71: Please, expound. My own personal experience is so interwoven with these threads that I can't do justice to separating them. My father's line is nearly pure ethnic Southerner one that lived in rural Georgia for centuries, before converting to Mormonism and moving out West for generations. When my father moved to Texas, he says that there were suddenly cultural things related to how he grew up that always were different than how they were done further west, but with the cultural context of living in Gulf Coast Texas, he realized that even after three or four generations, he was basically an unassimilated southerner living in the west.

I grew up in Texas, but traveled frequently to both the Deep South and the West for various reasons, and feel readily at home in both. So I can't really separate very well the cultural threads that separate them, I admit, other than what can be seen in data, i.e. the Primaries, which were an eye-opening thing for me to see that there was such a deep fissure between the South and the West culturally.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 1:57 PM  

@S1AL

Wait till the sagegrouse gets listed and we will take a new poll.

Think the line between "incompetent" and "evil" depends on how heavy the Federal hand is. In central Wyoming most the BLM employees are natives and nothing much has changed, business as usual.

In other areas grazing is being restricted and the timber industry has been gutted. Access is being restricted and Eastern policies take precedents over the locals. That is when the switch is turned. Here in S. Idaho the general opinion is more "evil" than "incompetent". There is a reason Bundy Ranch and Malhuer happened where they did.

Blogger S1AL May 24, 2016 2:04 PM  

"In central Wyoming most the BLM employees are natives and nothing much has changed, business as usual."

Yeah, I realized after I posted that you were probably talking Idaho, which is a really different situation. I have some family up that way, Blackfoot area... I hated it, frankly. And the degree to which the Feds are able to manhandle that area... you have my deepest sympathies. In a lot of ways Idaho gets the worst of both worlds.

Anonymous mature craig May 24, 2016 2:04 PM  

Not that I would want to see Law and Order cast Black guys as the villains either. I guess I would like to see Law and Order just not be on TV in my country at all.




Blogger Akulkis May 24, 2016 2:06 PM  

"The bigger issue is anchor babies/chain migration. Unless something is done to address those issues the ability to have a baby on U.S. soil and in twenty years get the whole family to the U.S. will shift things inevitably in the other direction."

The most vulnerable part of many buildings such as say, schools full of anchor-babies, is the ventilation system.

A couple gallons of bleach + ammonia => chloramine + hydrazine both of which are lethal.

Take a 5-gallon bucket, puncture the lid, and run some flexible tubing (easily found at any hardware store) out of the top (sealing where the tube passes through the top), and likewise, puncture the exposed ventilation ductwork that leads to an air-conditioning unit, and seal the tube's entrance into the vent. Half-fill 5-gal bucket with bleach. Fill remaining space with ammonia. Place lid on bucket.

For added effect, introduce bug spray, or bug-bombs (heavy nerve gas).

The best part -- it's like a neutron bomb -- infrastructure is left unharmed, and ready for reoccupation by civilized people once the building is aired out.

Blogger Tom Kratman May 24, 2016 2:08 PM  

"I think we all more or less agree that the USA will likely break up in the future along regional and cultural lines, and form smaller ethnically homogenous states. "

I don't, actually. Oh, a breakup is somewhat likely, but more likely to involve wandering hordes of starving, cannibalistic subhumans than anything we'd recognize as homogenous states. It's not something to cheer for. It's not something to work toward. It's something that killing a hundred million or more people would be worth doing if it would prevent, it because the ultimate body count is going to be higher than that.

Anonymous Philalethes May 24, 2016 2:09 PM  

There was a recent heresy that somehow the UK, England were the lost tribes of Israel and were somehow special. Some - though not all - of the "tribalism" sounds a lot like this. That somehow that Englishmen were or are God's chosen people.

Indeed. And btw, this was a major element in the adoption of the Jewish blood ritual (and child sexual abuse) of circumcision throughout the Anglosphere (but not by any other European nation) a century ago. Hoping to be recognized and favored by G-d as another branch of His Chosen People.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 2:12 PM  

@ Gaiseric

Not sure how much I can expound on it but couple of things.

First, Texas is Texas and it is a totally seperate entity.

Secondly, Mormons are Mormons and they have their own distinct culture and block.

Finally the rest of the west is from somewhere else mostly. The native population is small in number and is being overwhelmed by outsiders, mostly Californians which are universally scorned.

The reason the primaries were so different between the two regions is exactly what this thread describes, most of the western states that Cruz won are made up of three entities. The first is the native populations, the second is the transplants, and the third is the Mormons. The Native and transplants pretty much were 50/50 and really didn't have any voting discipline. The Mormons strongly dislike Trump and voted en bloc against him tipping the scales in a way that you didn't have in the Southern states.

The west isn't the same as the south. The people don't identify as strongly with a regional identity like the Southern people do, mostly I believe because everyone out here started from somewhere else at some point. That said their are strong similarities and a fellow kinship based on that.

Blogger Thordaddy May 24, 2016 2:13 PM  

...and "white supremacism" is not equal to wS.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 24, 2016 2:15 PM  

Yeah, I realized after I posted that you were probably talking Idaho, which is a really different situation. I have some family up that way, Blackfoot area... I hated it, frankly. And the degree to which the Feds are able to manhandle that area... you have my deepest sympathies. In a lot of ways Idaho gets the worst of both worlds.

@192 S1AL
It's worse than that. Some of the neighboring states, such as Montana or Utah, could theoretically form relatively stable independent countries. Washington and Oregon could break cleanly along the Cascade Range, like Czechoslovakia. Idaho, OTOH, looks like Bosnia.

Blogger allyn71 May 24, 2016 2:25 PM  

The west isn't the same as the south. The people don't identify as strongly with a regional identity like the Southern people do, mostly I believe because everyone out here started from somewhere else at some point. That said their are strong similarities and a fellow kinship based on that.

To expound on that a little more, I think it has to do with a mostly libertarian mindset. In the South people don't meddle in other peoples business generally and the West has always been about leaving folks alone and doing your own thing, plenty of space for all.

The common tie is that the Damn Yankees can never leave anyone else the hell alone and they constantly try and force their will on the rest of us.

1 – 200 of 372 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