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

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Mailvox: the importance of posterity

Tublecane explores the implications of the historically correct interpretation of "posterity" in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
I don't want to put words in Vox's mouth, but the upshot is the Proposition Nation doesn't exist. There is an American nation, but it has no power, and probably can't be restored. The U.S. government, which associates itself with the idea of a nation, doesn't have any such foundation.

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

The practical solution is to, above all else, abandon the dead end of civic nationalism, which is a false creed. The posterity issue doesn't prove that fact, but it is rhetorically useful in helping to swat it down. Then, I think, the idea is to reform in smaller groups and start nation-building for reelz.
That is a reasonable summary, although I would say that the correct definition of posterity is useful in demolishing the false rhetoric of the civic nationalists used to justify their civic nationalism rather than say that it swats down civic nationalism per se. What will actually destroy civic nationalism is the societally destructive results of immigration, multiculturalism, and globalism proving the concept false.

I would also be remiss if I failed to point out that one error the civic nationalists insist on making over and over and over again is to conflate the genetic nation with the legal state, and to confuse posterity with the possession of state paperwork. One obvious sign that a civic nationalist is doing this is that they will refer to laws and court decisions in a categorically erroneous attempt to rebut historical and scientific facts.

Labels: ,

144 Comments:

Blogger ZhukovG June 27, 2017 8:09 AM  

Yes, it seems that Mankind is unable to abandon a bad idea until it actually tries to kill him.

Blogger Lucas June 27, 2017 8:13 AM  

"There is an American nation, but it has no power, and probably can't be restored.


We will see.

Blogger Basil Makedon June 27, 2017 8:52 AM  

The US is no longer a Nation-State, but rather just a State. More like Austria-Hungary circa 1914 than Germany circa 1914.

The fact that Poland is a nation-state and we are not is deeply ironic.

I think we sometimes forget that methods of human organization are technologies every bit a much as orthogonal code-division multiplexing and that these technologies have to be be learned in the first place and thus subject to being unlearned, forgotten or lost every bit as much as the Roman recipe for concrete.

Blogger ZhukovG June 27, 2017 8:54 AM  

As for the future, it's a bit like a game of musical chairs. Only it's being played in the dark and you're not sure how many different players there are and you're not sure how many chairs there are.

There are so many variable factors that it's anybody's guess as to what will rise from the ashes of the American Union. But there will likely be a period of hunger, disease, poverty and ethnic cleansing of the most vicious sort. There will be war.

Rhetoric aside, anybody who is actually looking forward to this is an idiot. Who, regardless of his preparations, will likely be among the early casualties along with all those he holds dear.

As for answering the question, "Where can my family and I go to be in less danger?".

I would answer that first you need to honestly identify what your 'real' nation is. Then, you choose a place where your nation is dominant or failing that, a place where the dominant nation has historically been, or will likely be, tolerant of your nation.

Anonymous VFM #6306 June 27, 2017 8:57 AM  

"Civic Nationalism" is the new "Over by Christmas" of 103 years ago.

Anonymous Jeff June 27, 2017 9:01 AM  

NQ > JQ

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 27, 2017 9:06 AM  

Off the top of my head, could the CNs be useful as guarding our left flank? At the risk of sounding cucky in my head I have a loyalty test to the American nation. "Would you cross the Delaware river with GW's army on Christmas Eve?" My guess is this question would cut off so much driftwood it would dam the Mississippi river in flood stage.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 27, 2017 9:08 AM  

Of course I have a loyalty test for the CNs as well, will they finally attempt to discredit the psycho babble weapons of the Left? Specifically the word "racist" which so binds up the useless conservative intellectuals.

Blogger Salt June 27, 2017 9:15 AM  

America is 330 million with 50 years of post-1965 population to deal with. Arguing posterity seems rather moot these days. Civic Nationalism is a dead end, so stick with your tribe and hold on. It's going to be a wild ride to the end and you don't need to buy a ticket. It's been provided.

Blogger VD June 27, 2017 9:17 AM  

Arguing posterity seems rather moot these days.

It's not moot at all. It is key to helping people understand the basic concept of tribe, which all too many have lost.

Blogger Lazarus June 27, 2017 9:20 AM  

Remember Igor Panarin? He has predicted the breakup of the USA since the 1980's, although he originally thought it would be 2010.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3521671/US-will-collapse-and-break-up-Russian-analyst-predicts.html

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 27, 2017 9:22 AM  

The existence of an American nation would seem to be a matter of historical fact rather than a product of any constitutional wording. The founders could no more define and create a nation than modern politicians can manufacture Americans through the issuance of passports. The founders merely acknowledged what already existed (see their many references to shared ancestry, culture, etc.) and fought for the nation's right to self-determination.

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 9:23 AM  

As initially understood by a majority of people at the time, the United States was a voluntary federation of thirteen states. Old Abe Lincoln got around that issue by calling out the troops after the Southerners fired on Ft. Sumter. Once the troops were in motion, effectively we were at war.

Blogger Rodger James June 27, 2017 9:24 AM  

Timely discussion. Note the neocon Mark Levin's book "Rediscovering Americanism" just hit the number 1 spot. The old folks who follow him certainly bought into the Americanism taught in public school civics class.

This is one old fart that abandoned his rhetoric long ago.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 27, 2017 9:26 AM  

The coming years will be tough, no doubt. My fear is not for my self, but for the hardships my children will no doubt endure. If we all survive, God willing, my sons will be tough, a product of their times, and the kind of people needed to rebuild.

In the midst of this trepidation I see great opportunity. Opportunity to do great deeds and to earn your own self respect and live as a man, with this nanny state female garbage we have to put up with cut away.

It's an opportunity to earn your liberty and be an example to your kids. To live honestly and find out what you're made of.

Blogger JACIII June 27, 2017 9:29 AM  

Indians. Tribes. Genetic cultural predisposition in action.

Blogger Phillip George June 27, 2017 9:29 AM  

Vox, breaking news! Syria denies that it is packing WMD Barrel bombs to take out kindergartens, grand mothers and doting babyboomers.

Will CNN retract the claim their sources made?

It's all news.

vox, unless the Lord builds the house.
WE the People have a Constitution: Jesus Christ. Our Law. Our Flag.
identity does matter. I win because I can't lose. If God be for Us..... etc.
Thou shalt.... History, Law, Science, Economics, just begin again, all over, from scratch.

Blogger bw June 27, 2017 9:31 AM  

to conflate the genetic nation with the legal state

Same thing these types do with "the Law" and Morality, and Muh Warfare Machine and Police State vs Truth, etc.

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 9:34 AM  

I anticipate the future will be as predicted here only more boring. We will devolve into some degree of dysfunction, how serious is hard to predict, but we will never quite recover.

The most obvious spin off territory would be the Southwest owing to the large Hispanic population. But there is always a great reluctance to let go of territory so we may well hang onto everything regardless of consequence.

Blogger Ned June 27, 2017 9:36 AM  

The Oathkeepers embody cuckery: https://www.oathkeepers.org/navyjack-scourge-white-nationalism/

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 9:46 AM  

There were all different kinds of people living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So Posterity must refer to a number of different tribes.

Blogger rumpole5 June 27, 2017 9:49 AM  

There is such a thing as a USA nation. In May my wife and I took a cruise on the P & O Britiannia. We were the only Americans on the whole boat. On our return to the USA we were sitting in the dining car of the Amtrak train home. As I listened to the black attendants' humorous, slightly insulting banter back and forth to each other (and to us), it was literally music to my ears after weeks among the pleasant but stolid Brits. I really, really love this crazy flawed mongrel society. I would like to see it preserved as a nation dominated by the descendants of our founders. Let's slow all immigration.

Blogger bw June 27, 2017 9:52 AM  

NQ > JQ

The former (assuming I am guessing "N" correctly) exists in large part due to the latter.
Blacks, Muslims, Mestizos and Feminists only have the destructive Proxy Power they've been purposefully given by Usurious Finance, which owns your State.

OpenID aew51183 June 27, 2017 9:53 AM  

We can trace this fall to the "civil rights act" of 1964 which openly violated the 14th amendment's equal protection laws by establishing "protected classes" which are "more equal than others".

And of course, the "conservatives" were the ones who voted for this monstrosity, and our judges, installed by anti-constitutionalists starting with FDR, upheld and continue to uphold the double-standard it has created.

The ash that comprises what used to be our inner-cities is the inevitable end result of a legal system which privileges resentful tribalists at the expense of actual justice.

Blogger Chris Mallory June 27, 2017 9:55 AM  

Ned wrote:The Oathkeepers embody cuckery:

You gotta love the "Dairy Queen" Story in the comments.

Anonymous Heyowahye-Pastawahye June 27, 2017 9:56 AM  

I always get my hot nationalism take from rootless vagabonds. Don't you?

Blogger Bellguard June 27, 2017 10:04 AM  

>Has no power

We'll see about that.

Blogger Ned June 27, 2017 10:04 AM  

@ 25 - Yep. Either a basement dweller BS artist and/or they're getting trolled so hard in the comments they can't see it.

Anonymous BBGKB June 27, 2017 10:05 AM  

After finding the part of the nation you want to hold out in, a couple of 5 gallon buckets of rice & beans to help survive a disruption would keep you form what's happening in Venezuela. You can buy 5 gallon buckets packed in nitrogen that will keep for 10+ years, or you can do it cheaper yourself with dry ice to drive out the oxygen if you are not too stupid.

"Would you cross the Delaware river with GW's army on Christmas Eve?"

Just as Kratman wouldn't be most effective on the front line, I would probably be more useful culturally appropriating "black doctor before computerized pharmacy" with an enemy general.

Blogger Chris Mallory June 27, 2017 10:05 AM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:There were all different kinds of people living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So Posterity must refer to a number of different tribes.

85% of the people in the US in 1790 were either from the British Isles or were black slaves.

If you remove blacks from the total population, 80% of the population in 1790 was made up of people from the British Isles.

We were a British Protestant nation, no matter how you look at it.

Blogger Chris Mallory June 27, 2017 10:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous 0 June 27, 2017 10:10 AM  

Chris Mallory wrote:"Would you cross the Delaware river with GW's army on Christmas Eve?"

Could there be a better Christmas present than bayoneting Germans in their sleep?


Americans.
Willing to cross a frozen river to kill you.
In your sleep.
On Christmas.
Totally not kidding.
We've done it.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 10:20 AM  

The question is what tje word posterity means and what the Constitution means. It obviously includes all kinds of people.

Blogger Andrew Taylor June 27, 2017 10:22 AM  

If I had any doubt Oath Keepers are enemies of the American nation it has been assuaged.

OpenID dreadilkzee June 27, 2017 10:24 AM  

The only way Civic Nationalism could work is to follow Ruth's path.

Ruth 1:16
But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.

The problem is to many "immigrants" come here and do not make "your people shall be my people" or "your God my God. They cling to their old people group. Are their exceptions? Yes, but there are not enough of them.

However this would not be a "Civic nationalism" but "Cultural" and it would require the incomers to forgo their old ways.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2017 10:25 AM  

Civic nationalism requires magic dirt.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 10:28 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Antipas June 27, 2017 10:31 AM  

Stalin was a civic nationalist

Blogger Desdichado June 27, 2017 10:41 AM  

(((NathAn Schuster)))? wrote:There were all different kinds of people living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So Posterity must refer to a number of different tribes.
That's not even close to true.

Anonymous Canada Is Cucked June 27, 2017 10:47 AM  

Every Anglo nation is effectively doomed. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. All going to share South Africa's fate. There is something fundamentally defective about the Anglo character. Why even bother?

Anonymous Bobby Farr June 27, 2017 10:47 AM  

@35 Melting pot nonsense on par with magic dirt or good guy=native. No one can change their ethnic identity even with the best of intentions. I can spend 50 years in Japan and try my best. I will not be Japanese. At most a foreigner can meekly accept his subordinate role as an outsider and recognize the inferiority of his preferences and beliefs in relation to those of the natives. In other words, minimize the extent to which he is a socially destructive nuisance.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2017 10:48 AM  

Civic nationalism requires a very blank slate.

Anonymous Canada is Cucked June 27, 2017 10:50 AM  

More tough talk. Who are Americans?

Blogger Student in Blue June 27, 2017 10:50 AM  

It's not moot at all. It is key to helping people understand the basic concept of tribe, which all too many have lost.

Agreed. The realization that "nation" means people who are actually genetically related to you, and not just people who legally live in the same area, had a very large effect on me. It will definitely do the same for others.

Identity is a big deal.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 10:52 AM  

why not? We the People includes different kinds of people.

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 10:55 AM  

Chris Mallory wrote:85% of the people in the US in 1790 were either from the British Isles or were black slaves.

If you remove blacks from the total population, 80% of the population in 1790 was made up of people from the British Isles.

We were a British Protestant nation, no matter how you look at it.


http://www.continentalline.org/articles/article.php?date=0601&article=060103

Scholars estimate that between the years 1717 and 1775 German speaking people constituted more than 27 percent of all white arrivals to the thirteen colonies, and more than 80 percent of those Germans came by way of Philadelphia. Aaron Fogelman contends that between 1700 and 1775 there were nearly 308,000 white immigrants and 84,550 were German speaking people.

During the war the British discovered that it was not such a good idea to have Hessian troops in Pennsylvania because they tended to go awol and not come back. So, do their offspring meet the "posterity" criteria?

Anonymous BBGKB June 27, 2017 10:55 AM  

The Oathkeepers embody cuckery: https://www.oathkeepers.org/navyjack-scourge-white-nationalism/

OMG did you see the fake smart niglet son comment? It was faker than the 20STR8 white men beating up a San Fran gay for wearing white after labor day story.

"“Yeah!” agreed the one in the ‘Pepe the Frog” shirt, “We don’t want your kind in here! Take your son back home to Iraq, we hate race-traitors like you, this is Trump country now!” OathCuckers NavyJack needs to bake me a cake.

Richard T 23 June, 2017, 13:34

"was clad in a “Bill Clinton Is A Rapist” garment. NOT what you hope to see in a family restaurant! ... I was ready to call the cops immediately, but my son – who had endured this tirade with the silent dignity we’ve tried so hard to inculcate in him – suddenly spoke up.

“Sir,” he said, his voice clear and firm, “I believe you were addressing me, though I confess I am not fluent in vulgarian. You appear to be suffering from some logical fallacies, to wit:

“Firstly, “my kind”, as you so lewdly put it, is American. I *am* home, by the grace of God and the Constitution. Furthermore, my father is an elder in our church, not some sort of ‘traitor’.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 27, 2017 10:56 AM  

"The Frankenstein's Monster "nation" of the U.S.A. will fail and be eaten up by the bad sort of identity politics. The destructive tribalism is promoted and officially sanctioned by multiculturalism, and permitted, whether with or against its knowledge or will, by civic nationalism, Proposition Nationalism, Nation of Immigrantism, etc."

'White American Nationalism' is hardly less of a Frankenstein Monster though, it's still just civic nationalism. The main difference is that it's a bit more exclusive. But that exclusivity is based entirely on visual cues. Not genetics ('posterity'), not culture, not religion, not politics, not a shared history.

The same argument for building a neoAmerican nation out of Protestants and Catholics, new arrivals from England and Dutch who have been here for 400 years, white hood rats and blue mountain hillbillies, abortionists and antivaxers, Swedes and blue eyed Russians, can be used to include anyone else.

It all comes down to numbers. Highly restricted, very selective and ruthlessly enforced immigration policy and a requirement for proven assimilation is the only possible solution. Citizenship should be extremely difficult to get and impossible to take away.

OpenID dreadilkzee June 27, 2017 10:59 AM  

Desdichado wrote:(((NathAn Schuster)))? wrote:There were all different kinds of people living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So Posterity must refer to a number of different tribes.

That's not even close to true.


Founding Fathers: https://infogalactic.com/info/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
Demographics
Brown (1976) and Harris (1969) provide detailed demographic information on each man.

Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Nine were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, two (Wilson and Witherspoon) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.

Many of them had moved from one state to another. Seventeen individuals had already lived, studied or worked in more than one state or colony: Baldwin, Bassett, Bedford, Dickinson, Few, Franklin, Ingersoll, Hamilton , Livingston, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mercer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, and Williamson.

Several others had studied or traveled abroad.

The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds at the colonial colleges or abroad.[16] Some, like Franklin and Washington, were largely self-taught or learned through apprenticeship. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the men had attended or graduated from college. Some men held medical degrees or advanced training in theology. Most of the education was in the colonies, but several were lawyers who had been trained at the Inns of Court in London.


For colonial Demographics see https://infogalactic.com/info/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

The only non-white group that would have any claim to American representation would be Blacks. There are no other group so note until 1840s. Odd note but apparently true, there were Free-blacks before 1776 in the colonies and even some of them owned slaves. (See: http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436)

Blogger Sam June 27, 2017 11:00 AM  

@22
Not possible. The US is not self sustaining and given demographic trends will implode in ethnic conflict shortly.

@40
I recommend Anonymous Conservative. The flaw with Anglos is we/you got wealthy. Wealth leads to r which leads to implosion. Run out of cheap resources and the nature of a people who built the largest empire on the planet will reassert itself.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 11:01 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 11:02 AM  

It says we the people not We the deligates.

Blogger Chris Mallory June 27, 2017 11:03 AM  

Johnny wrote:So, do their offspring meet the "posterity" criteria?

Since the only good German is a dead German, I would have to say "NO".

Anonymous Cassie June 27, 2017 11:06 AM  

A US black seeing a black person in Britain succeed types "so proud of my people." Who are her people? Other blacks, regardless of passport paperwork. Americans are not her people. She knows that, but because she has birthright citizenship in the Empire the civic nationalists will ignore the fact that she's not American and never will be.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 11:10 AM  

Ned wrote:Yep. Either a basement dweller BS artist and/or they're getting trolled so hard in the comments they can't see it.
Here's a quote from the Dairy Queen story, the 12-year-old adopted pickaninny:
“Sir,” he said, his voice clear and firm, “I believe you were addressing me, though I confess I am not fluent in vulgarian. You appear to be suffering from some logical fallacies, to wit:
“Firstly, “my kind”, as you so lewdly put it, is American. I *am* home, by the grace of God and the Constitution. Furthermore, my father is an elder in our church, not some sort of ‘traitor’.
“And finally, this is not ‘Trump country’. Not now, not ever. This is the United States of America, and while our First Amendment permits even cretins such as yourself freedom of speech, the Second Amendment also permits me to shoot you in the eye should you continue to commit racism. Now, begone!”

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 27, 2017 11:12 AM  

Fuck off, defeatist. Take Sam Adams' words to heart.

Blogger James June 27, 2017 11:26 AM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Off the top of my head, could the CNs be useful as guarding our left flank? At the risk of sounding cucky in my head I have a loyalty test to the American nation. "Would you cross the Delaware river with GW's army on Christmas Eve?" My guess is this question would cut off so much driftwood it would dam the Mississippi river in flood stage.

Given human nature, I'm pretty sure most CN's would say "Of course I would cross the Delaware in the middle of winter to slay some Hessians! God bless America!' Sure, they would be lying, but still.

Blogger Student in Blue June 27, 2017 11:33 AM  

@50. Sam
Wealth leads to r which leads to implosion.

It makes me wonder whether or not a strict artificially K-type environment when a kid grows up will prevent that from happening, or at least help negate quite a bit of the "easy money" mindset.

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 11:37 AM  

Chris Mallory wrote:Johnny wrote:So, do their offspring meet the "posterity" criteria?

Since the only good German is a dead German, I would have to say "NO".


As England is twenty percent ethnic German along with the Celts, I suppose it will be desirable to shoot twenty percent of the Brits as well. Plus only the people around southern Scandinavia are close to pure German. The more southerly Germans are mixed race. So, shoot all them as a precaution? And most Brits as well just to make sure?

But then if you mean by nationality, there was no Germany in this period, thus no Germans to shoot.

We could go by linguistics. Shoot anybody who speaks German. Or would it be used to speak German? Or with a German accent?

Blogger James June 27, 2017 11:42 AM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:There were all different kinds of people living in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So Posterity must refer to a number of different tribes.

The question is what the word posterity means and what the Constitution means. It obviously includes all kinds of people.

why not? We the People includes different kinds of people.


Yes, what does Posterity mean and who does it refer to?

Posterity - 1. Descendants; children, children's children, &c. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from the progenitor... -- 2. In a general sense, succeeding generations; opposed to ancestors." An American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1828).

Who wrote the Constitution? Who agreed to the contract called the Constitution? I believe you will find they were ALL White men. Who would their Posterity be? Their racial descendants. At the time of the adoption of the Preamble, the phrase 'WE The People' was known and understood to mean the people of the white race and none other. The Preamble emanated from and for the people so designated by the words "to ourselves and our posterity" (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. [60 US] 393, 406-07, 410- 11), and it is known that the men that framed the Preamble and the Constitution were all of the white race and the Christian faith. The people fully understood that those words secured the intent of all that followed for that one people (the white race), and them alone. The government would proceed directly from the people, and they "ordained and established" this form of government for their own people to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity.

Blogger Ransom Smith June 27, 2017 11:44 AM  


Since the only good German is a dead German, I would have to say "NO".


That's funny. Considering that the US is made up of huge numbers of German descended people. Yours truly included.

Unlike Hispanics, you literally can't get rid of all of us.

Not to mention at one point nearly every major crown in Europe had a German or German descended on the throne.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 27, 2017 11:56 AM  

60. James

"Their racial descendants. At the time of the adoption of the Preamble, the phrase 'WE The People' was known and understood to mean the people of the white race and none other."

"The people fully understood that those words secured the intent of all that followed for that one people (the white race), and them alone."

No. That's not even close.

If you can't trace your lineage directly back to the original Americans, then you are not the posterity.

There's a lot of 'new Americans' (i.e. those whose ancestors came after the declaration of independence) who think that they magically became posterity simply because they're white and live on magic American dirt.

Now, one can talk about a 'neoAmerican' nation that is all white, but then you have to ignore the constitution and you can't use 'posterity' as your justification.


Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 11:59 AM  

Ransom Smith wrote:That's funny. Considering that the US is made up of huge numbers of German descended people. Yours truly included.

If you go from German to Central European, about half the white population (non Hispanic) of the US is Central European. Most of them are in "flyover country."

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 12:04 PM  

Northern Observer wrote:If you can't trace your lineage directly back to the original Americans, then you are not the posterity.

Well I guess that is the end of alt-right as a popular social movement. Too few people left who qualify, and a lot of those live on the east coast which is liberal.

For myself I probably do qualify through my mother. She can trace her lineage back to 1066. But then dear old dad was German, so if we go by patrilineal descent I am out.

Blogger Duke Norfolk June 27, 2017 12:05 PM  

Cassie wrote:A US black seeing a black person in Britain succeed types "so proud of my people." Who are her people? Other blacks, regardless of passport paperwork.

Yes. People betray their true allegiances and thus their true nationality all the time in this way. Are there some who really don't know where they stand? Sure. But that's why miscegenation is so wrong. You create rootless children who can't figure out their identity.

I know this from my adopted mulatto sister (parents were prototypical silent gen libs in '60s who scored serious points for this). She's been screwed up her whole life (51 now). Partly because she's just screwed up, no matter what. But largely due to being raised in the white world but being very noticeably black.

She predictably got knocked up by a black guy (low level thug/punk who spent time in prison later). She eventually (at age 47) married a black guy who's retired Army. I don't know how he can stand her, but he saved her from eating cat food in old age, no doubt.

Have my parents ever acknowledged this? Not on your life. Mom's still alive and still a mindless robotic NPR listener and Democrat who no doubt works hard to overcome her cognitive dissonances.

Anonymous rienzi June 27, 2017 12:06 PM  

I have always considered myself American. That I would not be never crossed my mind. After all, my various ancestors came here between 140 to 175 years ago. I don't speak any of their languages, or follow any of their folkways that I'm aware of. Navy veteran, USA! USA! USA!.

However, Vox's many arguments on just who is an American got me thinking. If I was told that I "Have To Go Back", damn if I would know where to go. I'm no more Norwegian, Swedish, German, Polish, or Dutch than I am Eskimo, and would fit in there about as well. After looking at those countrys' immigration requirements, they don't much want me either.

The only places that I've been able to find that would welcome me with open arms are Nicaragua and Panama. That sucks, but you have to play the hand you're dealt. Hola amigos!

Blogger Duke Norfolk June 27, 2017 12:13 PM  

Student in Blue wrote:It makes me wonder whether or not a strict artificially K-type environment when a kid grows up will prevent that from happening, or at least help negate quite a bit of the "easy money" mindset.

I think that's absolutely correct. Also happens with military duty. I'm sure I was quite influenced by 22 years in (USAF). Given that the rest of my family are typical goodwhite libs. I shudder to think what might have been.

I wasn't political up thru college ('85 grad), really. I kind of leaned left in ways, I suppose, just due to exposure to family, etc. But a lot of it bothered me and I styled myself a moderate because I hated both parties. I went further and further right throughout adult life.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 12:24 PM  

but all kinds of people became Americsn citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution so they were included in We the People.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2017 12:35 PM  

If I was told that I "Have To Go Back", damn if I would know where to go.

That's why the target is 1965, not 1790. There are millions of people who don't even know whether they have an ancestor among the original founding stock, but it's pretty clear who was here before 1965 and who wasn't.

The purpose of talking about the posterity of the Founders isn't to argue that we should kick out everyone except their descendants (though some may argue that too). The purpose is to kick a critical rhetorical leg out from under civic nationalism, because that's currently being used to argue that the Somali "refugee" who just got here yesterday can be as American as apple pie. They've taught for years that the Founders were creating a proposition nation, and therefore we're obliged to accept anyone who agrees to the propositions (and the Invade-the-World, Invite-the-World types assume everyone agrees with the propositions in his heart, because America is awesome, so who wouldn't?).

But if the Founders were creating a nation not for propositions, but for their posterity, then we're not obliged to accept anyone, regardless of how he feeeels about any propositions. It means we can get on with the business of closing the borders and removing foreigners and obvious Fake Americans, without fear that we're betraying the intent of the Founders somehow.

Anonymous Sam the Man June 27, 2017 12:39 PM  

Chris Mallory,

Your comment is pretty funny as well as being kind of ignorant, as when I read the 4 volume "History of the English People", written in 1886, the main point of the author was the English, as opposed to the Scotts, Welsh and Irish, were a Germanic people. That is how they saw themselves then. Their royal family the Saxe-Colbergs were German and the various states that made up Germany had been allies of the British since the Marlborough wars against France. They shared the same protestant roots and the well educated English saw themselves having a lot more in common with continental western Germans than the Irish.

Of course this all changed in the post Boer war period when the UK began to demonize the Germans over the German objections to English brutality to the SA whites. Also genetic studies showed that the English were primarily Celt with a leaving of Germans who came over in the 400s. But the reality remains that for a long period of time the English saw themselves as a stalk of the Germanic/Nordic tribes and took pride in it.

As for the US in PA connection is strong, with the Germans in PA that came over in the 1714 to 1790 period being anabaptist types, from the Palatinate in Rhineland, with many of those family names coming from Switzerland. What are Swiss? A mixture of Celt and Germans, much like the English.

Now it seems to me that the mixture of Celt and Germans seems to part of the independence and freedom mindedness of the US. The Celts on their own are freedom oriented, but so unruly they never achieve either independence or free institutions, they need control laws to constrain their low impulse control nature. The Germans are ordered to the point of having a lot less regard for freedom and an US person would understand it, but they can handle personal freedoms due to the high degree of self-discipline, low of order and high impulse control. Mix the 2 and you get freedom loving people who have a reasonable degree of impulse control and you can have a free nation.

So I think it is fair to say that at least a portion of the US white stock are naturally descended from the Teutonic race. Not also to forget the Dutch, which used to make up a significant portion of the old gentry of the Northeast.

Blogger Elder Son June 27, 2017 12:51 PM  

What will actually destroy civic nationalism is the societally destructive results of immigration, multiculturalism, and globalism proving the concept false.

The very object that these people use to justify civic nationalism, immigration, and multiculturalism, was written by the same men who warned us of the above.

The spirit of globalist babelism is alive and well. It is a veil over these peoples eyes. And it is truly astonishing that the Churcians can not see it for what it is.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2017 1:01 PM  

@69
But if the Founders were creating a nation not for propositions, but for their posterity, then we're not obliged to accept anyone, regardless of how he feeeels about any propositions.

It means the Immigration Act of 1924 was a good idea for America.

Blogger DrAndroSF June 27, 2017 1:19 PM  

Thomas Jefferson, in his notes on the state of Virginia, wrote that after the Negroes were freed and sent off to colonies out of the country, he wished "to send a vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal Number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed."

Anonymous VDWE June 27, 2017 1:30 PM  

"However, Vox's many arguments on just who is an American got me thinking. If I was told that I "Have To Go Back", damn if I would know where to go. "

It doesn't matter. There is zero chance you will ever be asked to leave because no one who matters believes the "posterity" BS.

Blogger VD June 27, 2017 1:35 PM  

If I was told that I "Have To Go Back", damn if I would know where to go. I'm no more Norwegian, Swedish, German, Polish, or Dutch than I am Eskimo, and would fit in there about as well. After looking at those countrys' immigration requirements, they don't much want me either.

And that is why propositional nationalism is so evil. It leaves men rootless and without kin. That's why the globalists push it.

Anonymous Avalanche June 27, 2017 1:36 PM  

@52 "It says we the people not We the deligates."

NathAn honey, go back to your sixth-grade history class and pay attention to your teacher. You're waaaaay out of your depth trying to discuss history with the adults. Run along, now.

Blogger VD June 27, 2017 1:38 PM  

There is zero chance you will ever be asked to leave because no one who matters believes the "posterity" BS.

True. Thanks in part to the civic nationalists, the USA is almost certainly going to skip the "hey, we can fix this" step and go right to the violent ethnic cleansing. On the plus side, anyone who looks sufficiently white will probably be counted as White Party.

I find it both amusing and a little depressing to observe that so many US residents are so stupid that they genuinely believe they are immune to the grand cycles of history. "It can't happen here" is their cretinous philosophy.

And yet, it will.

Anonymous Avalanche June 27, 2017 1:41 PM  

@58 "It makes me wonder whether or not a strict artificially K-type environment when a kid grows up will prevent that from happening, or at least help negate quite a bit of the "easy money" mindset."

If you look at the God Emperor's children -- unlike SO many poor-little-rich kids raised (or not?) by uninvolved r-selected parents; the younger Trumps are all seemingly K-selected. (Yes, Ivanka is a soft heart, but she's a protected woman and SHOULD be a soft heart -- she just shouldn't have advisory access to the men's council!) SOME rich parents raise non-idiot children; they don't let the money interfere with a parent's duty. Most let the money raise the kids (or NOT-raise the kids)!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 1:43 PM  

VDWE wrote:There is zero chance you will ever be asked to leave because no one who matters believes the "posterity" BS.
It won't matter what you believe. It will matter who you are.

Ask any Serb or Bosniak

Blogger Johnny June 27, 2017 1:52 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:VDWE wrote:There is zero chance you will ever be asked to leave because no one who matters believes the "posterity" BS.

It won't matter what you believe. It will matter who you are.

Ask any Serb or Bosniak


For most people who you are and what you believe is the same thing. The biggest determinant often seems to be language and culture with one a proxy for the other.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 2:00 PM  

I admit that I'm not the smartest it most educated but I'm willing to learn. Please explain to me why simple easing of yhr language interpreted in light of the historical context is wrong. If you do not, I will assume that you have resorted to insult becausr you can't, as usual.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 2:11 PM  

why simple easing of yhr language interpreted in light of the historical context is wrong.

WTH is that even supposed to mean?

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 2:16 PM  

Maybe I need to use my special educator methodology and breaks thing into obtainable pieces for you. First we say posterity means descendants. Then we ask "whose descendents?" We search for the subject of the paragraph we find "We the People." Who are these people? Well they must be citizens of the United States. Remember from our history lesson that all kinds of people became were citizens. Now raise your hand if you understand.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 2:23 PM  

sorry typos. should be reading of the language

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 2:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous patrick kelly June 27, 2017 3:03 PM  

I have yet to completely give up on the USA, exceptionalism, and the shining light on the hill.

America has been different than past empires. Its rhyming with the past and poetry having distinct pattern, ebb and flow.

1930's till recently was the American version of socialist democracy, and it is fading into something else. If a version of authoritarian dictatorship follows it will be different, with an American flavor. How good or bad is yet to be seen. Might just be 4 terms of Trumpist administrations going full Jackson or Lincoln on our asses and set things in a better direction.

Otherwise, yeah, splitting up, balkinization. Hopefully not too many Sarajevos or Stalingrads.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 27, 2017 3:12 PM  

@49  The very FIRST owner of a Black chattel slave in the American colonies was himself an African, who had worked himself free of his indenture and established his own farm.  His American name was Anthony Johnson; the slave's American name was John Casor.

Anonymous CarpeOro June 27, 2017 3:21 PM  

VD wrote:There is zero chance you will ever be asked to leave because no one who matters believes the "posterity" BS.

True. Thanks in part to the civic nationalists, the USA is almost certainly going to skip the "hey, we can fix this" step and go right to the violent ethnic cleansing. On the plus side, anyone who looks sufficiently white will probably be counted as White Party.

I find it both amusing and a little depressing to observe that so many US residents are so stupid that they genuinely believe they are immune to the grand cycles of history. "It can't happen here" is their cretinous philosophy.

And yet, it will.


As you can imagine, people in the USA still laugh at me when I say I own some gold and silver coins. It isn't just an issue of "it can't happen here", it is more an issue of
"well it hasn't happened during my life time or my parents". Many have fallen prey to living only in the present and ignoring both the past and future. Part of the insane consumer cycle that has been fostered here.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 3:23 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:First we say posterity means descendants. Then we ask "whose descendents?" We search for the subject of the paragraph we find "We the People."
No, we see the phrase "ourselves and our Posterity". That means, literally, "our descendants.
NathAn Schuster wrote:Who are these people? Well they must be citizens of the United States. Remember from our history lesson that all kinds of people became were citizens.
So, Blacks, Asians and Indians, Catholics, Mohammedans and Jews, who were either explicitly excluded from citizenship under law or simply not present in numbers large enough to be considered, are not the proper objects of the Constitution.

Which is, strangely, what Vox said.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 3:47 PM  

Ourselvex refers back to "We the Peolple." that's the subject of the sentence.

And weren't Jews and Catholics and freed Blacks citizens under the Constitution? I always thought they were. So they would be included in We the people.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 3:59 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:And weren't Jews and Catholics and freed Blacks citizens under the Constitution? I always thought they were. So they would be included in We the people.
They weren't citizens, except a few Catholics. Your entire argument hinges on citizenship, not residency. Neither the delegates to the Continental Congress, nor the people who voted for them, who are the only ones who could reasonably be described as "We the People", included Blacks, Jews, Indians, Mohammedans or more than a few Catholics.
Citizenship and residence are not the same thing, as any paperwork American like you should know.

Blogger James June 27, 2017 5:36 PM  

Northern Observer wrote:60.

No. That's not even close.

If you can't trace your lineage directly back to the original Americans, then you are not the posterity.

There's a lot of 'new Americans' (i.e. those whose ancestors came after the declaration of independence) who think that they magically became posterity simply because they're white and live on magic American dirt.

Now, one can talk about a 'neoAmerican' nation that is all white, but then you have to ignore the constitution and you can't use 'posterity' as your justification.



Speaking of not even being close. Do you not understand that the Constitution was and was, up until 1861, a contract between the Federal Government, the State Governments, and We THE PEOPLE? Do you not understand that given the verbal superiority of learned White males in 1789, they considered THE PEOPLE to mean a singular group of People? Not PEOPLE's. You are not so ignorant as to consider that educated men in 1789 would have considered blacks to be the same kind of "people" as themselves? Apparently not too many people understand that there was not really any such thing as an American citizen under the contract of the Constitution. There were not American citizens, there were citizens of South Carolina, citizens of New York, citizens of Virginia, etc. You also don't recognize that your argument that I can't use the Posterity to mean Whites only cannot be used for your argument that it can include non-Whites. How did the founders address the issue of who was to be a citizen? The States made that decision and the States determined it was to be White men with property. In many states they even included Christian as a requirement. While immigration was not a major concern of the Constitution, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 specified that non-whites could never be Americans. Only "a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen therof." The next 4 Immigration and Naturalization Acts didn't change that. They only changed the residency requirement. This changed in 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment, which gave a FEDERAL citizenship, not State citizenship to non-Whites. It was passed fraudulently and while the Southern States were occupied by a military force.

You are arguing that a de facto Federal Government, has placed requirements that violated the original intent of the Constitution and we are to view the evil entity that oppresses us as the moral arbitrator of what is right and wrong. It is correct in that who has might may enforce right. But, don't make the mistake that the entity that was created in 1789 still exists. It died in 1861. However, Whites are waking up to the fact that the government of this country was created to include and protect Whites, not a fictitious entity called the "human" race. Not only that, we understand that it is only appropriate for and can be successfully maintained by Whites.

Ask yourself this: Do Japanese ascribe citizenship to anyone that is a resident in Japan? Does any country that is not White apply your standard? Of course not. They are not suicidal. Governments were and are CREATED "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". They are not created to establish equality. The creation of government for a "People and their Posterity" is a very common sense position that all countries throughout history have understood and have done for THEMSELVES, not for the entire world.

Blogger VD June 27, 2017 5:57 PM  

And weren't Jews and Catholics and freed Blacks citizens under the Constitution? I always thought they were. So they would be included in We the people.

Do you seriously not understand how descendance works? Only those Jews, Catholics, and blacks descended from the Jews, Catholics, and free Blacks who were citizens of the 13 States can possibly count as Posterity. The descendants of other Jews, Catholics and Blacks cannot. It's not a race metric, it's a historical one.

Blogger Gospace June 27, 2017 6:09 PM  

The USA is a lot more fluid then other nations. Where I graduated HS the school population each year was stable in number, but 4-5% each year were new people, replacing others who moved elsewhere. People were so close knitted that had a 2nd cousin graduate from my HS the year before me and neither of us knew the other existed. Both of us had moved into the area from elsewhere- different states. The town I live in now I'd estimate about 75% of the population is related by blood or marriage within 3 generations. Looking at surnames and my ancestry, there's a few people in town I might be 6th or 7th cousins to, but nothing closer. I have to back 6 generations before I find any cousin marriages happening. Of 16 g-grandparents, 5 were born in Ireland, 2 died there, 2 died in MA, 1 in NJ. 4 were born in England, 3 died there and one in NY. 2 born in Canada, one died there, one in NY. Their ancestry traces to Scotland and England almost half and half, and all were in Canada before 1776. The other 5 were born in 4 different states, and died in 4 other states. And their ancestry all traces back to pre-revolution. One of them fought for the Confederacy, and all trace back to pre-revolution. And include Dutch, English, Scottish, Irish, German, and French Huguenot. Along with aristocrat and transportee. People were mixing it up early.

That kind of mixing and geographic movement is rare in the rest of the world. Every day it's possible to read stories of Europeans who come here and expect to be able to visit NYC, Boston, and the Grand Canyon in a week, or some similar distance of places. By driving. They have to actually visit here to comprehend the vastness of the USA.

We did recently have a cousin marriage. My son married his 11th cousin 2X removed. Her ancestors reproduced faster then mine accounting for the 2X.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 6:17 PM  

And only the English descend from the original English are posterity as well.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 6:23 PM  

what was that no religious test thing about.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 6:40 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:what was that no religious test thing about.
That was after the constitution was brought into effect, and was limited to Federal offices. Every single state had religious tests for public office:
By its plain terms, the ban extended only to federal officeholders. States were free at the time of the Founding to impose religious tests as they saw fit. All of them did. State tests limited public offices to Christians or, in some states, only to Protestants. The national government, on the other hand, could not impose any religious test whatsoever.

The desire in implementing that clause was to prevent religious discrimination between denominations, as had occurred in England, from overwhelming the new government and causing a breakup of the country over religious differences, not in order to introduce Atheism, Judaism and Mohammedanism into the halls of power.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 6:49 PM  

from the link you posted it looks like they were okay with all kinds holding office.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 6:54 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:from the link you posted it looks like they were okay with all kinds holding office.That's an assertion of the writer, who is, like you, a partisan.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 27, 2017 7:39 PM  

92. James

You are very much confusing citizenship with posterity.

Some German moving to the US and getting his citizenship is no more the founders' posterity than a Turk.

Now, the German may be more compatible, but that doens't make him a part of the posterity.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 7:39 PM  

if they weren't okay with it why didn't they say so?
I would imagine they would assume people would connect it to the establishment clause.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 27, 2017 7:53 PM  

rienzi wrote:If I was told that I "Have To Go Back", damn if I would know where to go.

My thought is that if it isn't obvious you aren't one of us, you probably are one of us, until you prove otherwise.

In other words, if you don't insist on hyphenating your allegiance, if you don't insist in rubbing everyone's nose in the fact that you are a member of some other tribe, you'll probably pass.

Nobody is going to say you have to go home until you make it obvious that this isn't your home.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 8:03 PM  

NathAn Schuster wrote:if they weren't okay with it why didn't they say so?

I would imagine they would assume people would connect it to the establishment clause.

Why on earth would they?They could not anticipate a world where it would be possible for half the world's population to ever travel to the US, let alone take up residence. There were so few Moslems in the states that no-one would have even thought to count them. There were, at most, a few thousand Jews, mostly in Boston, NY and Providence, who mostly kept to themselves and didn't want to be involved in American politics. Indians had their own ways, but were still 130 years from being granted American citizenship by Congress, an event that is still within living memory. Hell, that happened when my mother was growing up in the middle of the Sioux rez in SD, when a lot of the Indians still lived in teepees.
What you imagine they would assume is of no interest to anyone, probably not even to you.

Blogger NathAn Schuster June 27, 2017 8:25 PM  

It's just that a Catholic say might want to hold officebyto further Catholicism. That actually happened in Europe a more than once. They don't seem to have minded that.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 8:36 PM  

They were far more concerned that the Congregationalists in Massachusetts or the Episcopalians in Virginia might decide to shut Quakers and Presbyterians out of office or employment, effectively shutting Pennsylvania or Georgia out of influence. They were far less concerned about Catholics, since their numbers were so small. At least until the 1840s. Which, you will note, is when they started the Know Nothing movement.

Blogger StatesRights June 27, 2017 8:51 PM  

Remember it says "our posterity". Were there any Indian tribes represented at the convention that I was not aware, or got a vote?

Blogger JP June 27, 2017 10:39 PM  

"You can buy 5 gallon buckets packed in nitrogen that will keep for 10+ years, or you can do it cheaper yourself with dry ice to drive out the oxygen if you are not too stupid."

Easier still, buy some hand-warmer packets like for hunting, they're dirt cheap. They absorb oxygen by turning iron shavings into iron oxide.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 27, 2017 11:02 PM  

VD: although I would say that the correct definition of posterity is useful in demolishing the false rhetoric of the civic nationalists used to justify their civic nationalism rather than say that it swats down civic nationalism per se.

I'm glad you've gotten that far. Yes, per se, the brouhaha over "posterity" does nothing to the case for civic nationalism.

VD: What will actually destroy civic nationalism is the societally destructive results of immigration, multiculturalism, and globalism proving the concept false.

Concepts are neither true nor false. You can make true or false propositions out of well formed concepts.

Whether a healthy, functioning polity can be made up out of relatively limited set of political and cultural values when compared to ethno nationalism is an empirical question.

We'll see whether in fact those things you mention turn the US away from civic nationalism. They may. Even if they do, that would not make the concept false.

VD: one error the civic nationalists insist on making over and over and over again is to conflate the genetic nation with the legal state

Strange. That's specifically what civic nationalists deny. We're saying genetics are *not* an essential part of the legal state.

VD: and to confuse posterity with the possession of state paperwork

One can view posterity in many ways: cultural, legal, genetic, geographic,... Civic nationalists place more importance on the political inheritance than the genetic.

I'd prefer a free multi ethnic future over a totalitarian sparkling white one. Which would you prefer?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 11:11 PM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:I'd prefer a free multi ethnic future over a totalitarian sparkling white one. Which would you prefer?
And I'd prefer to drink sparkling Unicorn blood. You8 don't get a choice between a free and peaceable multi-ethnic society and a dictatorial monoethnic one. You get a choice between a tyrannical multi-ethnic police state and a monoethnic semi-authoritarian non-police state that makes certain people feel bad about themselves. There is not, and cannot be, a peaceful, free multi-ethnic nation.

Diversity + proximity = war.

Ask the Serbs and the Bosniaks.

Blogger James June 27, 2017 11:42 PM  

Northern Observer wrote:92. James

You are very much confusing citizenship with posterity.

Some German moving to the US and getting his citizenship is no more the founders' posterity than a Turk.

Now, the German may be more compatible, but that doens't make him a part of the posterity.


You're postulating a reality that did not exist when this country was formed. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and what they meant. They created a government for themselves and their posterity. A government exists to be composed of, include, and protect a "citizenry". So, by logic, you should be able to make the assumption that the Posterity would be a Citizen, provided they meet any other specified criteria. You can make that mental leap, right? And, we know that only a year after the ratification of the Constitution the government of the Posterity, represented by a single racial group, passed the first Immigration and Naturalization Act which specified that White Europeans could immigrate and become "citizens", right? Now, why is it so hard for you to recognize, or maybe just admit, that the Founders were serious about creating a country for themselves and their Posterity but they recognized that they had racial kinsmen that they would allow to become fellow "citizens", along with themselves and their Posterity. They declared their purpose of creating the government under which they wanted to live and, just like every other country throughout history, they recognized that there would be immigration, which they had no objection to, as long as they resembled them physically and in spirit. Factors that honest thinking people today know to be due to genetics. Now, let's review. The White Founders created a government that would represent THEM. They allowed immigration and restricted those who could become CITIZENS, that is, those who could participate in the government and who could chose proxies that would represent them in this government. And these entities that they would extend the honor of citizenship to would be of the same racial family. Imagine that!

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 27, 2017 11:44 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:

There is not, and cannot be, a peaceful, free multi-ethnic nation.


Early 20th century America was pretty free and peaceful for Germans, Italians, Irish, Scandanavians...

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 27, 2017 11:57 PM  

James wrote:And these entities that they would extend the honor of citizenship to would be of the same racial family. Imagine that!
Found the German.

Blogger James June 28, 2017 12:00 AM  

Northern Observer wrote:92. James

You are very much confusing citizenship with posterity.

Some German moving to the US and getting his citizenship is no more the founders' posterity than a Turk.

Now, the German may be more compatible, but that doens't make him a part of the posterity.


You are straining at gnats. So, ONLY descendants of those that were propertied White Males in 1789 are included in and are allowed to participate in the government formed by the Constitution from 1789 to infinity? Where does it say THAT in the Constitution? They are only explaining their rationale for creating a "more perfect union" and it was primarily for themselves and their descendants. I want you to explain why they wouldn't allow other White Europeans to be members of the social contract when, one, the States defined what a citizen was to be, which was White males with property, and two, the Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 to allow White males to enter into this country and could become citizens if they met certain requirements. Such as being White males.

And, given that you make issue with a non-posterity German immigrating and becoming a citizen, do you make the same distinction with the English? There were plenty of Germans here in 1789. Just like French, Scandinavians, Scots, Irish, Italians, etc. You want to make a distinction that ONLY Posterity could become citizens. The Constitution does not specify that. The Immigration and Naturalization Acts give us their intent in this regard. And their intent was that if you were White, you could be Right.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 12:10 AM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:
Of course I have a loyalty test for the CNs as well, will they finally attempt to discredit the psycho babble weapons of the Left? Specifically the word "racist" which so binds up the useless conservative intellectuals.


Civic nationalists do discredit the Leftist usage of "racist".

But not all usage.

Reveling in and stoking racial hatred is destructive, whether done by the Left or the Right. It's stupid. It's corrosive. It's malevolence.

In actual hot civil war, you use any tactics you can. But people primarily motivated by racial malevolence are not the greatest building blocks of a civilization.

I don't think all white nationalists fall into this category. But a chunk do. A chunk on the Left does as well. Probably a bigger chunk. I'm not going to stop criticizing either.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2017 1:05 AM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:Reveling in and stoking racial hatred is destructive, whether done by the Left or the Right. It's stupid. It's corrosive. It's malevolence.

In actual hot civil war, you use any tactics you can. But people primarily motivated by racial malevolence are not the greatest building blocks of a civilization.

They're better building blocks than people who drop their shorts and bend over every time someone threatens to call them racist.

Blogger tublecane June 28, 2017 1:10 AM  

"I would say that the correct definition of prosperity is useful in demolishing the false rhetoric of the civic nationalists used to justify their civic nationalism rather than say that it swats down civic nationalism per se"

I agree. Probably the best use of the posterity clause is to counterpunch the "all men are created equal" ploy. Which has bolstered the cause of the false nationalism since the time of civic nationalist hero Honest Abe.

They put the Declaration in the pot, we raise them a Preamble.

Blogger tublecane June 28, 2017 1:21 AM  

@114-"Reveling in and stoking racial hatred is destructive"

It has that tendency. Actual destruction is far more destructive. I wouldn't want our side to revel in street fighting or vandalism, for instance, but unfortunately our enemies are already engaged in such activities. That line has already been crossed. So has the bad manners line. If we don't get in these games, the other side wins by default.

Racial hatred has been, is being, and will continue to be stoked, with or without our participation. We don't have the luxury of avoiding it. We must stoke it on our side at least a little bit.

Depending, of course, on what you consider racial hatred. I advocate Race Realism and a good dose of Us versus Them. I don't recommend sending people to the gas chamber. Contrary to dominant mainstream opinion, the former isn't necessarily on a slippery slope leading to the latter.

Blogger tublecane June 28, 2017 1:37 AM  

@108-"per se, the brouhaha over 'posterity' does nothing to the case for civic nationalism"

By itself it isn't fatal to civic nationalism, but by no means does it do nothing. As evidenced by all the civic nationalists arguing about posterity on these threads.

If not the keystone, at least an important support beam of the civic nationalist edifice is that the U.S. has always been a nation that's not really a nation. That is, a nation made up of individuals who happen to be citizens, however they got that way. The motive for the whole project being the perpetuation of ideas (or propositions), and at best a bundle of ideas known as culture, tradition, and history.

But not blood. No, never that. Only Nazis base countries on that.

The fact that original Americans thought of themselves as more than just a group of likeminded individuals made American by law does nothing to their case? Ha.

At worst, if properly acknowledged it would mean they lose the monopoly they'd like to claim on the Founding. Then they're left with the U.S. picking up Proposition Nationhood sometime along the way. When the Irish and Germans started flooding in, perhaps. The Civil War, the 14th Amendment, Ellis Island, the World Wars, 1965, or whenever.

They don't want to lose the Founding. Losing it is not nothing.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 2:03 AM  

Northern Observer wrote:

'White American Nationalism' is hardly less of a Frankenstein Monster though, it's still just civic nationalism. The main difference is that it's a bit more exclusive.


It is funny to watch White Nationalists protesting that "Multi ethnic civic nationalism is unpossible!"

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 2:30 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:
They're better building blocks than people who drop their shorts and bend over every time someone threatens to call them racist.


And I don't recommend doing that either. But those aren't the only options.

I'm not cheering for a race war. I call the Left racist because that's what they are, peddlers of racial malevolence.

This is an effective charge against the Left's Outer Party. Many of them are herd animals, cowed into the Left by their moral approbation. Whitey guilt. I've found that they have nothing against a morally confident opponent who turns moral condemnation back on them. Whitey guilt can actually be *useful* if you stand up for what is right.

I can understand why White Nationalists might not be so enthusiastic about that tactic, given that the shoe fits a chunk of their tribe. Not my problem. For those whom it doesn't fit, I don't consider them racists, just very wrong in the path they pursue.

Conservatives have let themselves be rolled by the Left for a century. Bending over is a poor political tactic. You and I agree on that.

How about we actually give standing up for justice a chance and see how that works out before leaping to a race war?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2017 2:32 AM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:It is funny to watch White Nationalists protesting that "Multi ethnic civic nationalism is unpossible!"
It's not at all funny to watch Liberals who live in segregated communities telling ordinary working-class Whites that there are no downsides to a multi-ethnic society. There are no feral animals running around, raping, killing, and robbing them. Their livelihoods are not being given away to invaders. That their standard of living has gone down steadily for 40 years. It's all peace, skittles, and warm toffee-scented unicorn farts.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2017 2:35 AM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:How about we actually give standing up for justice a chance and see how that works out before leaping to a race war?
The question isn't race war. It's whether we will be allowed to defend ourselves. You say no, and try to enforce it via the usual technique of all Leftists, White Guilt.

your tactic no longer works. I'm not guilty and I won't act like I am. Give it up.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 2:46 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:

But if the Founders were creating a nation not for propositions, but for their posterity, then we're not obliged to accept anyone, regardless of how he feeeels about any propositions.


We're not *obliged* to take in anyone regardless of their beliefs in any propositions. That's the nationalism part of civic nationalism.

Government of, by, and for the people means we take in immigrants when it benefits Americans to do so.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 3:05 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:

It's not at all funny to watch Liberals who live in segregated communities telling ordinary working-class Whites that there are no downsides to a multi-ethnic society. There are no feral animals running around, raping, killing, and robbing them. Their livelihoods are not being given away to invaders. That their standard of living has gone down steadily for 40 years.


This is among your many intellectual errors.

Being open to a multi ethnic society is not the same as a commitment to indiscriminate immigration.

Discriminate by IQ. By education. By culture. By wealth. Health status. By whatever works best to let net beneficial immigrants in, and keep net harmful ones out.

Most of your economic complaints are related to the rigged economy that benefits international middle men over the mass of the peasants.

Trump's civic nationalist hordes are largely against that too. Populism. Intranational free markets. International free markets to the extent that they benefit the mass of Americans.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2017 3:45 AM  

We're not *obliged* to take in anyone regardless of their beliefs in any propositions.

*You* may not be arguing that, but civic nationalism is regularly used to argue that we can and should make room for every illegal who manages to find a way across the border, every "refugee" who is able to find a federally-funded charity to vouch for him, every foreign laborer that an employer claims he can't do without. In every case, we're told it'll be okay, because they'll get with the civics of the nation -- the propositions -- as long as we present those well and give them a chance.

Shooting down the myth of the "proposition nation" founding destroys that moral justification of civic nationalists, which is why they fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2017 4:02 AM  

Government of, by, and for the people means we take in immigrants when it benefits Americans to do so.

No civic nationalist expects to have to prove that immigrants are beneficial before taking them in. It's the reverse: immigration is assumed, a priori, to have been beneficial whenever it has happened. "Diversity is our strength." "Nation of immigrants." They would find it offensive to try to prove that their great-grandparents were a net positive to the nation, so they have a hard time arguing that last year's load of Somalis should have to prove their worth either.

Civic nationalists might be willing to go as far as blocking or limiting immigration from certain clearly dangerous sources, or certain types such as those with serious communicable diseases. But even in those cases, they tend to try to balance it by letting in more somewhere else. As soon as you get them to agree to shut it down from Arab Muslim countries, they're wanting to bring in more H-1Bs or Arab Christian refugees or South African whites or someone else. They're so attached to the idea that immigration is a net good and an essential part of the American identity that they'll try to keep the numbers up even while restricting the sources.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 5:47 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:

a) *You* may not be arguing that, but civic nationalism is regularly used to argue that we can and should make room for every ...

b) Shooting down the myth of the "proposition nation" founding destroys that moral justification of civic nationalists, which is why they fight tooth and nail to keep it.


a) Find me legitimate Alt-Lite people, or even just real ideological supporters of Trump, who say such things. Cernovich? Coulter? Milo? Stefan? America First means Americans First. Just not complicated.

b) Same. Show me an actual person of the Alt-Lite making an actual argument that you're shooting down. I just see potshots at vague imaginings of what high school civics classes said.

Regularly used, you say. Show me the regular use by the Alt-Lite. Should be easy to find one if it happens so regularly.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 6:03 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Government of, by, and for the people means we take in immigrants when it benefits Americans to do so.

No civic nationalist expects to have to prove that immigrants are beneficial before taking them in. It's the reverse: immigration is assumed, a priori, to have been beneficial whenever it has happened.



Not Coulter. Not me. You can ask Milo and Cernovich if you see them. Try Bannon. I'll bet you a dollar it's false for all of them.

America First means Americans First.

You could line up conservative civic nationalists who wouldn't accept your characterization as valid for them. Buchanan. Murray. Steyn. Victor Davis Hanson. Half of the cucks at NRO wouldn't even buy that.

You guys are arguing against your own imaginations. If you want to argue against Open Borders types, go to Reason and argue with their writers. They're all Open Borders Uber Alles. But none of them would answer to Alt-Lite. And half of *their* comment section is filled with people telling them they're full of shit for their support of Open Borders.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2017 9:03 AM  

Not Coulter. Not me. You can ask Milo and Cernovich if you see them. Try Bannon. I'll bet you a dollar it's false for all of them.

Cherry-picking exceptions proves the rule, especially when most of your exceptions were driven out of conservatism at some point for being heretics on this issue.

Are there Alt-Lite people who have woke on immigration while still holding onto their faith in civic nationalism? Sure. So what? Many people will go through that irrational, emotional, transitional position on the way to the Alt-Right's, and some will stall there for a while, for reasons Vox talked about in last night's Darkstream. That doesn't mean they represent a change in the faith called civic nationalism, which is far broader than the Alt-Lite and precedes it, being the civic religion of both sides of the American political aisle except for the far Right. It's what we were fed in school and entertainment all our lives: America is special because it's founded on ideals anyone can embrace, and it just got more wonderful with each new wave that did. Churchians and conservatives are merely the loudest preachers of it, because it's an important element of their efforts to avoid being called racist.

Civic nationalism, right there in the name, is the belief that you can have a strong, healthy nation without the traditional bonds of blood, replacing them with agreement on the right civics. "Proposition nationhood" is just another name for it that makes the point clearer. Steve Sailer tried to coin "citizenism," but that didn't stick. Whatever the name, it's the belief that anyone who signs onto the civic attitudes can fit in and thrive and be a net gain to the nation. It necessarily assumes that people from other races and cultures are able to do that, or the point would be moot. And it leads inevitably to "But we want to keep the good immigrants" thinking. It leads to fantasies about how if we just require people to learn English and encourage them to assimilate, they'll be cool.

That's why it has to die: it denies reality and encourages destructive policies. If you're defining it as other things, perhaps those don't have to die. But the fantasy that you can build and maintain a nation on civic agreement has to die, and is dying as we speak. Future generations will look back at it as a quaint but obvious misunderstanding of how human beings work, the way we look at something like phrenology.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2017 10:51 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:*You* may not be arguing that, but civic nationalism is regularly used to argue that we can and should make room for every illegal who manages to find a way across the border,
You have to understand, Cail, Mr Davis has found the sweet spot, the exact tipping point, where he can reject the bad stuff that civic nationalism brings us, but still live in unicorn fairy rainbowland of peaceful, prosperous and free multiculturalism.
You will note he consistently ignores the dangerous nature and defective culture of the people he wants to force on the lower classes, instead pretending that the only objection is economic. He's not arguing in good faith, he's defending his indoctrination.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 28, 2017 11:27 AM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:It is funny to watch White Nationalists ...

Insane people often laugh inappropriately.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 4:35 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:
1) Cherry-picking ...
2) Are there Alt-Lite people who have woke on immigration while still holding onto their faith in civic nationalism? Sure. So what?

3) Whatever the name, it's the belief that anyone who signs onto the civic attitudes can fit in and thrive and be a net gain to the nation.

4) But the fantasy that you can build and maintain a nation on civic agreement has to die, and is dying as we speak.



1) I named the intellectual thought leaders in the Trump movement. I named people who might self identify as Alt-Lite.

2) Because the context of the discussion is the Alt-Lite, not Grandma's conservatism. The competing theories under consideration are the Alt-Lite and the Alt-Right. It's not intellectually honest to argue against Grandma's conservatism and claim you're proving a point against the Alt-Lite.

3) It's the beliefs, and their expression in behavior that matters, not the ethnicity. I'll take freedom loving Japanese over pure blooded Pilgrim descended Pomo Marxists any day.

4) The fantasy that you can only build a functioning polity on a single ethnicity has to die. And that's fundamentally the Alt-Right.

It's simply false to the facts of early 20th Century America. Which US White Nationalists are *implicitly admitting* unless they're advocating going back to the 1790 gene pool. And good look trying to "cleanse" the US of the Germans, Irish, Scandanavians, ...

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 28, 2017 5:09 PM  

Buybuydandavis wrote:4) The fantasy that you can only build a functioning polity on a single ethnicity has to die.
...
It's simply false to the facts of early 20th Century America.


When America stopped being essentially a single ethnicity, it stopped being a functional polity. Are you laughing? See 131

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2017 5:30 PM  

It's simply false to the facts of early 20th Century America.

I've said this before: yes, if your country is tremendously wealthy with natural resources and fortunate geography, if it's dominated by one ethnicity or a few similar ones (Irish/German/English may be different, but they're far more alike than European/Mexican/Asian), if you win a big war once in a while to keep patriotism up and give you trade advantages, if you go through a period of massive innovation that gives you new things from cars to computers.... then yes, civic nationalism can keep things functioning well enough for a few decades before the cracks start to show. Congratulations.

We don't have the option of replaying that charmed state, so we're going to need something that works without all those aids.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 6:30 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Buybuydandavis wrote:4) The fantasy that you can only build a functioning polity on a single ethnicity has to die.

...

It's simply false to the facts of early 20th Century America.


When America stopped being essentially a single ethnicity, it stopped being a functional polity. Are you laughing? See 131


If only the US could have been more like ethnically pure Italy, Japan, or Germany, they could have really thrived in the first half of the 20th Century.

Judged by the reality of what people in the world actually accomplished, the US did pretty damn well.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 28, 2017 7:08 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:
It's simply false to the facts of early 20th Century America.

I've said this before: yes, if your country...
then yes, civic nationalism can keep things functioning well enough for a few decades before the cracks start to show.


I do think significant things change going from an agrarian society with homesteading to an industrial society without. More autonomous families make for less cause for friction.

But you seem to be saying that we were doomed to failure with the early 20th century demographics. So how far do we have to roll back the demographic clock?

Are you on the "1790 Demographics or Bust" Train?

And claiming that the US historical experience doesn't count for predicting the future of the US because the US had some identified advantages, many of which still actually hold, isn't particularly convincing.

There are advantages now that we didn't have then. A world more exposed to American values, and more compatible with them. The Japanese have actually been living under a constitution we wrote and imposed on them. We are the world's super power. A much wealthier country, and a much wealthier world.

These claims to know that civic nationalism can't work in the US are BS. You don't know that, because you don't have sufficient information to know that.

First it was it can't work. Then when I point out it *did*, you trot out factors that made it easier than now. Yeah, and I can trot out factors that made it harder than now. How those factors balance out is a matter for history to play out, not for you to claim infallibility about.

And "can't work" is only meaningful in comparison to an alternative.

What's your alternative to civic nationalism? Wanna go back to 1790? That will be a picnic, won't it? Nothing like a civil war to pave the way to a free and prosperous future. That's not a war between the states, that's a war between every other house on the block.

"The charmed state" indeed. Whose believing in magic pixie dust now?

Anonymous Pennywise June 28, 2017 7:26 PM  

It has yet to be fully explained how and why specific instances in the Federalist Papers that posterity is directly related descendants. It was simply merely assumed. Furthermore, America is other than imaginary. It was built on a foundation that has endured major chips and cracks, but is always repaired by the cement of our future generations. Exactly why truth always matters.


Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2017 9:31 PM  

"The charmed state" indeed. Whose believing in magic pixie dust now?

I obviously meant America had gotten lucky, not that it was literally charmed, so you're either dumb or dishonest. I'm bored with you, so I don't care which.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 29, 2017 12:26 AM  

113. James

"And, given that you make issue with a non-posterity German immigrating and becoming a citizen, do you make the same distinction with the English? "

Yes exactly. You do understand!

It doesn't matter if you're 100% full blooded English or not. If you came after the declaration, then you are NOT the posterity that they are referencing.

If you or your ancestors came after, then there is no way that you can be included in their "ourselves and our Posterity," unless you buy in to 'proposition nation' and 'paper American'.

No amount of wishful thinking, wannabeism or 'I-think-I-am' can make up for genetic descent.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 29, 2017 3:43 AM  

Cail Corishev wrote:"The charmed state" indeed. Whose believing in magic pixie dust now?

I obviously meant America had gotten lucky, not that it was literally charmed, so you're either dumb or dishonest.


Not literally charmed, you say? Guess what? Not literally pixie dust either.

But don't let that stop you from flouncing off in a huff when your argument is shown not to hold up. Is it time for me to insert some gratuitous ad hominem? Just trying to follow your lead here.

For the purposes of the actual argument, however "lucky charmed" America had been in the early 20th century, you haven't even bothered to show that we are less charmed today, only that a subset of the charmed factors which you chose to identify no longer hold. And less charmed than then does not imply not charmed enough regardless.

You haven't shown that because you can't. Different times, with different advantages and disadvantages.

Your backward looking rationalizations for why civic nationalism worked in the US then but can't work now just don't make your case, and you haven't even *attempted* to make a comparative case for a supposed superior alternative to civic nationalism.

1965 rollback? Sounds like a picnic.

Anonymous Pennywise June 29, 2017 8:30 AM  

Northern Observer...

"No amount of wishful thinking, wannabeism or 'I-think-I-am' can make up for genetic descent."

So what is the reasoning behind how this statement from the Federalist Papers meets Definition 1: Descendants?

"No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, or to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act."

Anonymous Northern Observer June 29, 2017 10:33 AM  

141. Pennywise

Replace 'posterity' with children/grand children/great grand children/....../great-great-great-....-great grand children, or simply progeny or descendants, and the reasoning should be clear.

The question is, why would you include 'people who came later and who have no linear relationship to us' as part of their posterity.

Proposition? Attitude?

A followup question would be, if a German who moved here 250 years after the declaration could become part of the founders' posterity simply because the law allowed it, then why not a Mexican?

The typical answer is usually "because the immigration law of 1790 only allowed whites!". But, that (a) does not magically make future immigrants part of the founder's posterity and (b) the law was changed, as the founders allowed, to allow for non-white immigrants to become every bit as much 'paper Americans' as white immigrants.

Either you accept 'paper Americans' as valid posterity in *proposition nation* sense, or your don't. You can't have it both ways.

What you can do is change the law. Admit that the changes made in 1965 were a mistake and change the laws back to what they were.

Anonymous Pennywise June 30, 2017 8:42 AM  

"Replace 'posterity' with children/grand children/great grand children/....../great-great-great-....-great grand children, or simply progeny or descendants, and the reasoning should be clear."

You are fundamentally dishonest here. You merely inserted what you believe is the appropriate definition without vetting the text selection. You must provide a thorough explanation how and why this statement meets the criteria. I highly suggest you begin a serious inquiry into the matter rather than offer a dubious assumption as your definitive statement.

"The question is, why would you include 'people who came later and who have no linear relationship to us' as part of their posterity.'"

Because the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to set the standards for citizenship. It is that elementary my dear Watson.

"A followup question would be, if a German who moved here 250 years after the declaration could become part of the founders' posterity simply because the law allowed it, then why not a Mexican?"

Because future generations make that determination.

"What you can do is change the law. Admit that the changes made in 1965 were a mistake and change the laws back to what they were."

Why don't you run for political office on that platform and see how far you go with that idea?

Blogger James July 01, 2017 11:55 AM  

Northern Observer wrote:141. Pennywise

Replace 'posterity' with children/grand children/great grand children/....../great-great-great-....-great grand children, or simply progeny or descendants, and the reasoning should be clear.

The question is, why would you include 'people who came later and who have no linear relationship to us' as part of their posterity.

Proposition? Attitude?

A followup question would be, if a German who moved here 250 years after the declaration could become part of the founders' posterity simply because the law allowed it, then why not a Mexican?

The typical answer is usually "because the immigration law of 1790 only allowed whites!". But, that (a) does not magically make future immigrants part of the founder's posterity and (b) the law was changed, as the founders allowed, to allow for non-white immigrants to become every bit as much 'paper Americans' as white immigrants.

Either you accept 'paper Americans' as valid posterity in *proposition nation* sense, or your don't. You can't have it both ways.

What you can do is change the law. Admit that the changes made in 1965 were a mistake and change the laws back to what they were.


But, according to you, it makes no difference if we change back to pre-1965 immigration policy since anyone that is not the "Posterity" cannot become citizens. What was the Founders' intent? Study the State Constitutions from that time. Read writings from that time period. Ask yourself, who was in the United States at that time? You can say, "Oh, there was a Japanese man in Pennsylvania or there was a Australian aborigine in New York" but you won't find evidence that they were considered citizens or could vote. We also know that blacks were not allowed citizenship based on any State Constitution or the US Constitution. Nor were Indians. What are you left with then? Whites of European descent. You are arguing to make the past fit your agenda. It does not.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts