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

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Posterity: TK vs VD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: ,

334 Comments:

1 – 200 of 334 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Sad but True June 25, 2017 1:09 PM  

Tom Kratman is the Rick Wilson of Vox Day dot com.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 25, 2017 1:17 PM  

I would caricature TK's argument as ``Since the founding fathers chose not to limit immigration in the constitution, they had no intention of limiting it.''


Thus, TK's argument boils down to, had they wanted to, they could have, but they didn't so they didn't want to.

I would caricature VD's argument as ``Since the founding fathers were not omniscient, they did not include things in the constitution which later proved necessary to carry out their intent.''

VD's argument boils down to, had they known it was needed, they would have done it.

Having read other bits of the founding fathers' writings, I lean strongly toward VD's version on the immigration issue. The founding fathers had no love or patience for the mohammedans, pagans and savages who are over-running their posterity today.

Anonymous White Hispanic June 25, 2017 1:18 PM  

Tom's import wife and mystery meat kids should disqualify him from any objective analysis of this issue. Incentives matter.

Blogger Ingot9455 June 25, 2017 1:20 PM  

Just because IQ is a topic of interest here doesn't mean everyone has to challenge Vox on IQ. I would have hoped Mr. Kratman (whose stuff I love) didn't feel the need.

Over and over, Vox has gotten into how moderate IQ people get important things done and lead kickass lives. And how someone with proper training and experience in a field crushes someone inexperienced but intelligent over and over. Plus the difference between talent/genius and mere IQ-intelligence.

I suppose it's a way to get attention.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 1:26 PM  

My wife and sons are 25% more Constitutional posterity than I am.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 1:29 PM  

Tom's import wife and mystery meat kids should disqualify him from any objective analysis of this issue. Incentives matter.

That makes no sense. My being a Red Indian Savage and my Red Indian Savage-Blond Viking Savage kids should do the same. Perhaps we Paperwork Americans are only having the arguments real Posterity Americans won't have.

Anonymous Mach Seven June 25, 2017 1:35 PM  

I like TK's commentary here by and large, and I'm glad to see this important issue raised in VD's blog and I'm sure I'll understand more than I did after following the comments.

I kinda don't like the comment about matching IQ points - so you're smart, then? Great. Those who read here know you have something to say already. I've gone to look at your stuff too - great stuff. But matching IQ points is about as important as dick measuring. VD has, (I believe) made a public point about his IQ to deflect the screaming hordes wanting to disqualify him for any reason they can find.

So take off the gloves and punch. Who cares whose brain is bigger? Speak and seek truth.

Anonymous Hang All Lawyers June 25, 2017 1:35 PM  

According to Tom in the last thread, the REAL Americans are the mud people who fought with him in Gulf War 1. The Fake Americans aka Nazis aka white trash are the white nationalists. How does this square up with the Founders themselves being white nationalists? Muh reason Muh dictionary Muh cowards. Total shitshow.

Anonymous davidd June 25, 2017 1:40 PM  

under any definition of posterity, "amnestied" illegal aliens would not reasonably be included in the rights of the constitution.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 1:45 PM  

I kinda don't like the comment about matching IQ points

Oh, but I do. See, if I can so easily demolish a case constructed by a 150-IQ individual, it tends to provide a useful warning of what those of lesser intelligence can expect if I bother to actually focus.

Blogger rumpole5 June 25, 2017 1:46 PM  

The preamble of the constitution has to be read in pari materia
with the rest of the document. The subsequent clauses obviously were written to achieve a purpose common to the that stated in the preamble. The constitution gives congress the authority to determine who will be nanatalized as a citizen. It does not place any restrictions as to race. Moreover, as I noted regarding your earlier post, much of the colonial population in existence at the time of the revolution was free and non or only partly European. Nothing in the text of the constititon excluded these individuals from full citizenship in the United States. White Nationalism is a fantasy. It does not apply to us as a people because we were a mixed breed nation almost from the beginning of our history.

Anonymous davidd June 25, 2017 1:47 PM  

This suggests that "our posterity" is also meant to be understood in the case of the latter [descendents].

this seems to be the simplest and most obvious reading. that immigration was accounted for in the constitution does not contradict that, especially since immigration comes so much later in the document. Immigration is a minor caveat probably included out of practical and technical consideration. You can't read "our posterity" and think it means anything other than "our children".

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 1:47 PM  

All this is academic.

Mood will animate action, and sophistry will ratify rationalization. Words on paper do not determine minds. They clearly don't determine actions.

We are as prehistoric shamans, seeking explanations for phenomena as needed to satisfy the always-superstitious rabble.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 1:50 PM  

Nothing in the text of the constititon excluded these individuals from full citizenship in the United States.

Irrelevant. You're conflating "citizen" with "posterity". You cannot do that, just as you cannot reasonably conflate "U.S. citizen" with "American".

Civic nationalist arguments almost invariably involves sloppy thinking and mutated definitions of this sort.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 25, 2017 1:52 PM  

Not to mention, whatever long-dead men wrote of the polity they helped form, we now must cast off childish notions of Magic Dirt.

A North America covered by non-Anglos is NOT the America created 250 years ago, nor is it recognizably its descendant. DNA matters.

Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded, blind or stupid.

Blogger Jack Ward June 25, 2017 1:52 PM  

Its always a good day when VD and TK lock horns. Reminds me I have to go back to Every Joe and resume Tom's articles.

Anonymous Rien June 25, 2017 1:56 PM  

I am not a US citizen, and probably that is the reason why I do not understand this fascination with what TFF wrote or said. Is it really important?

I read a quote once that was attributed to one of TFF: "No madam, we gave you a republic, ... if you can keep it."

That is the point "if you can keep it". Forget the rest, no matter what they said or wrote, it all boils down to "if you can keep it".

I very much doubt that TFF assumed that their words would be law for the next million years. Pouring over every nuance would probably frustrate them to no end.

"If you can keep it" is all we ever need to know (USA or where ever else). And whatever must be done to "keep it", must be done.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 1:59 PM  

My perception is that this argument boils down to a false dichotomy. The definition of posterity is naturally based in genetic descent. It is also *extended* to those who are inheritors by means other than birth.

Kratman and I both agreed with the example of Rome - the whole of the West is the cultural posterity of Rome, regardless of genetics, because we inherited the culture and legal customs of Rome.

And the opposite also provides evidence: persons can be disinherited. Particularly on a cultural level, this is readily observed: if someone is exiled (to refer to the biblical, "cut off from his people"), then he is removed from "posterity". For a complex example, see Isaac and Ishmael, wherein there's a division of legal, spiritual, and genetic inheritance.

Now, the key part that has been left out of this discussion is that the notion of posterity extending to "adopted" Americans is *still* based in the concept of posterity as being *foremost* genetic.

And the addition of outsiders to "the people" is not somehow unique to America or modern. It was practiced by the Israelites. It was practiced by the Amerind tribes. You can find examples in any major culture on the planet.

So the other part is that those who are added to the people must actually become the people. That means adopting dress and language and cultural practices. That is the necessary element of becoming part of the posterity, because it is the manifestation of inheritance that defines posterity.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 2:01 PM  

Adoption is Naturalization, and that was defined by the Founders in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 25, 2017 2:07 PM  

Posterity is defined as following:

- future generations of people
- descendants of a person

The Preamble starts with "We the People of the United States" then "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Notice the possessive adjective use there - OUR Posterity.


So posterity there should refer to the future descendants of the People of the US, upon the creation of the Preamble as implied by the author(s) thereof.

This is where the Federalist Papers matter. Since (as Vox has demonstrated above) the Federalists refer to posterity as descendants of the People who, together, founded the United States, then posterity here implies genetic descendants of this people.

Anonymous teapartydoc June 25, 2017 2:09 PM  

They may have had Hobbes in their libraries, but no one used him as a source for justification of anything they were doing. Even if they were reading his translation of Thucydides they were reading Thucydides, not Hobbes.
Tocqueville makes a point about this without mentioning the name in Democracy in America where he notes that despite having an individualistic society, the Americans do not descend into a conflict of all against all because of the widespread formation of free associations and institutions. The founders must have noticed this long before any constitutional convention. Hobbes was irrelevant.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 2:09 PM  

The argument that anyone can become American is specious. Linking it to the phrase in the Preamble as simply meaning future generations renders "for our posterity" as meaningless and mutated as the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause.

As in the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, if the Founders meant every bit of Commerce, every conceivable application of money to welfare, why bother Wirts it in the first place.

If posterity simply means future generations, why bother to write the phrase in the Preamble?

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 25, 2017 2:09 PM  

Internal consistency alone does not a good argument make. In my observations, there's something about passing the bar that wipes this fact from the greater intellectual equipment of he who passes it; replaced with, in Kratman's case, a hypnotic ability to exploit tremulous, anachronistic (read: only there if he can The Force you into seeing them) loopholes.

He's fascinating to read because of the power of his commitment to his (internal) consistencies, not the ultimate veracity of the arguments he makes.

It's all very post-truth, falling squarely into the mode of thinking that results in the Constitution being a 'living, breathing document'.

Anonymous Joe June 25, 2017 2:16 PM  

As a relatively new reader of Vox Day, can someone please redpill me on Kratman? Who is he and why should I care? Based on the thread below, Kratman's dialectic seems indistinguishable from a National Review equalist. His rhetoric seems like typical conservative boomer tuff guy (the Rick Wilson comparison noted above seems apt.) So what am I missing?

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 2:21 PM  

Ourselves and Our Posterity

hate to say it but people write things like that when they're not part of the "our" anymore

Blogger Robert What? June 25, 2017 2:22 PM  

Vox's take on posterity, while I am very sympathetic to it, is largely irrelevant of things continue as they are now. What with White-Anglo demographic collapse, in a couple of generations the past pure descendant of the original inhabitants can tell anyone who will listen about "posterity".

Blogger tuberman June 25, 2017 2:22 PM  

Yeah, TK exposed himself completely. The lawyer niggling, the attack on alt-right as "white trash," along with the obvious "what about me" violent emotions. Yet it did catch me by a bit of surprise.

Anonymous Sertorius June 25, 2017 2:28 PM  

You don't read Shakespeare with the same eyes as you do Law French--why are you insisting legal precision from what is clearly highly charged political poetry? In his "Secret Diary" William Byrd famously compares his role on his plantation as that of an Old Testament patriarch--are we to assume that Leviticus was the prevailing text of his particular autarky there in Virginia?

As I mentioned in the previous thread, Britain herself was hardly Edo Japan--after all, the seminal moment in Whig history involved replacing James with William; and if "genetic posterity" meant so much to the Founding Fathers, you might have expected that the Hanoverians to be in for at least a rhetorical trope or two.

As for Kratman's arguments, it's possible that his military experience has made him too sanguine about the possibilities of assimilation (Big Green, after all, has many more instruments of coercion at its disposal that the local school board.) Even then, though, he's very much in the 18th Century tradition--the "gentlemen of the blade" who made up the armies of the time were a diverse lot of Wild Geese, broken Italian nobility, and the ubiquitous wily Scots. Washington and Co. were not shocked to find Hessians, and no doubt would have promised land grants to any and all who flocked to the banner.

Blogger The Gray Man June 25, 2017 2:29 PM  

VD, another point I'd like your thoughts on:

The Founders probably could not envision mass immigration like we saw later in the 1800s to now. The technology and political situation did not make that possible.

Blogger WATYF June 25, 2017 2:35 PM  

What does it matter who "posterity" is referring to if they also allowed immigration and naturalization?

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 2:36 PM  

@ #26 - you write about it like its done but the white man hasnt spoken yet, only some clown politicians have

Blogger Solaire Of Astora June 25, 2017 2:36 PM  

It's not that irrelevant. If the fundamental purpose of the constitution was to protect the liberty of their descendants then it means whatever their descendants do to protect that liberty, including making people go back, is in keeping with the spirit of the constitution. Well, maybe that doesn't change its irrelevancy if the US just falls apart and no one cares about the constitution one way or the other, but it does offer the foundation for a solid argument at least.

The problem is, they didn't only give their descendants constitutional liberties. They gave them to other European immigrants too, right? People are being unfair to TK though, his argument was pretty good and honest other than the rage. The quotes VD dug up are pretty convincing but TK's argument is not even that bad.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 25, 2017 2:39 PM  

You timing here sucks, Vox. I have a) a lot of paperwork to do for the fucking government, and b) a presentation to get ready for Libertycon. As I'm sure you're aware, I'd love to play, but I have played as much as I can afford to now. Can you pull this and repost it, say, on the 3rd of July?

You gave your IQ as 154, once. I don't recall your stating whether that was Stanford-Binet of Wechsler. The answers are 158 and 154. But those raw scores really don't tell the story and probably seriously underbid the matter.

You see, at some level of performance an IQ test really has a hard time telling what is intelligence and what is a good work ethic. It is possible for a midwit to study very diligently and do, say, quite well on the math portion.

On the other hand, if someone never paid the slightest attention in math, barely scraped by in high school, albeit rather an unusual school, does not know the rules, but still can walk in, see the problems, identify how to solve them, and then solve them, quickly and accurately, that would tend to indicate actual intelligence without any particular work ethic component to it. Somewhat similarly, nearly any fool child can be taught to read. When a 2.5 year old teaches himself to read, at something like an adult level, that would tend to indicate an unusual degree of intelligence.

So, yes, I am fairly confident that, as I've stated here before, there is no IQ dick measuring contest at which I would have to turn up the collars of my lapel, pull the brim of a hat down low, and slink from shadow to shadow, but I do not respect IQ, even if you do, because I do not think it measures actual intelligence accurately.

And that has to be it for the next week or so.

Blogger beerme June 25, 2017 2:39 PM  

My take on this is simple: both are right.

Vox's definition of posterity is correct for the American Republic, which the Founders created for a distinct group of disaffected Englishmen. The Republic died at Ft. Sumter but the Children of the Republic continue to this day in the succeeding Empire.


Kratman's definition is correct for Imperial America with the "succeeding generations" of immigrants being the posterity of the 48'ers and Irish who tipped the balance in favor of the Union and Empire. Every following wave of immigrants are the posterity of these Children of the Empire.

The argument cannot be won, because the Children of the Republic are not the Children of the Empire.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 2:41 PM  

you know, i wouldn't call Kratman stupid.

on the other hand, he's never particularly impressed me much either. his bizarre fixation on the idea that Boyd's OODA theory is incapable of dealing with boundary conditions ( when Boyd originated his flight tactics by studying such boundary characteristics as stall speeds, etc ) being one prime example.

and i suspect i'm less intelligent than Vox.

i suppose maybe Tom is simply so brilliant that i can't perceive it?


regardless, the only people likely to be "convinced" by an internet dick swinging contest ( muh brain larger den yer-uns )
...
are likely to be pretty damn stupid themselves.

so ... Tom is purposely couching his arguments to convince the Left Hand of the Bell Curve?

although i will note that MPAI combined with muh Democracy *might* make this the winning tactic.


2. Ominous Cowherd June 25, 2017 1:17 PM
VD's argument boils down to, had they known it was needed, they would have done it.


3rd option - they didn't consider the fine details of immigration permission / restriction to be a mete subject for control via the Constitution.

thus, the 1790 law, written, passed and signed by the same men responsible for the Constitution. and permitting future generations of Posterity to easily amend that law as they found necessary.



6. VD June 25, 2017 1:29 PM
Perhaps we Paperwork Americans are only having the arguments real Posterity Americans won't have.


welp, you know what to do when the existing stock gets lazy. all goyim are fungible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWJSKhEwjy8



17. Rien June 25, 2017 1:56 PM
Is it really important?



when we have people telling us blatant lies about what the Founders DID mean? certainly.

this is not to say that we cannot change every Law up to and including the Constitution ( via amendment ).

this is not to say that we cannot choose different goals and priorities than the Founders.

the problem is that control over defining what the Founders meant has allowed Marxists to substitute Marxist ideals and definitions for American ideals and definitions.

and Conservatives, being by nature and definition the 'Go along to get along' types, thence follow these false indoctrinations to detrimental conclusions.

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 2:42 PM  

i heard someone say "the Constitution is a flawed document"

if they're not bound by it, neither are we

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 2:43 PM  

@14-"You're conflating 'citizen' with 'posterity."

This would be a common trap for lawyers, I think. Who are likely to think, in truncated form, along the lines of, "I can't legally distinguish between natural-born citizens who may nowadays be of any race, therefore there's no difference. The Constitution let this happen, therefore posterity meant anyone who happened to become a U.S. citizen since 1789."

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand the concept that merely because you're a citizen doesn't mean the country is yours. It isn't, if it wasn't made for you. And it wasn't, if you don't descend from founding stock.

What if we went (more) crazy and passed an amendment declaring dogs could be citizens. Would that suggest to you the Framers included dogs as their posterity? If not, well, they let ot happen, didn't they? I guess that means effectively they wanted their nation to go to the dogs.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 2:51 PM  

" You timing here sucks, Vox. I have a) a lot of paperwork to do for the fucking government, and b) a presentation to get ready for Libertycon' "
Maybe you should have thought about that before you flapped your yap, Tonya.

Blogger John Wright June 25, 2017 2:55 PM  

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

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

Blogger Benjamin Kraft June 25, 2017 2:57 PM  

(Kratman, if you don't respect IQ, why did you even feel the need to mention it? As a sarcastic passing backhand? Somehow I doubt it. It seems rather more likely that you did it in attempt to justify yourself.

If you don't respect it, you at the very least expected others to, which, if you then attempt to use it is, indeed, exactly like an SJW, attempting to use peoples' own standards against them when you have no such compunctions yourself.)

TL;DR: If you find IQ dick measuring contests pointless, why did you sally up to engage in one?

Anonymous Meme War Veteran June 25, 2017 2:58 PM  

Weird how less than 24 hours ago, Tom had plenty of time to poast 159 comments calling us "nazis" "white trash" and "cowards"...

Now suddenly Tom is too busy to respond, because of deep state homework and packing his toothbrush for a sci-fi convention?

Nobody ever stop this clown show. I am entertained.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 2:59 PM  

@29 From yesterday:

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

Meanwhile:

Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise, for the wonders which his goodness has wrought in conducting our forefathers to this western world; for his protection to them and to their posterity, amidst difficulties and dangers; for raising us their children from deep distress, to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty Princes in our deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labours of the husbandman, and spreading plenty through the land; that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally, been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory, and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory. - Thomas Jefferson’s Thanksgiving and Prayer Proclamation

And certainly, those "savage tribes" are not posterity.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 3:00 PM  

33. Tom Kratman June 25, 2017 2:39 PM
You see, at some level of performance an IQ test really has a hard time telling what is intelligence and what is a good work ethic.
...
but I do not respect IQ,



well, of course not.

not when you demonstrate that you don't even grasp what IQ is.


i'm beginning to suspect that Kratman doesn't actually understand boundary conditions.

'hard work' is NEVER going to permit someone with an IQ of 85 to extrapolate the formulae necessary to understand and predict gravity waves. below a certain level, the intellect isn't even capable of keeping track of the various variables and values, much less running hypothetical permutations on them.

in much the same way that there is a massive state change when airflow over the wing falls below a certain velocity, a 75 IQ is never going to be a serious challenge to anyone of above average intelligence playing chess, stipulating prior knowledge of the game by the high IQ person.

and i can accentuate the IQ effect by putting tight time controls on the game.


this is like saying that a million monkeys on a million typewriters can, eventually, reproduce the works of Shakespeare.

even if, by chance, they do, you know what? the monkeys wouldn't recognize the significance of that fact.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 3:01 PM  

> Internal consistency alone does not a good argument make.

Oh, in terms of logic it does. In fact, that's pretty much the definition. What it doesn't do is make the conclusions correct.

> can someone please redpill me on Kratman? Who is he and why should I care?

Ex-military and author. See https://www.amazon.com/Tom-Kratman/e/B001IXNZFA

Anonymous Pennywise June 25, 2017 3:04 PM  

In those seven instances, what reasoning was used to determine the definition? You know, to help us mid-wits...

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 25, 2017 3:06 PM  

The phrase in the Constitution is "our posterity." The word "our" functions as an adjective that modifies "posterity." Attempting to ignore the plain meaning of "our" is just absurd.

Anonymous JAG June 25, 2017 3:06 PM  

The atmosphere is almost like a title fight.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 3:11 PM  

39. John Wright June 25, 2017 2:55 PM
This sentence, by itself, shows the intellectual bankruptcy of collectivism.



the Collectivism of the Founders?

i mean, you do realize that Asians weren't even permitted to Naturalize as Citizens until the 1900s, yes?

http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Naturalization_Act_of_1790/


therefore, the current Race Blindness being a 'founding value of the nation' is obviously a lie, just as it is when stated by the Eurofascists driving immivasion into Northern Europe.

the question of whether the society should or should not be Race Blind is entirely different than the historical fact that the Founders WERE NOT.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 25, 2017 3:13 PM  

Kratman's a BoomerCon?

Who knew?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 25, 2017 3:14 PM  

@30 Conclusively demonstrating that "our posterity" refers to the genetic descendants of the Founders provides good rhetoric for bringing stubborn MUH CONSTITUTION types into the Alt Right fold. Other than that, I can't see why it would matter.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 3:19 PM  

Can you pull this and repost it, say, on the 3rd of July?

I'm not going to pull it, but I'm quite happy to give you as much time as you might need to respond to it. If you want to email your reponse then, I'll post it here in its entirety, sans comments, and with a link to this so people can follow the discussion.

Maybe you should have thought about that before you flapped your yap, Tonya.

In fairness, Tom knows me well enough to know that it could have easily been next March before I bothered looking anything up. If there had been 40 references in the Federalist Papers instead of 7, I probably would have left it for another day. I wasn't playing coy; I genuinely had no idea if or how the authors of the Constitution wrote about posterity.

Who is he and why should I care?

He is my friend and co-editor of Riding the Red Horse. He's a military expert and a genuinely smart man with a strong background in history and a former lawyer. He's also one of Castalia House's authors. So, he's far from a pushover.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 3:30 PM  

@24 Joe
"As a relatively new reader of Vox Day, can someone please redpill me on Kratman? Who is he and why should I care? Based on the thread below, Kratman's dialectic seems indistinguishable from a National Review equalist. His rhetoric seems like typical conservative boomer tuff guy (the Rick Wilson comparison noted above seems apt.) So what am I missing?"

Not much. He's a reasonably bright guy, and actually writes pretty well about his experiences (judging by some of the columns he's written), but he's got a bee in his bonnet about "muh proposition nation!" He seems to think that if he makes an argument that is reasonably internally consistent (see @23 I'm Not a Fascist But My Sons Are) that has a modicum of face validity, that people who pick it apart on empirical grounds are somehow being unfair. His only recourse then is to start raging and randomly lobbing ad hominems. This behavior, of course, only serves to further demonstrate the degree to which his views are emotionally, rather than rationally, based.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 3:30 PM  

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

True. But the Alt-Right correctly notes that people with identity complications often demonstrate that their personal relationships color the arguments they choose to present. The pattern is unmistakable to the point that it is often possible to anticipate an identity complication of which one is otherwise unaware.

These complications do not render any argument intrinsically incorrect. But it does reliably give one an indicator of the ways in which the arguments presented will prove to be false.

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 3:30 PM  

OT: can you still criticize jews on here?

Anonymous polarbearballs June 25, 2017 3:31 PM  

Meh...There were Scots (presumably Celtic, mixed with Pict and Anglo) who signed the Declaration, and clearly there were large swaths of Celts and Huguenots all throughout the Colonies, particularly South Carolina.

But here's the thing...it's like the definition of porn--whether it be 1850, or 1950 (Save the Italians), most "Americans" knew and continue to know, what "White" people are most similar to the original Whites that peopled the US. Meaning, British, Dutch, Germanic, Celtic/Gallic, etc. Mediterraneans and Slavs mostly have assimilated, but everyone knows what person and people are "posterity" as mentioned by the founders--and it's not a Mexican or East Indian.

I don't have a problem with limited immigration, but the wheels have come off the rails and it has to be stopped for a while.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 25, 2017 3:32 PM  

Oh, in terms of logic it does. In fact, that's pretty much the definition. What it doesn't do is make the conclusions correct.

You are supporting the point, actually. We are dealing with bivalence insofar as Kratman's conclusions follow from their premises. They generally do, issuing the truth value that they do. He is nonetheless incorrect on the matter of Posterity, therefore inverting the truth value that issues from his internal consistencies.

Ergo, internal consistency alone does not a good argument make, insofar as a 'good' argument is ultimately a True one.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky June 25, 2017 3:35 PM  

What exactly is the appeal of Tom K's vision of America? It seems great but only if you're trying to break in. But if you're already an American, it looks like a great way to sell out your own people.

Anonymous 7817 June 25, 2017 3:36 PM  

Discussions like this make me respect Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Sam Francis, and all the paleo-cons even more.

All the vitriol that Alt-Lite guys like Kratman have towards the Alt-Right, the paleo cons experienced too, except from pretty much the entire political spectrum. With shame I can remember my younger days buying into the anti racism virtue signaling.

But those paleo cons didn’t get triggered and turn into alt-retards, they just kept chasing the truth.

This is relevant to the current discussion because the idea of civic nationalism is a political fairy tale, a romantic story of how anyone can come and be a part of God's posterity, land of the free and home of the brave, founded in judeo Christian principles, a Christian nation. It's a confusion of the kingdom of God with America, and getting people to unplug from that is just as difficult as getting people to unplug from Blue Pill notions of women.

This is especially true in the case of men like John C Wright and Kratman, who are older Americans who lived in good economic times, and worked hard. Convincing them that civic nationalism is a fairy tale is a bit like trying to convince an old blue pill married guy of the true nature of women: they have a vested interest in the fairy tale, and the only thing that would convince them of the truth is a massive amount of pain which you wouldn't wish on them anyway.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 3:37 PM  

"they intended immigration and naturalization"

So what if they did? Doesn't mean the country was for the new citizens, no matter how "natural" the law made them. Just because Others may become citizens doesn't mean they became posterity.

The old folks certainly made a mistake, leaving themselves open to being drowned out by newcomers. But it doesn't follow from that fact that the U.S. belonged to the entire world from the get-go, so long as the world managed to arrive on these shores and finagle legal recognition.

Equality of citizenship status is one thing. Equal share in national membership if not ownership of the country, is another. You can be citizen, you if the non-founding stock. But the country wasn't made for you. Is that so hard to understand?

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 3:38 PM  

lol, "break in"

thats about right

Blogger alt-deplorable.jezko June 25, 2017 3:38 PM  

@ 11. rumpole5

you have to go home

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 3:38 PM  

@39-Where do you get "collectivism?" This post is pure sophistry.

Anonymous glosoli June 25, 2017 3:43 PM  

Why would a high IQ man go fight neocon wars for (((da boyz))) just to keep the oil price high and destroy communities where Christians are relatively safe? Seems like a very stupid thing to do. I wonder if he found any WMDs? Also, his ranting at people he disagrees with also demonstrates something about his intellect.

The same fake arguments are made here in Britain regarding it being a nation of immigrants. Thankfully DNA studies show that Britain is one of the most homogeneous nations on the planet (until the aberrations of the past 50 years).

We shall prevail over the invaders, I have no doubt.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 3:43 PM  

43. James Dixon June 25, 2017 3:01 PM
What it doesn't do is make the conclusions correct.



yes, that was the joke in my "all Hispanics are Mexican" syllogism.

if you assume obviously wrong starting conditions, you're highly unlikely to get valid conclusions regardless of the quality of your logic.



28. Sertorius June 25, 2017 2:28 PM
Washington and Co. were not shocked to find Hessians, and no doubt would have promised land grants to any and all who flocked to the banner.



yes, and this is why the Founders drew such a wide net with the 1790 law. there were French, Spanish, Swedish and Dutch colonies existing in continental America before or coequal with the British colonies. there were large German populations already in existence in Pennsylvania at the time of the Revolution.

https://infogalactic.com/info/New_Sweden

therefore, the Founders drew the line at 'White' because attempting to draw the Naturalization criteria any tighter would have immediately split the colonies and made the whole Federalism question moot.

Anonymous andon June 25, 2017 3:47 PM  

The same fake arguments are made here in Britain regarding it being a nation of immigrants.

gee i wonder who could be behind that?

Blogger tuberman June 25, 2017 3:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 3:48 PM  

The Founders probably could not envision mass immigration like we saw later in the 1800s to now.

Not true. Franklin was already worried about the number of Germans in Pennsylvania.

As for the argument, it is really stupid for another reason. If the Alt-Right was really fascist, Kratman's definition is a perfect excuse for deporting anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan. Are you for the income tax? Sorry, obviously not the posterity. Bye-bye.

Blogger tuberman June 25, 2017 3:50 PM  

55. I'm not

"Ergo, internal consistency alone does not a good argument make, insofar as a 'good' argument is ultimately a True one."

a prioris are important

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 3:53 PM  

@18-"It is also *extended* to those who are inheritors by means other than birth"

Is it? Howso? I am descended from several generations of U.S. citizens on both sides, not of Founding stock. If I inherited as much of Founding culture as the West inherited from Rome, then there's no such thing as an American nation. Because we don't live as Romans did. We've merely received dribs and drabs of their culture, attenuated and altered over the centuries.

That's a scanty inheritance. So's our cultural inheritance from the Founding, though that's of course stronger. Still, what the Founding means is always changing. Any new generation could conceivably turn it upside-down, and arguably a few have. Who controls the present controls the past, and all that.

That's what you get, relying solely on culture and ideology. The deeper parts they can't touch, the parts they take for granted. The "folkways," and such. But if they can convince even supposed reactionaries that we always have been a Nation of Immigrants, they can squander whatever remains of your inheritance in time.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 25, 2017 3:57 PM  

4. WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America. (TBD)

TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY is not ambiguous. It was by no means a certainty that the colonists would prevail in this continent against the native savages. The Spanish were raiding ports and mounting
overland expeditions, well into the Deep South. The Louisiana Purchase was decades away. There was nothing that said the future occupants of this land would be our blood relatives or our countrymen. But clearly, WE THE PEOPLE intended that it would be. Our Posterity could not be Comanche Indians, or the Seminoles, or the Creeks, or the Choctaw. By no over-reach of the imagination would WE THE PEOPLE (who count) be securing the blessings of Liberty for our fiercest enemies.

No sir....Vox is correct.

OpenID paworldandtimes June 25, 2017 3:59 PM  

Also, his ranting at people he disagrees with also demonstrates something about his intellect.

That's Alpha Bluster, independent of intellect and an effective extension of rhetoric when in fact used by an Alpha face-to-face. It doesn't carry over well to online disagreement.

Alpha Bluster was illustrated in the military-Alpha caricature, Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few God Men" when he browbeats Tom Cruise's character with thunderous "are we clear?!" The latter is briefly cowed, then recovers and says "crystal."

PA

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 4:00 PM  

Even Thomas Hobbes seem to have used "posterity" in the sense of descendants.

wherein God had at first created him: and afterwards God punished his posterity for their vices, - Hobbes


In this covenant Abraham promiseth for himself and his posterity to obey, as God, the Lord that spake to him; - Hobbes


they cannot without the help of a very able architect, be compiled, into any other than a crazy building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity. - Hobbes

Not that actual death then entered, for Adam then could never have had children; whereas he lived long after, and saw a numerous posterity ere he died. - Hobbes

Anonymous DonReynolds June 25, 2017 4:01 PM  

Sad but True wrote:Tom Kratman is the Rick Wilson of Vox Day dot com.

Yes, but Rick Wilson is much more civil and pleasant, by comparison.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 4:01 PM  

56. a deplorable rubberducky June 25, 2017 3:35 PM
What exactly is the appeal of Tom K's vision of America?



as i explained above, it appeals to those of an emotional Conservative bent. Conservatives being those who want things to stay the same way they remember them being when they were growing up.

they've been raised their entire lives being told that ( x ) is so and being told that they should aspire to that value AND that it was the value of their forefathers.

when any cursory application of historical knowledge immediately and conclusively REFUTES that it was a founding principle ... they tend to lose their shit.

because their whole identity is wrapped up in the idea that *they* are the Real Defenders of Truth, Justice and the American Way.



57. 7817 June 25, 2017 3:36 PM
Convincing them that civic nationalism is a fairy tale is a bit like trying to convince an old blue pill married guy of the true nature of women: they have a vested interest in the fairy tale, and the only thing that would convince them of the truth is a massive amount of pain which you wouldn't wish on them anyway.



true enough.

Wright and i are having a disagreement about whether or not Superman represents "American values". he says that i am nuts for thinking otherwise.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT June 25, 2017 4:02 PM  

Vox is correct that "posterity" in the Declaration of Independence refers to the descendants of the founders. However, it is also correct to say that in allowing for immigration and naturalization, and for naturalized citizens to serve in office, the founders believed that some people could come to America, assimilate, and become loyal and faithful Americans.

What the founders would have never accepted would have been immigration laws that put their posterity at risk. A trickle of immigrants from England, which is what the founders probably imagined, was not going to break America. Hordes of Africans, Central and South Americans, and Muslims are literally tearing the nation apart before our very eyes. They could not have imagined such a thing occurring when this country was founded. And if such an atrocity had entered their minds, they would have written laws to prevent it into the Constitution itself.

tl;dr - they have to go back.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 4:05 PM  

72. DonReynolds June 25, 2017 4:01 PM
Yes, but Rick Wilson is much more civil and pleasant, by comparison.


so?

the Rick Wilsons of the world have also done far more damage than the Kratmans.

i'd much rather have Kratman stand too right in front of me and let me know that he opposes me than some worthless piece of crap like William Buckley who falsely pretends to be my friend.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 4:09 PM  

> You are supporting the point, actually.

Yes, it supports your conclusions. I didn't intend to argue it didn't.

It's just a matter of definitions with respect to logical arguments. See http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ for the details.

> insofar as a 'good' argument is ultimately a True one.

That's the sticking point. By definition, that's not the case. But most people who haven't taken a course on logic won't know that.

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar June 25, 2017 4:11 PM  

4. WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America. (TBD)

It seems obvious to me that the reason for this ordination by TFF is clear. They did it for themselves and their progeny.

But I am not seeing an argument which limits these blessings to the stated progeny. It seems vague in that respect. Puposefully vague, perhaps.

I don't believe TFF would have approved of an elite class of decendants, but I see room for assuming that they wanted to protect natural-born citizens from having the culture diluted.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 4:11 PM  

@Tom Kratman
Of course, the whole b-b-but muh IQ! "argument" is merely a distraction. "I can beat you in a boxing match because I can bench more!" or "I can beat you at the track because my car showed more horsepower on the dyno!" Who cares? Get in the ring. Get on the track. Or, in this case... make your argument. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

"So, yes, I am fairly confident that, as I've stated here before, there is no IQ dick measuring contest at which I would have to turn up the collars of my lapel, pull the brim of a hat down low, and slink from shadow to shadow, but I do not respect IQ, even if you do, because I do not think it measures actual intelligence accurately."

lol. Not content with mere distraction, Kratman moves on to this remarkable mixture of sophistry and pilpul. So now we have, essentially, "My IQ is just as high as yours, but you'll have to just accept that based on my unsupported assertion, because IQ tests don't really measure IQ, or IQ is not really a valid measure of intelligence... or something."

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

Blogger tuberman June 25, 2017 4:11 PM  

Obviously, "internal consistency in logic" means little in this particular case, as the starting assumption of what "Posterity," means is everything, as in VD's title. That was and is the point of divergence.

If one thinks Posterity means "all future generations too," and if that is wrong, then one could be wrong with the best consistency.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 4:13 PM  

> Yes, but Rick Wilson is much more civil and pleasant, by comparison.

Oh, Tom is civil enough, to those he respects. He doesn't suffer those he considers fools gladly though. I think I've been on both sides of that divide at various times.

Anonymous LES June 25, 2017 4:15 PM  

White people exist. We are a minority on the planet. White people are discouraged from self-identifying as a white group but non-whites have no trouble identifying who is white.

White people formed white nation-states in the past but that is to be no more. White people will not be allowed to have a white nation-state like other nation-states.

The illegal aliens on the US southern border are not immigrants; they are colonists. We whites will be minorities in formerly white nation-states. I just don't see white people doing anything to prevent it.

Anonymous Heywood June 25, 2017 4:16 PM  

I come pre-inclined to like TK, because I used to hang out with on an ultra pink SFF board (Rape-Rape's fansite, in fact) where they hated him with a burning passion and I figured anybody who earned himself that much snowflake hatred must be a stand up guy.

So I recently downloaded his _A State of Disobedience_ from Baen. And while I'm sure I would have loved it a few years ago, now I could hardly read it. No, it wasn't bad. But it was very much blue pill on who third world invasion issue, and once you've redpilled on feminism, multiculturalism and globalism, all of that grates so horribly it effectively destroys any enjoyment you could have had from reading...

I am both dismayed and delighted that I've travelled so far down the red pill road that I find myself unable to read TK over the diverso-cuckery.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 4:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 4:19 PM  

@43-">Internal consistency alone does not a good argument make.

Oh, in terms of logic it does. In fact, that's pretty much the definition. What it doesn't do is make the conclusions correct."

Yes, internal consistency does a valid argument make, but valid arguments are not necessarily true. Or, rather, don't lead to true conclusions. The form of argument can be sound and nevertheless lead you astray.

The argument criticized in the original post is faulted for lawyerliness, and they are prone to that kind of thinking. And get paid well for it. But really, it's endemic to Enlightenment thought. We children of the light obsess far too much with the form over the substance of reason.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 4:21 PM  

@Tublecane -

Everything is attenuated and altered over time. The questions are how, why, and to what degree.

Let me pose another question: was King David a Hebrew, of the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

If he was, then the principle of "pure genetic posterity" is nonsense. If he is not, then (almost?) no person commenting here is posterity of the Founders.

But the evidence that the Founders intended for people to be grafted into the nation is overwhelming. The Constitution is plain and undeniable. So the argument that they mean only genetic posterity leaves you arguing that those blessings weren't intended for people who they allowed to be Congressmen and Senators... and you can argue that way, but it seems quite silly.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 25, 2017 4:24 PM  

@74 One Deplorable DT

Absolutely.
The only group of people that the Founders intended (or wished) to ban from coming to this country was Negroes from Afrika, a ban that they postponed in the Constitution until after 1800. Some might say that ALL of the opposition to the importation of Negroes was solely opposition to slavery itself. No doubt that was part of the ban, but a certain amount of the ban on the importation of Negroes was simply a desire to keep their numbers smaller. Whether they are slaves or whether they are freed slaves, the incompatibility is the same.

There was no shortage of Chinese or Muslims or Hindu in the world after American independence, but it certainly never occurred to the Founders to people this continent with them. Likewise, there was no shortage of Roman Catholics in the Spanish/Portuguese empires, or France, or Italy, or many countries of Eastern Europe (or Ireland), but it certainly was not the intention of the Founders that the US would be another Catholic country.

Maryland had allowed Catholic settlement for a few years and stopped it. Pennsylvania (Quakers) were the first and for a long time the only colony/state to openly permit Catholic settlement.

Like the question of slavery, there were a number of issues that were not resolved by the new Constitution except that they intended to resolve them at a later date. There was no reason to burden ratification of the Constitution by 13 very independent states with too many "easy" solutions. It may have prevented ratification altogether.

Anonymous 7817 June 25, 2017 4:26 PM  

HeywoodJune 25, 2017 4:16 PM
"I am both dismayed and delighted that I've travelled so far down the red pill road that I find myself unable to read TK over the diverso-cuckery."

I know, it's incredible. 15 years ago Kratman would have been seen as ultra right wing.

It's not unique to him though, once I got so far down the red pill road a lot of fiction was just unreadable without excessive suspension of disbelief.

Once I started to see the lies, I hated to read anything else that would numb me to the truth again.

Blogger Weouro June 25, 2017 4:27 PM  

I like watching these brick fights. That's probably the main reason I keep reading here--because of the unique fights and because of the recognition that this whole thing we're doing is a brick fight, not refereed fisticuffs. Vox as usual has found the better brick.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 4:27 PM  

@57 7817
"Discussions like this make me respect Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Sam Francis, and all the paleo-cons even more.

All the vitriol that Alt-Lite guys like Kratman have towards the Alt-Right, the paleo cons experienced too, except from pretty much the entire political spectrum."

Joe Sobran, too. And Jared Taylor, Alt-Lite though he may be, doesn't spend much time countersignaling those farther right. They go as far as they're willing to go, and aim their fire Left.

Anonymous zebedee June 25, 2017 4:29 PM  

A majority of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers. Did they suffer under the same debilitating condition as Kratman or were they magic lawyers?

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 4:29 PM  

> But the evidence that the Founders intended for people to be grafted into the nation is overwhelming.

As someone else pointed out above, the fact that they created the country "for ourselves and our prosperity" didn't mean they weren't agreeable to others sharing in those benefits. They just weren't the reason it was created.

Blogger pyrrhus June 25, 2017 4:34 PM  

A major hole in Kratman's ingenius argument is that when Dr. Johnson wrote those two definitions, he could not have imagined that there would ever be mass immigration into England, and so he probably thought they were about the same thing....But also, Dr. Johnson was not an American intellectual, so we would have to look for the usage of "posterity" in the colonies, and I think we would not find the usage that Kratman is hoping for....

Anonymous 7817 June 25, 2017 4:35 PM  

"Let me pose another question: was King David a Hebrew, of the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

If he was, then the principle of "pure genetic posterity" is nonsense."

This makes no sense, or else I'm missing something important.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 4:36 PM  

@85-"Everything is attenuated and over time"

Indeed. That includes the genetic inheritance of the Founding Stock, when it intermingles with other kinds.

"The questions are how, why, and to what degree."

I agree. If you base who forms a part of let's call it the Posterity Nation on legal status and culture alone, at least it will be less attenuated than our Roman inheritance, which stretches over a couple thousand years without any direct carryover in law.* But it will be far weaker than I think could ever maintain anything like a true nation.

*We don't really have a direct legal connection to the Founding, either, in my options . Not given the Civil War and the total surrender of SCOTUS in the 30s. But I won't stress that point.

Blogger pyrrhus June 25, 2017 4:36 PM  

What will likely happen, I think, is some kind of compromise in which those folks with a record of loyalty and dedication to the nation of America will be given a pass, while anyone else will be kicked out....

Blogger Happy LP9 June 25, 2017 4:38 PM  

Great! Team K and V, wonderful discussions. Very educational.

Blogger James Dixon June 25, 2017 4:39 PM  

> This makes no sense, or else I'm missing something important.

Around here, I've found that it's usually best to assume the latter when there is doubt.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 4:47 PM  

@S1AL

"If he was, then the principle of "pure genetic posterity" is nonsense. If he is not, then (almost?) no person commenting here is posterity of the Founders.

But the evidence that the Founders intended for people to be grafted into the nation is overwhelming."

https://infogalactic.com/info/Manichaean

Or, as Vox would say, binary thinking. Adoptions happen, and are even planned for by the system. The concept of family is not thereby invalidated. We're talking about human populations here, not geometry.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 25, 2017 4:47 PM  

so we would have to look for the usage of "posterity" in the colonies, and I think we would not find the usage that Kratman is hoping for....

That's the crux of it. Viewed in that light, Kratman's argument amounts to convolution, conflation and top-drawer bullshit.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 4:52 PM  

99. wrf3

If the location of dirt doesn't make the American, then genetics doesn't make the American, either, since genes are just an arrangement of dirt.

Drugs are bad for you.

Just say no!

Anonymous Joe June 25, 2017 4:53 PM  

I love how you use something a rightist said to condemn the left. You sir are a monomaniacal loser.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 25, 2017 4:54 PM  

@99 I bet that reductio ad absurdum is really going to stump Vox.

Blogger weka June 25, 2017 4:56 PM  

I suggest that this is no longer the issue. The USA of the founding fathers has been disavowed by two hundred years of judicial tyranny... With some appalling precedents.

The issue now is the survival of the American peoples and the Ameeican church. Both are beset by querulous litigants with JDs.

They have to be destroyed. Deportation, VDs solution is far more merciful than TKs

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 4:57 PM  

@85-"So the argument that they mean only genetic posterity leaves you arguing that those blessings weren't intended for people they allowed to be Congressmen and Senators...and you can argue that way, but it seems quite silly"

Britons let that Jew Disraeli be Prime Minister. Does that mean Britain is as much for Jews as for Englishmen?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 4:57 PM  

97. James Dixon June 25, 2017 4:39 PM
Around here, I've found that it's usually best to assume the latter when there is doubt.



https://infogalactic.com/info/Ruth_%28biblical_figure%29

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 5:00 PM  

Just shut up, wrf3. You're incorrect and off-topic. Genes are not dirt.

You're very close to being banned from here permanently. I do not tolerate monomanias and yours is out of control.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Communists murdered +100 Million trying to genocide the Bourgeois. suffering a Marxist to live is a Crime Against Humanity ) June 25, 2017 5:04 PM  

the great thing about S1AL's argument being that it means that all goyim are Hebrew and that, therefore, Israel is for US.

Anonymous 7817 June 25, 2017 5:04 PM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Ruth_%28biblical_figure%29

Thank you Bob.

Does anyone on the Alt-Right actually argue for completely pure genetic posterity?

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 25, 2017 5:06 PM  

Vox did a fine job of dismantaling it, but Kratman's argument is more elegantly razed.

It's fatal flaw is that it necessarily advances from a doomed axiom: that the signers of the Constitution did not understand what they, themselves, meant by Posterity -- but Kratman does.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab June 25, 2017 5:06 PM  

When I read the headline I thought this was about Vox's and Kratman's kids. Who had more ages grandkids etc. I have to admit I'm kind of disappointed. Still more interesting topic.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 5:07 PM  

Thank you Bob.

Does anyone on the Alt-Right actually argue for completely pure genetic posterity?


That's why we call them Alt-Retard.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 5:08 PM  

@7817 - Ruth the Moabitess was David's great-grandmother. And Ruth (the book) is the quintessential example of the foreigner being joined to the people.

@Francis - That's my point, as addressed in my original post in this thread. The whole concept of posterity, from the standpoint of definitions, is rooted in inheritance - which is primarily based in lineage. But it is extended to other inheritors by some form of adoption (thus, in the Constitution, "naturalization") or, in other cases, removed from genetic descendants who would normally be posterity. But it goes both ways - those who are joined to the American people by adoption must *necessarily* become like the people they are joining - adopting, in turn, the culture and practice of the American people.

But the folks who argue for some sort of genetic purity test are going to run into the basic fact that there's no pure ethnicity, and versing not one in the United States, which was already a mass aghlomeration. Hell, the British aren't even Britons by that standard.

There's a world of difference between that and open borders, and almost everyone exists somewhere in the middle. The key is figuring out where in the middle is the most reasonable spot.

Anonymous Not Heartiste June 25, 2017 5:12 PM  

>>Does anyone on the Alt-Right actually argue for completely pure genetic posterity?

No.

>>That's why we call them Alt-Retard.

We call you a faggot.

Anonymous Grinder June 25, 2017 5:16 PM  

14.  VD
June 25, 2017 1:50 PM
Nothing in the text of the constititon excluded these individuals from full citizenship in the United States.

Irrelevant. You're conflating "citizen" with "posterity". You cannot do that, just as you cannot reasonably conflate "U.S. citizen" with "American".

Civic nationalist arguments almost invariably involves sloppy thinking and mutated definitions of this sort.


And so what? Even if 'our posterity' means the blood descendants of the FFs and that generation, why would it necessarily preclude post independence white immigrants from also enjoying all the same benefits of liberty and security and so on? Are you contending that the 1790 naturalization act was the original root cause of America's long slide to ruin and collapse because it opened the door to citizenship for new whites? Are Englishmen especially better suited to resisting being seduced by globalist and Jewish Marxist lies? I contend that white immigration was overall beneficial to that 'posterity' referred to in the preamble and therefore in their interests to permit. The brakes should have been hit hard when median incomes began to stagnate (the writing should have been plainly on the wall by '65).

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 5:19 PM  

The Founders (including TJ) expected immigration moderately and temperately.

When was the last time we had moderate and temperate immigration? Hence TJ's quote at @41.

And none of the Founders could have dreamed that we would be giving them all the freebies at the expense of their posterity's purse. Much less their posterity's posterity paying for it for generations to come as back payment going back years for just being born into the debt of their forefathers penchant for giving out freebies, that are not, freebies. And for Christ sake, we actually give foreigners HB1 visa's to displace those, whether posterity, or not.

And who in their right mind goes about globe-bombing-trotting around the world, then invites the bomb-ies into your country?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 5:20 PM  


No.

That's why we call them Alt-Retard.

We call you a faggot.


Did you get triggered, Fraulein?

Anonymous URL IRL June 25, 2017 5:21 PM  

Great discussion!

Any group of people will be more concerned about the success of their immediate descendants than of some far off generation of people whose ancestors hadn't even set foot on the continent. A common sense reading should give preference to an interpretation that benefits the literal progeny of founding stock.

It's also the morally superior argument. Why take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs?

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 5:22 PM  

"the great thing about S1AL's argument being that it means that all goyim are Hebrew and that, therefore, Israel is for US."

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

Anonymous Not Heartiste June 25, 2017 5:25 PM  

>>Did you get triggered, Fraulein?

lol confirmed as a boomer

Blogger McChuck June 25, 2017 5:26 PM  

@11: You're right. The founders weren't Europeans. They were English. But being English wasn't quite good enough, so they decided to become Americans.

Blogger 1337kestrel June 25, 2017 5:26 PM  

if I can so easily demolish a case constructed by a 150-IQ individual, it tends to provide a useful warning of what those of lesser intelligence can expect if I bother to actually focus.

Warning to whom? Midwits aren't going to understand the superficial debate, much less the master crafting of the arguments.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 25, 2017 5:28 PM  

Not Heartiste wrote:>>Did you get triggered, Fraulein?

lol confirmed as a boomer


Hahahahah go away, fag. You're new and clueless here.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 25, 2017 5:29 PM  

I'd have to say that overall, most of your examples can be taken either way.

But, even if all of them could be proven to definitely only mean genetic descendants, you always lose me when you make the jump to 'White Americans' as somehow more legitimate than nonAmericans.

More compatible, more integratabtle, more desirable, etc from cultural, religious, and genetic considerations; I can see arguments supporting these. But, more American? A German or Scot tracing back a generation or two is more entitled as an American than a someone of Mexican, black or Chinese descent with six or seven generations? I'm not sure how you get there from here.

Anonymous Armed Hobbit June 25, 2017 5:32 PM  

Anyone who argues that genetics is a factor of defining "American" is a swastika panties Alt- Retard. Full stop. Genetics is a zero factor. We are not leftist Nazis like Richard Spencer.

To agree with Vox's point, culture and religion are important (which are not DNA). In short, I see merit to both Vox and Kratman's positions, as long as we keep genetic purity out of it.

Anonymous Basket of Deplorables June 25, 2017 5:33 PM  

There is an 'us' and a 'them' and admittedly the division is a pretty wide an amorphous gray area. Posterity is the us. Those who argue that because the line is not as crisp, clear and precise as they want means there is no line...are 'them'

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 5:34 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 5:37 PM  

"Anyone who argues that genetics is a factor of defining "American" is a swastika panties Alt- Retard. Full stop. Genetics is a zero factor. We are not leftist Nazis like Richard Spencer."

Just so we're clear, I'm not in agreement with this moron. Progeny are the core of posterity. There's a difference between "not limited to" and "not related to".

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 5:39 PM  

123. Northern Observer

A German or Scot tracing back a generation or two is more entitled as an American than a someone of Mexican, black or Chinese descent with six or seven generations? I'm not sure how you get there from here.

What makes some ghetto thug who rejects everything that the Republic and the constitution stands for, more 'entitled' to being an American given that he was never intended by the founding fathers to any entitlement at all, nor were Native Indians who were here a lot longer than anyone else?

The 1790 Naturalization Act was restricted to whites only.

What entitlement do you mean?

Anonymous M. C. Tuggle June 25, 2017 5:40 PM  

"I'm not sloppy Vox, you're just wrong ... Once again. you have a word in the preamble which doesn't carry it's own definition."

Ahem. Writing "it is" when you intended to say "its" IS SLOPPY.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 5:42 PM  

@114-"why would it necessarily preclude post independence white immigrants from also enjoying all the same benefits of liberty and security and so on?"

It wouldn't. Their enjoyment would be incidental, is all. The nation-state wasn't made for them. They, including myself, get to be citizens. But the U.S. wasn't made for us.

Anonymous Jeff June 25, 2017 5:42 PM  

"If anyone can become an American, then being American means nothing."

Blogger Nick S June 25, 2017 5:45 PM  

@129

That's what editors are for.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 5:45 PM  

"If anyone can become an American, then being American means nothing."

If anyone can become a mechanic, then being a mechanic means nothing!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 25, 2017 5:47 PM  

The left has been saying for years that the Constitution was written for white people by dead white men. They're not wrong about that.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 5:48 PM  

133. S1AL

If anyone can become a mechanic, then being a mechanic means nothing!

Equally true.

Anonymous Jeff June 25, 2017 5:50 PM  

Those who don't appreciate posterity must be breast men.

Anonymous Armed Hobbit June 25, 2017 5:51 PM  

"Just so we're clear, I'm not in agreement with this moron. Progeny are the core of posterity. "

There is no mention of race or genetics in the Constitution. Nor is there any of collectivist bias such as racism (genetic superiority or genetic claims). If I adopt a child from Panama, morally they are my progeny and thus American. Same goes if I create children with a Panamanian woman. In both cases my children are morally and constitutionally American. I don't care what the Nazi white nationalists say otherwise. THEY are unAmerican.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 5:52 PM  

@123-One aspect of the Posterity Nation which diverges from the traditional National Question is that America was, in a way like the Proposition Nation people aver, made up of different national/ethnic/racial types at its Founding. Englishmen dominated, but there were also Dutch, Irish, Scotsmen, Germans, and so forth. There were a couple hundred years of European settlers on the continent to make an American nation, but that's not long enough to make an American like a Chinaman. It's less nationalistic than other nations, if you will.

The posterity, then, while being mostly For Englishmen (now American), By Englishmen (now American), is not all English-cum-American. It was a mongrel group from the get-go. That's why the more- or less-American thing is always going to have more meaning than being more or less Chinese.

OpenID paworldandtimes June 25, 2017 5:54 PM  

collectivist bias such as racism

Randroid.

Anonymous Jeff June 25, 2017 5:56 PM  

Kim Kardashian is fake posterity.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 5:57 PM  

@133-I know that was meant to be a joke, but think about it for a second. Obviously not everyone is capable of being a mechanic, even if they tried their best, under the current definition. If everyone were to be called a mechanic, clearly its meaning would have to change.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 6:00 PM  


@112 S1AL
"But it goes both ways - those who are joined to the American people by adoption must *necessarily* become like the people they are joining - adopting, in turn, the culture and practice of the American people.

But the folks who argue for some sort of genetic purity test* are going to run into the basic fact that there's no pure ethnicity, and versing not one in the United States, which was already a mass aghlomeration. Hell, the British aren't even Britons by that standard."

*That's no one. Pretty much literally. A straw man. Read the Nuremberg laws sometime. Or watch this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J67AodOb1e4
Pure 100% Bavarian phenotype

"There's a world of difference between that and open borders, and almost everyone exists somewhere in the middle. The key is figuring out where in the middle is the most reasonable spot."

That's about the size of it. Unfortunately, given the immigration policies of the past 52 years, we have been so far beyond any possible reasonable point in the middle that simply stopping immigration for the next 50 years or so would not fix the problem. Even the old "melting pot" canard was a scam; the idea that large numbers of European immigrants, from ethnies rather different from those that made up the historic American nation, could be easily "assimilated" has not stood up to empirical testing. The slate is not blank after all. "Assimilation," even of closely related groups, takes generations, and is often incomplete.

Now, of course, the establishment narrative goes well beyond that, to the point that it asserts that this country can absorb unlimited numbers of people who are very different, genetically and culturally, from the historic American nation. Not only that, but it asserts that these alien peoples can, and should, retain their foreign cultures as well. That America is merely an economy and a government, not a nation.

Given the reality on the ground, your position would seem to fall in the category of "true (in a sense) but irrelevant." Yes, pretty much any tribe or nation has a system for adopting outsiders into the tribe. But it's relatively rare. Look at Japan, or China, or pretty much any non-white nation. Do you know how many naturalized citizens there are in China? About 1500. Only White countries are targeted in this manner.

We have been so far beyond the "adoption" model for so long, that it's interesting to look at as an ideal, but doesn't really have any bearing on our present situation.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 6:03 PM  

@108-I don't hear that argument made. White Nationalists are apt to talk of completely pure White European heritage. But not specifically about the Posterity Clause to my knowledge.

Blogger S1AL June 25, 2017 6:14 PM  

I didn't mean test in the sense of a literal DNA swab (though there are a few who've advocated that here). I'm referring to the people who get caught up in the notion that there's something special about the "original Americans" that precludes people from being adopted into the American nation, despite the fact that the intent of the Constitution and the first five naturalization acts was clearly contradictory.

That, and the silliness relating to "proving" your American heritage all the way back to 1788, as if that's both doable and relevant. I can only track about 4 of 64 back that far, and that already includes Dutch, English, Scottish, Irish, and German.

Then there's the simple fact that, if nations have a right to self-determination, that right extends to defining who may be adopted into the nation. Yes, this will change the genetic and cultural character of the nation - but so will time and chance.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 6:15 PM  

137. Armed Hobbit

There is no mention of race or genetics in the Constitution. Nor is there any of collectivist bias such as racism

Nor homosexuality, abortion, transgenderism, women in the armed forces and a host of other things.

Guess they were all cool with that progressive stuff huh?

Guess again.

The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture. - Thomas Jefferson

blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population. - James Madison

[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?" - Benjamin Franklin

rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population. - Henry Clay

What a bunch of anti-American Alt-Retards huh?

THEY are unAmerican.

They are far closer to what American was meant to be by those who founded the nation and wrote the very documents that you claim meant what they would utterly despise.

You are at best NeoAmerican.

Anonymous FP June 25, 2017 6:17 PM  

Armed Hobbit wrote:"Just so we're clear, I'm not in agreement with this moron. Progeny are the core of posterity. "

There is no mention of race or genetics in the Constitution. Nor is there any of collectivist bias such as racism (genetic superiority or genetic claims). If I adopt a child from Panama, morally they are my progeny and thus American. Same goes if I create children with a Panamanian woman. In both cases my children are morally and constitutionally American. I don't care what the Nazi white nationalists say otherwise. THEY are unAmerican.


And when your adopted or half-Panamanian son joins La Raza and protests against native White Californians, telling them to go back to Europe or that they're going to "Make California Mexico again" in between shouts of viva la raza are they still morally, legally Americans?

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:19 PM  

Even if one grants Vox's argument about the meaning of "posterity", it simply doesn't get him where he wants to go.

That colonists ratified the constitution with the intent of protecting the liberty of their descendants does not preclude them seeing that allowing immigrants to become citizens and *also* have their liberty similarly protected would serve that intent.

Considering the constitution as a *means* to an *intent*, the means is still what it is, and explicitly allows for immigration, and naturalization to citizenship.

It's not like they were shy about asserting classes of people with different rights. They explicitly had provisions for slaves. If they had wanted to define citizenship strictly in terms of descendancy, they could. If they wanted a category of dhimmi citizens, with their Liberty protected less, they could have defined it and enumerated the ways in which their rights differed from those of the over citizens. .

Arguably they did that with "natural born citizens" with the restriction on becoming president. But that's it. Otherwise, citizens are citizens. Claiming otherwise is just making shit up.

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

You are free to view your Nation as those descended from British colonialists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or any point in time you like. You can also view the Nation of Islam as your Nation. I don't care. Just don't tell me that your Nation was enshrined in the Constitution. It wasn't. That Nation is made up of the citizens of the United States. That's *my* Nation.

Blogger tublecane June 25, 2017 6:21 PM  

@112-"it is extended to other inheritors by some form of adoption (thus, in the Constitution, 'naturalization')"

Adoptees get to be members of the body politic and in a sense "inherit" the blessings of liberty secured by the Constitution for the posterity of the Founding Stock. But they don't thereby actually get to be posterity. Being a citizen merely doesn't make you a descendant of the Founders, even if you receive some sort of cultural inheritance.

"But the folks who argue some sort of genetic purity test..."

What folks are these? Most who believe in the Voxian Posterity Clause are content to know the posterity exists without being able to determine who belongs to the last man. Certainly I don't hear much of tests. The closest people come is to talk vaguely of a whiteness standard, but that's with the knowledge that obviously most white people do not descend from original Americans.

"run into the basic fact that there's no pure ethnicity"

I don't consider that fact a problem.

"There's a world of difference between that and open borders, and almost everyone exists somewhere in the middle"

Between genetic posterity tests for citizenship and One World Americanism? Yeah. But that's really a separate issue from the Posterity Clause. We tend to tie this all back to the Immigration Question and the Citizenship Question, both of which press upon us suffocatingly. But those are not the same as the National Question, or our peculiar American version, the Posterity Clause Issue.

Let the whole world be American citizens, or let no one. That won't change what constitutes the posterity of the Founding Stock.

OpenID paworldandtimes June 25, 2017 6:22 PM  

If I adopt a child from Panama, morally they are my progeny and thus American.

Thus fake American.

Morally, you'd be a polluter.

PA

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 6:35 PM  

Mark Twain speaking on Vox Day and his people (and partially mine if the rumors are true).

He is little, and scrawny, and black, and dirty; and, judged by even the most charitable of our canons of human excellence, is thoroughly pitiful and contemptible.

He is ignoble--base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue.

His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back.

The scum of the earth!

the Red Man is a skulking coward and a windy braggart, who strikes without warning--usually from an ambush or under cover of night, and nearly always bringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills helpless women and little children, and massacres th e men in their beds; and then brags about it as long as he lives...

Such is the genuine Noble Aborigine. I did not get him from books, but from personal observation.


There really isn't much about the American past that the sensitive Politically Correct NeoAmericans can embrace is there?

I guess that's why they feel the need to tear down statues. They know American history has nothing to do with them.

Blogger Ceasar June 25, 2017 6:37 PM  

Another point as to why it is very unlikely that the Founders meant "immigrants" when referencing posterity is that of transportation at the time. How long does Tom Katman think it took to get from Nigeria to the US colonies in 1787? Why would the Founders at the time really even consider making special considerations in the Constitution to explain what was obvious to anyone (but a liberal) at the time? Any immigrants having a chance to reach the colonies alive would be coming from Europe. And to my knowledge, London wasn't sporting a muslim mayor back then. There was no "multicultural" Europe. Any idea of a immigrant coming to the colonies was with the understanding that they would be coming from a similar cultural background.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 6:39 PM  

VD wrote

:
Nothing in the text of the constititon excluded these individuals from full citizenship in the United States.

Irrelevant. You're conflating "citizen" with "posterity". You cannot do that, just as you cannot reasonably conflate "U.S. citizen" with "American".


Citizenship is what is relevant in law.

If you want to play for team Whitey, and cheer "Yay Whitey!", that's your business.

That's not the business of the Constitution. The Constitution deals in the rights of citizens and the powers of the government.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 25, 2017 6:45 PM  

Damn I am looking to pledge my AR-15 to a worthy Lord and TK turns out to be a magic dirter

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 6:49 PM  

@128 To be honest, the Founding Stock were not just Englishmen. The Founding Stock were the Framers, and every man who fought and supported, Englishmen and otherwise, for Independence.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien.” Very few however of Several of these Species. Never the less all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty. Adams to Jefferson

There are your forefathers. The founding stock. Are you their posterity?

A torie certainly would not be a posterity.

Blogger Nick S June 25, 2017 6:49 PM  

..., it simply doesn't get him where he wants to go.

Where, precisely, do you think that is , oh wise one? Do you think Vox actually believes there is any relevant actionable utility in the point he's made? Some practical and applicable legal value in today's circumstance?

Blogger praetorian June 25, 2017 6:58 PM  

Any argument that doesn't return America to pre-1965 demographics is doomed to irrelevance. You may as well argue over what the Byzantines meant in some document I just googled up to sound smart.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 7:03 PM  

@147-Where does Vox want to go? The City of Heavenly Reconciliation between American government, American culture, and their true master, the American national people? The Posterity Clause isn't a miracle weapon, and it won't allow him to win all that, no. But it is useful against Proposition Nation nonsense and "all men are created equal." I don't know how much more Vox expects from it.

"That colonists ratified the Constitution with the intent of protecting the liberty of their descendants does not preclude them seeing that allowing immigrants to become citizens and *also* have their liberty similarly protected would serve that intent"

I agree.

"Considering the Constitution as a *means* to an *intent*, the means is still what it is, and explicitly allows for immigration, and naturalization to citizenship."

I would say means with, not to, an intent. But otherwise okay.

"If they had wanted to define citizenship strictly in terms of descendency, they could."

Okay.

"citizens are citizens. Claiming otherwise is just making shit up."

Okay again. But at this point my "So what?" alarm is going off.

"You are free to view your Nation as those descended from the British colonialists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Or the Declaration of Independence. Or any point in time you like...Just don't tell me that your nation was enshrined in the Constitution."

You mean enshrined by the Constitution? Not the nation, as such, no. But at least the blessings of liberty for the posterity of members of the nation then existing, yes. Why can't he say that was enshrined? I mean, aside from the fact that the Constitution failed to protect them. But in intent, yes, they were enshrined.

"That Nation was made up of the citizens of the United States."

As Vox admonishes above, don't conflate posterity with citizenship. Don't conflate the nation with all American citizens, either.

"That's *my* nation."

Your nation is not really a nation. See the dictionary.

Blogger Nathan June 25, 2017 7:10 PM  

ITT people are conflating the immigration of the time of the Constitution with the immigration of the 1900s. At the time of the Constitution, the country was 95% people from the British Isles and Germany. The founders were open to immigration *because* they imagined these same people to make up almost all new immigrants. It would have never crossed their mind to forbid Mexicans from immigrating in mass to their new country -- let alone Hindus or Ottomans.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 7:11 PM  

@152-"Citizenship is what is relevant in law"

What law are we talking about, here? The Preamble? That, like the oft-invoked Declaration, is really more a piece of rhetoric.

We don't look merely to the law to tell us what countries are about. The Preamble is a bit of Why behind the What.

"The Constitution deals in the rights of citizens and the powers of the government"

What's your point?

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 7:13 PM  

tublecane wrote:

Adoptees get to be members of the body politic and in a sense "inherit" the blessings of liberty secured by the Constitution for the posterity of the Founding Stock. But they don't thereby actually get to be posterity.

Being a citizen merely doesn't make you a descendant of the Founders, even if you receive some sort of cultural inheritance.


In the Constitution, rights are guaranteed to citizens, not posterity.

All the hullabaloo over the meaning of posterity has almost no legal significance.

Were they colonial descendancy nationalists? British ethno nationalists? British colonial descendancy ethno nationalists? Or were they proposition nation nationalists? There were likely some of each.

Doesn't matter to the Constitutional issues. They ratified a constitution that instituted a government where citizens had rights, and immigrants could become citizens.

The most reasonable legal interpretation is that they purposefully left the details of immigration preferences to legislation. They did not enshrine any particular ethno or descendancy requirements for citizenship into the constitution.

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 7:21 PM  

@160-"In the Constitution, rights are guaranteed to citizens, not posterity"

Actually, it very often speaks of the rights of "the people," without specifying citizenship. The Preamble speaks to posterity specifically. But once again I have to ask, even if you're right, so what?

"All the hullabaloo over the meaning of posterity has almost no legal significance"

So what? It's not a legalistic issue. I don't hear Vox arguing, "We must strip those not descended from the Founding Stock of all prerogatives because Posterity Clause," do you?

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 7:23 PM  

149. paworldandtimes
Hobbits have the right to adopt and wed goblins, PA.
Gobblits are as American as apple pie, or Hoyt.
Just axe Tonya, you Goblitt hater.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 7:23 PM  

And so what? Even if 'our posterity' means the blood descendants of the FFs and that generation, why would it necessarily preclude post independence white immigrants from also enjoying all the same benefits of liberty and security and so on?

If you have to ask, you're not tall enough for the ride.

That's not the business of the Constitution. The Constitution deals in the rights of citizens and the powers of the government.

And the Constitution was designed for a purpose. If it failed in that purpose, it is illegitimate and must be disregarded and discarded.

You civic nationalists can posture and REEEEEE all you want. The doom of your imaginary nation is certain and near. The USA will collapse because it is a fraud built on a false picture of a failed foundation. This is why the truth always matters.

And that is why the simple unmasking of your false belief upsets you so much.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 7:26 PM  

Nick S wrote:..., it simply doesn't get him where he wants to go.

Where, precisely, do you think that is , oh wise one? Do you think Vox actually believes there is any relevant actionable utility in the point he's made? Some practical and applicable legal value in today's circumstance?



I leave whether his argument is intellectual, pointless, or simply a big fat juicy red herring to the interested reader.

I steel manned his argument to include a relevant point. If he intended a pointless argument, mea culpa.

*My* point still stands regardless. No brand of ethno nationalism or descendancy nationalism is enshrined in the Constitution.

Anonymous Armed Hobbit June 25, 2017 7:27 PM  

My kids who my wife adopted in Panama are more American in character and spirit than you foul-mouth Alt-retard Nazis. They also have all their teeth and don't live in a trailer park.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 7:28 PM  

Even if one grants Vox's argument about the meaning of "posterity", it simply doesn't get him where he wants to go.

I don't want to go anywhere. I was simply interested in understanding why the clear and proper meaning of posterity upset so many people. Now I understand, because it not only completely destroys the false image of the civic nationalists and proposition nationalists, but also helps explain what I saw when I realized the USA was in the process of collapsing 20 years ago.

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

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 7:30 PM  

No brand of ethno nationalism or descendancy nationalism is enshrined in the Constitution.

It most certainly is. And you are frightened and angry because you are finally beginning to grasp that you have put your trust in something that does not exist.

Blogger VD June 25, 2017 7:31 PM  

My kids who my wife adopted in Panama are more American in character and spirit than you foul-mouth Alt-retard Nazis. They also have all their teeth and don't live in a trailer park.

Translation: "REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"

Rhetoricize all you like. It won't make any difference at all.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 7:34 PM  

165. Armed Hobbit
Tonya, what was that you said about hiding behind handles ?

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 7:38 PM  

@164-"No brand of ethno nationalism or descendency nationalism is enshrined in the Constitution"

What's enshrined in the Constitution is supposed to be the blessings of liberty. The intent was to preserve them for the nationals and their descendants. The Constitution was a means to that end.

I don't really know what you mean when you speak of enshrining, though. The Constitution didn't make the American nation law as God made the Word flesh. It was a tool of the nation which stood behind it and enacted it into law.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 7:41 PM  

What the Founders had in mind. Just moderately enough that the China man would assimilate... and become Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty, of the founding stock.

Not so en-mass that the China man would congregate, en-mass, into a China Town resembling China and all its cultural trappings. A country within a country.

Now, how many citizen migrants resemble the founding stock and their posterity?

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 7:43 PM  

VD wrote:

That's not the business of the Constitution. The Constitution deals in the rights of citizens and the powers of the government.

And the Constitution was designed for a purpose. If it failed in that purpose, it is illegitimate and must be disregarded and discarded.


Failure does not imply illegitimacy.

And by what *actual*, contemporary nation states does it comparatively count as a failure?

Looking around a the world, it did pretty well for Americans. And still does.

Discarded, for what instead?

The tiny bits of Liberty sustained by the Constitution are the exception, and not the rule in the world and in history. I am not so eager to flush them down the toilet for an unspecified Whiteytopia.

Blogger Salt June 25, 2017 7:45 PM  

VD wrote:Nothing in the text of the constititon excluded these individuals from full citizenship in the United States.

Irrelevant. You're conflating "citizen" with "posterity". You cannot do that, just as you cannot reasonably conflate "U.S. citizen" with "American".

Civic nationalist arguments almost invariably involves sloppy thinking and mutated definitions of this sort.


Posterity (per Vox; genetic) is X, not posterity is Y. X=/Y. Y can never be X. End Trans.

"Therefore, again, posterity means "descendants"." - I do not dispute this, not in any narrow sense. But TK made an important distinction, that measure was taken in favor of future non-descendents holding political office. One thing I see in that is such people should be indistinguishable in their Americanism from genetic descendents. The fabric would not change. As Vox has pointed out time and again, that takes generations - there is no magic dirt.

Vox is right, definitionally, in the narrow sense. TK, using a broader approach, is a bit more applicable in the realm of reality.

Anonymous Armed Hobbit June 25, 2017 7:48 PM  

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

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 7:49 PM  

VD wrote:No brand of ethno nationalism or descendancy nationalism is enshrined in the Constitution.

It most certainly is.


Not as a matter of law.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 7:49 PM  

But Hobbits and their Goblina spouses lurve 'murica more than you natzee redneck trailer people Ever did ! If you ever read the constitution the right way like us us Talmudists, I mean goy lawyers do you would see the error of your ways and kiss brilliant Con-servantives like Kratman's ring for him tellin' youse da troof ! But instead you want to be natzeez and neo confederates, Klanners and just hardheads in general !

Blogger roughcoat June 25, 2017 7:52 PM  

172. Buybuydandavis

"The tiny bits of Liberty sustained by the Constitution are the exception, and not the rule in the world and in history. I am not so eager to flush them down the toilet for an unspecified Whiteytopia."

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

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 7:52 PM  

Scare word >>> Whiteytopia = Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty, of the founding stock.

Blogger praetorian June 25, 2017 7:52 PM  

Propaganda and memes instead of intelligent reasoning. Ad hominem and name-calling versus logic.

lol

Who's been handing the right it's ass for the last sixty years?

Even if you were right, and you aren't because it is idiotic to omit the goal of a group when comparing it to another group, it'd still be a step up from Boomer Review conservatism and lolbertarianism.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 7:54 PM  

174. Armed Hobbit

Ad hominem and name-calling versus logic.

I noticed.

foul-mouth Alt-retard Nazis. They also have all their teeth and don't live in a trailer park. 165 Armed Hobbit

Blogger roughcoat June 25, 2017 7:59 PM  

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

From other thread:

496. Tom Kratman

"By the way, Patrick, if you're still following this: Recall that I mentioned how forces in conflict tend to come to resemble each other. Well, you have, in this thread, seen another fine illustration of that with regard to the alt-right and the SJWs. Do but note the alt-right demand for ideological conformity, the piranha-like swarming against contrary positions, and the willful suppression of anything resembling intelligent discussion. Now go pick your SJW board, Vile 770 would perhaps be a good example, though Whatever and Tor are also fine for the purpose. It is exactly the same thing. That the causes are different (if they are, both seem determined on and delighted at the prospect of the death of the United States) makes no difference; they act precisely the same way."

Hmm.

124. Armed Hobbit (this thread)

"Anyone who argues that genetics is a factor of defining "American" is a swastika panties Alt- Retard. Full stop. Genetics is a zero factor. We are not leftist Nazis like Richard Spencer.

To agree with Vox's point, culture and religion are important (which are not DNA). In short, I see merit to both Vox and Kratman's positions, as long as we keep genetic purity out of it."


Hmmmmmm.

Blogger Nick S June 25, 2017 8:01 PM  

Vox's point clearly has philosophical and valuable rhetorical implications, but I thought that was obvious to everyone. I may have been mistaken.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 25, 2017 8:04 PM  

@181, There's a pattern lately, isn't there, of conservatives accusing the Alt-Right (along with other parts of the Right) of actually being Left/SJWs/collectivists? Hmm.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 8:05 PM  

181. roughcoat

Wasn't certain about Mosbys claim but this seals it.

Embarrassing.

Is this where we scream "COWARD"?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 8:08 PM  

Most of the triggered leftists posting here seem confused on the distinction between "nation" and "country." A nation is a people; an ethnos. Not a patch of dirt, an economy, or a government. "We the people" presupposes that there is a people, not a random collection of parts of various nations who happen to live in proximity to each other, and pay taxes to the same government.

To have a nation-state, you first must have a nation. There's a word that describes a multiracial, multicultural, multilingual polity, and that word is not "democratic republic." It's "empire." And a brief survey of history would suffice to establish that empires require authoritarian rule. A political entity that has no organic unity must be held together with force. "Multiculturalism" is not compatible with liberty.

Reality doesn't care about your feelz.

Blogger Elder Son June 25, 2017 8:08 PM  

And how many of those citizen migrants have anything in common with the tiny bits of Liberty sustained by the Constitution, and Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty, as endowed to us by our founding stock?

Anonymous MegaAvalonn June 25, 2017 8:10 PM  

Kratman's argument for a "proposition nation," like many in the alt-lite, is in large part due to his very own mixed race "proposition family." The mass miscegenation we're witnessing today is relatively new - there exists no reliable studies of the long term consequences. Subconsciously, Kratman feels the need to play devil's advocate for multiculturalism.

His military experience may also be clouding his judgement. In the military, people of different races are required to integrate, otherwise you're dead. Such incentives don't exist in a traditional democratic republic like the USA. In fact, I would argue just the opposite, as forming separate voting blocs to gather votes is the way to political power.

I would be willing to entertain the idea of a multicultural society functioning rather efficiently in a Spartan-style government, but definitely not with what we have today. You can either have your constitutional republic or your multiculturalism - you can't have both.

Blogger Lazarus June 25, 2017 8:20 PM  

VD wrote:I've known what was happening for decades. But I didn't truly understand why. Now, I have a deeper, though not complete, grasp on it. And that's all I'm really seeking to do, is understand why events are playing out as they are.

Well at least someone here is. I would like to know as well, which is why I pay attention. One thing I have noticed is that they are relentless, and keep their own counsel.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 8:22 PM  

ZMan has a post up that ties into this same debate.

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=10676

Boomer Cons

There are two types of principles a people live by. There are those that precede their demise and those they create after they triumph. The people desperately clinging to their principles, lecturing those willing to do what it takes to win, will be buried with those principles. The winners, meanwhile, will be busy crafting a new morality. That’s the lesson of history.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 25, 2017 8:22 PM  

@181 roughcoat
"Armed Hobbit wrote:

Yet another example how the alt-right is the new SJWs. Typical leftist tripe. Piranha-like swarming against contrary positions. Collectivism. Identity and racial politics (just like Democrats). Demand for total ideological conformity.


From other thread:

496. Tom Kratman

"By the way, Patrick, if you're still following this: Recall that I mentioned how forces in conflict tend to come to resemble each other. Well, you have, in this thread, seen another fine illustration of that with regard to the alt-right and the SJWs. Do but note the alt-right demand for ideological conformity, the piranha-like swarming against contrary positions,

Kek. Noice. Good catch. Gotta give him credit for the set up with "gotta go now, don't have time for this" before pulling out the socks, though. Not a bad segue.

The "piranha swarm" is an interesting inversion of the typical leftist "No one likes you" "argument." Instead of "not enough people seem to support your side, therefore it must be wrong," we have "too many people support your side, therefore it must be wrong." Heh.

Anonymous polarbearballs June 25, 2017 8:26 PM  

I dunno, but "Hello fellow white people..."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/25/women-with-star-david-flags-told-to-leave-chicago-gay-pride-march.html

Wouldn't you just love to have today's snowflakes have a sit down with the Puritans of the old Northeast to compare notes...purity spirals. Love it.

Blogger Buybuydandavis June 25, 2017 8:28 PM  


VD wrote
:

I don't want to go anywhere. I was simply interested in understanding why the clear and proper meaning of posterity upset so many people. Now I understand, because it not only completely destroys the false image of the civic nationalists and proposition nationalists,...


The particulars of the interpretation of "posterity" in the Constitution destroys nothing for me. It's of mild historical and sociological interest.

Shouldn't destroy anything for any civic nationalist either.

I think I have a good guess why civic nationalists respond as they do to your statements on this issue. They're taking your statement about posterity in the Constitution as a claim about what is Constitutional under the constitution.

If you had just said "Hey, see here, the Founders mention that they wanted to preserve Liberty to their descendants in the Constitution. I don't claim any legal force to this. Just an observation." Most would have said "yeah". while likely still finding your disclaimer disingenuous.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 25, 2017 8:34 PM  

192. Buybuydandavis

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

It's a myth.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 25, 2017 8:35 PM  

Armed Hobbit is most def a sock puppy.
For such a high ( in his mind ) IQ guy, he who has just outed himself just seems to have the knack for outsmarting himself.

Blogger tz June 25, 2017 8:48 PM  

I think the word "Our" qualifies the posterity, just as if you split out "Our Selves".
I'd add adoption to the naturally born, but at best you are arguing for a naturalization as an adoption into a family, a covenant, not a contract.

A(n ethno-)Nation is merely a family writ large. A family adopts, they don't count borders, servants, or exchange students. And typically don't adopt someone with alien clutures and practices.

Vox is of mixed descent, but I'm sure his family had its own traditons and customs when they got together on holidays. If they were to adopt an infant, it would be expected that as an adult, they would continue the traditions and customs of the family, not of whatever origin.

Blogger Michael Maier June 25, 2017 8:50 PM  

This whole thing does make one wonder.

I am a Mayflower descendant. But my dad's dad was full-blooded German, at least some of which came over in the late 1800s to make beer in Roxbury, Mass.

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

Anonymous tublecane June 25, 2017 8:52 PM  

@192-What is with all this "legal force" stuff? Are you unfamiliar with the Preamble and its purpose? It's part of the Constitution, too. The Constitution is not all Force of Law. If you need stuff like this laid out for you tbbbbbbhavoid misunderstanding, others don't. Don'blame others' "Hey, see here"'s for yousuperficiality

Blogger Nick S June 25, 2017 8:58 PM  

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

Anonymous Roundtine June 25, 2017 9:04 PM  

Nothing pisses off people more than people told they don't meet the club's standards. If you worry about being included, err on the side of being more Alt-Right than the Alt-Right. Even if the extreme White Nationalists win and kick out all non-whites, there are enough to form a right-wing buffer state. Hoteps will want a country too.

1 – 200 of 334 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts