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

Saturday, June 24, 2017

They broke their oaths

Oathkeepers are no more keeping their oaths to defend the American Constitution and thereby secure the Blessings of Liberty to the posterity of the People of the United States than conservatives have conserved anything.
Rich @itswildrich
White Nationalism - the radically "racist" idea that Whites have a right to preserve their homelands and culture. Just like everybody else.

Oath Keepers‏ @Oathkeepers
That is NOT what white nationalism is all about. They advocate 'saving' their race at expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not white.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday  now
Why do you support the elimination of American posterity? A nation is a people, not borders or an idea. You have failed your oaths.
They have broken their oaths. They are rightly dismissed with contempt as "Oathcuckers". They may not like to hear that, but it is obvious to anyone who understands the purpose of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

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

Posterity is not an idea. Posterity is not geography. Posterity is not paperwork. Posterity is descendance and DNA. Far too many U.S. citizens today are no more the posterity of We the People than they are of the Iroquois, the Cherokee, or the Mohicans, whose ancestral lands they now inhabit.

Labels: ,

511 Comments:

1 – 200 of 511 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 12:46 PM  

You three percenters reading this need to watch and learn so you can get your house in order.

Blogger Nate June 24, 2017 12:49 PM  

oathkeepers is currently a torn organization... between two factions fighting over the direction the organization will take.

One side is alt-right... the other side is cucked.

Either the alt-right side will win... or oathkeepers will disappear.

Blogger Bellguard June 24, 2017 12:54 PM  

>Oathcuckers

Lost it there.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 12:54 PM  

According to the current bylaws of the organization, none of the Founding Fathers would qualify for membership in an organization that swears to uphold the document the Founders wrote. So some frank discussion needs to be had internally.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 12:55 PM  

The Oathkeepers are the sort who of people who believe in authority. They aren't going to suddenly defy authority regardless of how twisted or perverse that authority defines the "oath".

They like things as they are and will oppose anyone who wants to change that... which means any right wing rebels.

They are worse than useless.

Think of them as the militant wing of National Review.

Anonymous Anonymous June 24, 2017 12:56 PM  

descendants?

Blogger Kek's SS Guard June 24, 2017 12:56 PM  

So, according to the Oafqueefer logic, they should oppose BLM idiots, La Raza, because their goal is saving their race at expense of all others.

Anonymous Nibiru June 24, 2017 12:57 PM  

Is Oathkeepers a 501(c)3? I have seen countless orgs start out so well just to sell out later to profiteering.

Blogger Kek's SS Guard June 24, 2017 12:58 PM  

They have perverted the very same oath that I took and hold dear.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 12:58 PM  

They did stare down the Feds on at least one occasion, which has landed some of them in federal prison. They aren't controlled opposition, just the tail end of Boomer thought and mindset.

They are sincere in their opposition to federal overreach. They just haven't thought everything through yet. Compare it to an individual gradually waking up to the reality that is Alt-Right. There is some internal struggle before that individual accepts reality.

This is the struggle that Nate referred to.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 12:59 PM  

Nevada Non-profit. Specifically not 501(c)3, for that reason.

Anonymous Fidel Naidoo June 24, 2017 12:59 PM  

Off topic - but I just busy watching a History Channel show about cults... I watch Jim Jones, fine, ... I watch Charles Manson, fine..... and then they say that the branch Davidians "got into a firefight with the FBI". ??? no details ??
OK, I like Trump ( not highly impressed lately ), but, if you look at the blood Janet Reno and her FBI slugs have on their hands from one incident, and then look at the blood the US Government has on it's hands....
It would be great if Trump changed the name of US to Kwanstain ( apologies: VaultCo ), and swore that Kwanstain would never murder it's own citizens ever.

Blogger ThirdMonkey June 24, 2017 1:02 PM  

Give them time. They'll figure out like the rest of us that Conservatism conserves nothing.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 1:03 PM  

Exactly

Blogger dc.sunsets June 24, 2017 1:13 PM  

Still bumping along the ceiling of a social mood mania. People talk, talk, talk, but their actions reveal a clear belief in unlimited resources.

Nothing substantial will change until that ends, but when it does, it will be as stark a change as 1914 vs 1917 or 1928 vs 1932. We all know what followed the hardship of the 1930's.

Will the names of organizations change or will they suddenly just look different?

H2O is quite different at 32.1 deg F vs 31.9 deg F, especially if you used the 3 meter board.

Blogger Robert What? June 24, 2017 1:16 PM  

You fools. Don't you know the rules? Whites are the only identity group who are not permitted to pursue / vote their own interests.

Anonymous Conservative War Fighter June 24, 2017 1:17 PM  

I have been a Republican Voter since Ronald Reagan. My dad served with Gerry Ford and my brother serves now with Rep. Justin Amash. I have studied conservatism and libertarianism for over 30 years. I've been a Catholic for over 20. So let me say this fact: White nationalism is Nazism and thus leftism. Probably the most evil leftism since it caused the Holocaust. If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.

Anonymous kfg June 24, 2017 1:17 PM  

Well, to pick a nit, I currently occupy land that was an intentionally unoccupied DMZ between two previously warring tribes, who, at least at first, thought that the idea of an uninterested third party interposed between them was probably a good thing for keeping the peace.

Anonymous Fortitude June 24, 2017 1:18 PM  

Adapt or die. There are a lot of other groups rising up like Proud Boys (who are still very disorganized) and some others that will fill the void that Oath Keepers will leave behind if they don't get with the program and change their tune.

Blogger roughcoat June 24, 2017 1:19 PM  

Conservative War Fighter wrote:Faggoty internet tough guy talk

I hope you try. I will be amused when you get shot for attacking the wrong person.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 1:20 PM  

Proud Boys has former Oath Keepers members and leadership in it right now. So it's already happening.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 1:21 PM  

17. Conservative War Fighter

If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.

So you Antifa (Antifascist Action) scum keep claiming, but it hasn't worked out that way when you aren't beating on women and old folks has it?

Blogger Happy LP9 June 24, 2017 1:22 PM  

Meme I heard from Milo today: "HATEFACTS!!"

Vox is right; "They have broken their oaths. They are rightly dismissed with contempt as "Oathcuckers". They may not like to hear that, but it is obvious to anyone who understands the purpose of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold."

OK or Oath Keepers are being red pilled or awakened or rethinking for what their group is, they need to level up their thinking.

2; God bless everyone and Nate; Since it was written I sent the 16 points by VOX DAY, Cucks and SJWAL

Anonymous kfg June 24, 2017 1:23 PM  

"I've been a Catholic for over 20."

You have to go back.

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 24, 2017 1:23 PM  

I knew they were completely cucked when they aided and abetted an illegal alien's attack on a white nationalist in Houston. Their oath - apparently some form of ghost-dancing to a document which is long dead and gone - means zero. Oathcuckers is perfect. Another Tea-Party type racket.

Anonymous Difster June 24, 2017 1:23 PM  

The Summer of rage is here. On one side, you have the left that thinks that everyone that is not them is a Fascist, Nazi, racist, homophobic, Trump supporting bigot of the worst kind. On the other side, you have a vast array of interests lining up against the left, some of which are hard core white supremacists, but are really mostly just regular Americans that have finally realized that they need to protect their own self-interest against the "progressive" left.

Oath Keepers is allowing the left to define what the Alt-Right is for them and reacting to that definition. It's a shame really.

Blogger Happy LP9 June 24, 2017 1:25 PM  

23 ...books, points, rec'ed by many; I am concerned for antifa 7/2

Blogger SB Wright June 24, 2017 1:28 PM  

"That is NOT what white nationalism is all about. They advocate 'saving' their race at expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not white."

Good to know the official Oath keeper position: anyone not white is innocent. Should this sort of unintentional revelation be dubbed a "Freudian cuck"?

Blogger VD June 24, 2017 1:29 PM  

Conservative War Fighter

That's a contradiction in terms. Conservatives don't fight for anything.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 1:29 PM  

Conservative War Fighter wrote:If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.
You see them every day. You do not smash their faces. You grovel towards them and take their orders. You believe everything they tell you and you take their orders. They taught you, they rule you, they define your every thought and every waking moment.
And they've told you to be mad at cartoon frogs.

What a maroon.

Anonymous andon June 24, 2017 1:30 PM  

Oath Keepers‏ @Oathkeepers
That is NOT what white nationalism is all about. They advocate 'saving' their race at expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not white.


who's trying to harm innocents?

i just want them gone

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 1:32 PM  

I knew they were frauds ten years ago

http://www.subvertednation.net/oath-keepers-are-a-fraud/

http://www.subvertednation.net/real-oath-keepers/

Blogger Happy LP9 June 24, 2017 1:34 PM  

25 I saw that as well, I noted their sorry state last year, perhaps they will turn around.

Anonymous andon June 24, 2017 1:34 PM  

17. Anonymous Conservative War Fighter June 24, 2017 1:17 PM
I have been a Republican Voter since Ronald Reagan. My dad served with Gerry Ford and my brother serves now with Rep. Justin Amash. I have studied conservatism and libertarianism for over 30 years. I've been a Catholic for over 20.


yeah, we get it. you're a cuck

So let me say this fact: White nationalism is Nazism and thus leftism. Probably the most evil leftism since it caused the Holocaust. If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.

what happens when the "nazi" is 6'5 250 and punches back, tough guy

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 24, 2017 1:35 PM  

Conservative War Fighter wrote:
I have been a Republican Voter since Ronald Reagan. My dad served with Gerry Ford and my brother serves now with Rep. Justin Amash. I have studied conservatism and libertarianism for over 30 years. I've been a Catholic for over 20. So let me say this fact: White nationalism is Nazism and thus leftism. Probably the most evil leftism since it caused the Holocaust. If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.

You have conserved nothing - not even a woman's bathroom. You are a heretic whose god is Judeo-Christ and a traitor who aids and abets the genocide of several nations. Nazis don't really exist any more - they are largely phantoms of your Marxist saturated pea-brain which parrots lies. Even Musloids are less contemptable. You have to go back.

Blogger Nationalist Flicka June 24, 2017 1:36 PM  

Thanks for calling it out Vox. They've really been working my last nerve in recent months.

Anonymous Urban II June 24, 2017 1:37 PM  

White nationalism is Nazism and thus leftism. Probably the most evil leftism since it caused the Holocaust.

This is completely wrong. Nazism was not the defense of the European people, it was not strictly nationalist and wasn't White Supremacy. The Nazis were Aryan Supremacist who dreamed of an Ayran empire subjugating the "inferior" White nations of Europe.

Anonymous Panzer Man June 24, 2017 1:38 PM  

Conservative War Fighter wrote:I have been a Republican Voter since Ronald Reagan. My dad served with Gerry Ford and my brother serves now with Rep. Justin Amash. I have studied conservatism and libertarianism for over 30 years. I've been a Catholic for over 20. So let me say this fact: White nationalism is Nazism and thus leftism. Probably the most evil leftism since it caused the Holocaust. If I ever see Nazis in person, I will smash their face.

So the subjugation or extermination of your own people is now "innocence?" And "trying to survive while white" is evil?

So, how's it feel to be a traitor supporting the annihilation of your own kind?

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 1:42 PM  

37. Urban II

This is completely wrong. Nazism was...

Old definition.

New definition...you!

...and anyone else they don't currently like.

Besides, calling someone a Nazi sounds cooler than poopyhead.

Blogger DeploraBard June 24, 2017 1:44 PM  

what happens when the "nazi" is 6'5 250 and punches back, tough guy

He will raise his 20 year Catholic blessed holy item and deflect the blow of course

Anonymous LurkingPuppy June 24, 2017 1:44 PM  

Repetetitive Attempted Parodist wrote:Rep. Justin Amash … I've been a Catholic for …
It's not funny anymore.

Blogger Shamgar June 24, 2017 1:45 PM  

So anyone not white is innocent? Why that's just racist.

Blogger DeploraBard June 24, 2017 1:47 PM  

Oathcuckers is a perfect shiv. Ironic how many names can be perfectly mocked by changing part of it to cuck

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams June 24, 2017 1:50 PM  

Found the cuckservative. How's that bathroom thing working out for the women in your family?

Blogger Shamgar June 24, 2017 1:54 PM  

For being white nationalists, the Nazis sure killed a lot of white people (Slavs, for some reason, were inferior to the Aryan).

Blogger Al From Bay Shore June 24, 2017 1:55 PM  

I know this is discourse in which I'm supposed to remain on the sidelines but I have to interject. When I identify as espousing Black nationalist ideas, I do not get anything close to the vitriol endured by White folks who express some semblance of White nationalism.

My laughter is not at you guys but at the Cucks and SJWs. Keep on keepin' on! And stay on your side of the fence, though we can have beer and wings together at Wild Wings.

Anonymous Baby Boomer Elder Son June 24, 2017 1:55 PM  

Being a former member of OK'ers as a military veteran, who, along with many other veterans at the beginning of its inception, who were kicked out on a witch hunt, for not grabbing their crotches and gyrating their loins in orgasmic adulation to copdom, was enough for many. Somehow, holding accountable many of the cop members, was not part of the "reach, teach, and educate", when hearing things like, "If you don't like the law that we enforce, then vote to change it." Thus, nullifying their very "Oath to the constitution".

Anonymous Nibiru June 24, 2017 1:59 PM  

@17.`` My brother serves with Rep. Justin Amash.`` Oh no. Amash was a NeverTrumper and backed Ted Cruz. Why are you here?

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams June 24, 2017 2:00 PM  

@Al From Bay Shore

How do you see black nationalism playing out? Mass migration to Liberia? Segregation? Something else?

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:02 PM  

I am guessing that this Oath "Keeper" is of generation X. This proves that our parents' generation have utterly and completely failed our generation in one respect, that is, in transmitting to us the understanding that we now have through discussing amongst ourselves and from reading history -- that which is the most basic and historically normal system of values in which our nation and people are those to whom our highest loyalty is owed. The fact that this is now rare is an indictment of such seriousness that it would lead to heads rolling in times past. Our parents are strangers to us -- we are of another time.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:03 PM  

Israel has a wall.

Is Zionism "[the advocation of] 'saving' their race at [the] expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not [Jewish]."


If not, is that then a "Jewish privilege" only?

I'd like to know.

Anonymous BBGKB June 24, 2017 2:06 PM  

They advocate 'saving' their race at expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not white

If white people stop giving out handouts the number of black/brown people in the world would be cut in 80% by next year.

That's a contradiction in terms. Conservatives don't fight for anything.

Not even for Israel to expand it's borders?

How's that bathroom thing working out for the women in your family?

I came across a link earlier this week about an ugly black guy who owned an ice cream store that had a camera set up in the girls bathroom but I can't find it now. I think it was in Philly.

But I did find 3 recent links for the Philly area.
http://abc7ny.com/news/janitor-charged-with-placing-camera-in-womens-bathroom-at-village-hall/2128081/
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/06/07/police-investigating-sexual-assault-wawa/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/05/17/barnes-noble-berks-county-attack/

Blogger Al From Bay Shore June 24, 2017 2:06 PM  

@49 A term I should have used is "localism" rather than "nationalism". It is my belief that Black folks should form a dependency upon the economies of their own families, neighborhoods, and neighborhoods rather than to integrate and seek dependence on government (taxpayers). I am favorable to the ideas of the Bookerites; that Black folks should have developed economic independence rather than political dependence. The latter without the former is symbol without substance. That's the best I can offer at this moment (I'm a bit hungover - celebrating my "born day").

Blogger Al From Bay Shore June 24, 2017 2:08 PM  

@49 Errata: the second usage of "neighborhoods" should have been "communities".

Anonymous The Original Arrogant Penguins Fan June 24, 2017 2:10 PM  

The Oath Keepers always were about as useless as the Tea Party, nothing surprising here. In fact don't be surprised if they end up providing cover for armed convoys of illegal immigrants coming into the country.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 2:10 PM  

@53

Kind of like a Liberia within the borders of the U.S.A. would work out for you then.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:11 PM  

No, posterity isn't, or isn't just. One more time (from Everyjoe):

Firstly, what does, or can, the word, “Posterity,” mean? It has three possible meanings. It can mean one’s actual legal descendants and heirs. It can also mean just succeeding generations. It can also mean simply later times...

Samuel Johnson, in his mammoth dictionary, the last edition contemporary with ratification and, in the first edition, preceding the Revolution, defines it as both descendants and succeeding generations. Note that, if “succeeding generations” means the same thing as descendants, or vice versa, it would have been unnecessary to include both definitions.

Dr. Johnson also cited to Latin, wherein posteritas also means both future generations and one’s actual descendants, but also future times.

However, Johnson was not descended from the successful revolutionaries of 1776 nor even related to the statesmen of 1789. We could, perhaps discount him and his dictionary. Unfortunately, Johnson’s own posterity, Webster, uses much the same definitions, as both one’s specific descendants and succeeding generations, generally. Of course Webster does come after but is very close in time, presumptively also very close in meaning, to the language of the day.

Ah, but I hear the mutter, “the addition of the word ‘our’ must restrict it to descendants alone.” No, add our to either definition and both stand equally well on their own – “our descendants,” “our succeeding generations” – without changing their relationship or meaning.

Still, it’s an arguable point. Madison and company could have meant only the descendants of the then “People of the United States.” That would include a number of half breeds from Indian-settler matches, of course, as well as some numbers of Dutch and Germans, Scots and Irish, and a few French, among the latter, Lafayette, who was not native born. Oh, and a non-native born German, von Steuben, as well as a couple of Poles, Pulaski and Kościuszko. Yeah, and, ah, Dave Farragut’s dad. You know, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” Farragut? “Old Heart of Oak” Farragut? Yeah, his old man, who was a native of Minorca. Yes, that means those were Spanish eyes scanning over the smoke-shrouded waters of Mobile Bay, at the flame-belching CSS Tennessee.

It’s not that arguable a point, though, failing on at least two grounds, one of omission and one of commission.

You see, though they didn’t have all the books we do now, these were highly educated and extremely intelligent men, drafting our constitution. Among other things, they read Hobbes, too.

It would have been easy enough for them to have written into the Constitution, words to the effect of, “The law for citizenship in the United States shall be the same as prevailed in that other great democracy, Athens, at the time of Pericles.” That would even have allowed for special dispensation in deserving cases, as Pericles’ son by the courtesan, Aspasia, was granted citizenship, even though not full blooded Athenian.

But they didn’t. There were an infinite number of ways to have restricted citizenship if they’d wished to. Since they didn’t, and they were educated and intelligent men, we must presume they didn’t want to.

Instead, they wrote into the Constitution an understanding and intent to permit naturalization, with the implication of immigration (which, curiously, they also didn’t try to limit, except in the case of blacks and, especially, slaves). Turn to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2:

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:11 PM  

continues:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

There’s that mutter again; “Well, clearly they were thinking that one would become a citizen at age eighteen, because twenty-five minus seven is eighteen, which would also be a presumptive voting age.”

Well, that’s certainly devastating, or would be were it not for Article One, Section Three, Clause Three, which reads:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

See, when the math leads to two different ages, they’re not talking about a voting age. Instead they’re talking about higher qualifications for more important offices, in the context of permitting people who were not citizens, who came from outside, to come in and become citizens.

Moreover, shortly thereafter, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was enacted. This – written by men closely in tune with the tenor of the times and either drafters of the Constitution, or associates of those who drafted it – permitted free white aliens, who had been resident for two years, to become citizens.

There’s that muttering again, “Well, it doesn’t cover blacks.”

That’s absolutely true, no argument at all. The Fourteenth Amendment covered blacks. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

I suppose, as a last ditch, that someone might argue we intended that only British should be allowed to immigrate. Think about that for a bit. It’s 1790. We’ve just finished a war with the British. We’re still enemies. We still think of each other as enemies, real or potential. Indeed, we will continue to do so until the nineteen thirties, despite having been allied at least once. By the thirties, of course, our power relationship had inverted. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, though, we were weak and vulnerable. We had them off all our coasts. We had them allied with hostile Indians to our west. They have a huge base in the great white wasteland to the north. But we’re going to limit immigration to them and them only. Puh-leeze!

One can, of course, still argue that it was a mistake to have been so liberal about immigration and naturalization from such an early day. That is, however, a different argument,



Blogger VD June 24, 2017 2:12 PM  

It is my belief that Black folks should form a dependency upon the economies of their own families, neighborhoods, and neighborhoods rather than to integrate and seek dependence on government (taxpayers).

Don't worry, you'll get your own nation on former US soil. Maintaining continental integrity is not important. Maintaining homogeneous and sustainable nation-states is.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:12 PM  

Israel has a wall.

That seems to have been at the expense of harming innocents not Jewish. Is that alright? Is so, why?

Will some conservative please answer these questions?

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 24, 2017 2:12 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 2:17 PM  

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was incredibly restrictive. Washington signed it only law. White people only.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:17 PM  

Israel has a wall.

Isn't the Israeli-Palestinian issue easy to solve? Why not a consititutional proposition nation based on an idea open to all? If thats not the answer, why not?

Blogger VD June 24, 2017 2:17 PM  

There were an infinite number of ways to have restricted citizenship if they’d wished to. Since they didn’t, and they were educated and intelligent men, we must presume they didn’t want to.

No, we mustn't. This is the mistake you lawyers always make. You assume that they could accurately foresee all the possibilities that we do. But they could not, and did not.

Posterity means the genetic descendants of We the People - who, I admit, were not entirely, though mostly, British. A British man who is naturalized today is not Posterity. Neither is an Irishman who arrived in 1850 or a Jew who arrived in 1910.

Call them what you will, but don't call them Posterity. Otherwise, you might as well call them all Mohicans, even though there are no more Mohicans anymore.

Anonymous OK1 June 24, 2017 2:18 PM  

>>If not, is that then a "Jewish privilege" only?

God gave Israel to the Jews. Plain and simple. Read your Bible if you have one.

>>Not even for Israel to expand it's borders?

According to the Bible, Israel's true borders should be much larger under God's law. Nine times in the Bible, the land of Israel is referred as "from Dan to Beersheba, and 3 times it is referred as "from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt” (1 Kings 8:65, 1 Chronicles 13:5 and 2 Chronicles 7:8)."

You alt-retards need to invest in a Bible.

Blogger DeploraBard June 24, 2017 2:19 PM  

China has a great wall

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 2:20 PM  

Really excellent

Blogger Chiva June 24, 2017 2:24 PM  

@65 OK1. Did you just want to sperg? Did you even try to understand his argument?

Blogger Johnny Philosopher June 24, 2017 2:25 PM  

"Harming innocents"? I suppose believing in each nation group's right to sovereignty is somehow harmful to them. I take this to mean that if we whites keep Mexicans in Mexico then their country would implode.

White libs are too feminized as they have a global maternal instinct. "My babies in Mexico are going to starve if the can't cross the border to be safe in my loving arms!"

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:26 PM  

@65 "God gave Israel to the Jews. Plain and simple. Read your Bible if you have one." OK1

Simple answers for simple minds...

God did and it served it's clearly stated purpose. That purpose was completed 2,000 years ago.


You Zionists need to read your Bible and accept what it states. Do you have a Bible. Do you read it? And more importantly do you have the intellectual capability to even understand what it clearly states?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 2:29 PM  

OK1 wrote:God gave Israel to the Jews. Plain and simple. Read your Bible if you have one.
And God took it away again.
What do Ashkenhazi have to do with Biblical Jews?

The people who identify as Jews now exist, as a group, specifically, obdurately, intentionally and as a matter of their own self-identification, as anti-Christ. Real Jews, spiritual Jews, circumcised in their hearts rather than on their bodies, became the Church. These are rather Jews falsely so-called.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:29 PM  

Israel has a wall.


Israel served its purpose. It completed its Biblical mission approximately 2,000 years. There is a new Israel. And guess what? It's not a place.

This is basic Christianity OK1.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 2:30 PM  

60. Godfrey

Israel has a wall.

That seems to have been at the expense of harming innocents not Jewish. Is that alright? Is so, why?


They are anti-white and anti-western.

Anything that harms whites or the west is good and anything that benefits whites or the west is bad.

It's not that difficult.

The babble and empty justifications for why they behave this way is best ignored. There is no deep thought involved nor any rational political ideology. It's all hysteria and emotions.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:30 PM  

I think it was Bourke who said we have a pact and obligations, not just with the living -- we have a pact with the living, the dead, and those yet to be born. By allowing mass immigration (anything more than a particular individual) in order to gain worldly approval you are breaking your pact with the dead and those yet to be born.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore June 24, 2017 2:30 PM  

@59 That nation-state thingy!!! There is something to be said about the small republic. As I grow older, I know understand why Staten Island wanted to secede from NYC. Where I currently live, Black leftists are vigorously opposing a secessionist faction within their county. The secessionists are tired of surrendering income to subsidize dysfunction in the lower half of the county. Leftist (collectivist) politics depend on coercion, confiscation, and dependency.

Anonymous Muh Sci Fi June 24, 2017 2:30 PM  

Speaking of dishonest weasels...

>>There were an infinite number of ways to have restricted citizenship if they’d wished to

Such as the The Naturalization Act of 1790?

Blogger Calven June 24, 2017 2:31 PM  

Purge! Purge! Purge!

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 2:32 PM  

ThirdMonkey wrote:Give them time. They'll figure out like the rest of us that Conservatism conserves nothing.

There is no time.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:33 PM  

I know you don't see this, Vox, but when you make the argument "they couldn't foresee" you are tacitly admitting that they didn't foresee. In other words, they intended what I claim, not what you do. I don't know why you non-lawyers keep making this mistake...

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 2:34 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:Still bumping along the ceiling of a social mood mania. People talk, talk, talk, but their actions reveal a clear belief in unlimited resources.

Nothing substantial will change until that ends, but when it does, it will be as stark a change as 1914 vs 1917 or 1928 vs 1932. We all know what followed the hardship of the 1930's.

Will the names of organizations change or will they suddenly just look different?

H2O is quite different at 32.1 deg F vs 31.9 deg F, especially if you used the 3 meter board.


https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/dew-point-analogy-to-rk-and-economics/

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 24, 2017 2:34 PM  

@65 So where did God tell the Christians that we need to go fight and die for Israel so it can have its biblical borders back? IIRC that's not in the Bible - it's the Talmud that says each jew will have ~2800 goy slaves.

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 24, 2017 2:35 PM  

@80 It's almost like the Founders never intended to naturalize anyone who wasn't white or something...

OH WAI-

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:35 PM  

Israel has a wall.


I have no problem with Israel's wall. Why can't white people have a country and a wall? I notice rich white people in Hollywood and The Hamptons have walls aorund their properties. Why is that?

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:36 PM  

"The Naturalization Act of 1790 was incredibly restrictive. Washington signed it only law. White people only."

Absolutely, but not restricted to British white people, and certainly not only descendants of those here for the revolution, so called.

Anonymous BBGKB June 24, 2017 2:39 PM  

This is the mistake you lawyers always make. You assume that they could accurately foresee all the possibilities that we do.

Surely Ben Franklin saw the possibility of government workers groping travelers for $20/hr when he said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Or perhaps this quote fits the TSA better "
Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine

The Founders knew what would be the US undoing
“If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.” – George Washington

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:39 PM  

@82 "So where did God tell the Christians that we need to go fight and die for Israel so it can have its biblical borders back? IIRC that's not in the Bible" NO GOOGLES


He didn't. But I bet the promotion of such a belief would be very beneficial to some people. I wonder who?

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 2:40 PM  

@Vox Day

"No, we mustn't. This is the mistake you lawyers always make. You assume[...]"

That's a feature, not a bug of lawyers.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:40 PM  

It is my belief that Black folks should form a dependency upon the economies of their own families, neighborhoods, and neighborhoods rather than to integrate and seek dependence on government (taxpayers).

To take a page from Stef. Molyneux, if there is no incentive in place for this to happen, then it will not happen of their own free accord since it is not in their interests to do so.

They are bribed through the welfare state and from their perspective they would take a pay cut - why? Just because somebody said that they "should".

Blogger Cail Corishev June 24, 2017 2:40 PM  

I don't consider myself a "white nationalist," because as we've talked about here, there is no "white nation" the way there is a French or Japanese nation. However, that doesn't mean people can't want a white nation (or nations) without wanting to harm everyone else, so @Oathkeepers is simply lying in his effort to purge his organization of badthinkers. And I'd lay odds that he'd happily throw into that mix the entire Alt-Right and everyone else who's insufficiently committed to anti-racism and the rest of the cuckservative platform, so there's no point in thinking, "Well, he's just talking about the bad white nationalists who do think that way." No, he's got the broad brush out.

I guess everyone who belongs to a converged/cucked organization has to decide for himself when/if it's reached the point where staying to fight from the inside is doing more harm than good. It's not always an easy call.

Anonymous Panzer Man June 24, 2017 2:40 PM  

@Tom Cuckman

So you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers deliberately designed the United States to become a sea of non-English-speaking brown people, overpopulated by hordes of low-IQ, violent migrants, in which their descendents would become hated pariahs, being white was considered a badge of shame and infamy, the Flag of the United States itself would be relegated to an emblem of white cis-hetero tyranny, and the very principles they tried to anchor the nation on -- free speech, the right of the people to keep and bear arms specifically to prevent central governmental tyranny, etc. -- would be assailed by the new Fake Americans and their handlers?

They created the United States of America specifically to lead to the destruction of the United States of America and the supplanting of Americans by foreigners? It was a deliberately designed racial, cultural, ethnic, and societal suicide pact from the start?

And then there's John Jay in the Federalist No. 2:

"I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties..."

It's basic insanity to assume that they intended their country to become a vast third world slum on the prairie and a veritable Babel of foreign hordes who hate each other's guts and despise every idea the country was founded on, with the exception of being able to plunder its wealth and occupy its territory thanks to traitors and (((saboteurs))).

Anonymous DissidentRight June 24, 2017 2:41 PM  

@65 You alt-retards need to invest in a Bible.

I know this is hard to understand, but the whole “chosen people” thing came to an end around the same time Jesus chose to pay for the sins of the whole world and Judaism became the religion of anti-Christ.

Blogger S1AL June 24, 2017 2:43 PM  

"Posterity means the genetic descendants of We the People - who, I admit, were not entirely, though mostly, British. A British man who is naturalized today is not Posterity. Neither is an Irishman who arrived in 1850 or a Jew who arrived in 1910."

This is contradictory to the Naturalization Act of 1790 that is so commonly cited here. You're left choosing between arguing that they changed their minds in 4 years, or that they didn't intend that those blessings be extended to naturalized citizens, which is obviously absurd.

Moreover, if they meant solely generic descendants, the word used would have been "progeny". It strictly means genetic descendants.

Now, as Kratman noted, you can argue that they were in error, but there's no rational way to reconcile the "genetic descendants only" stance with the 1790 law.

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 2:44 PM  

It's one thing to offer medicine, food and clothing, buying up land and technology to make self-sufficient. Those are Christian Charity. Providing arms and military support outside of Lawful land purchases and treaties makes us look like golems.

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:46 PM  

@92 "I know this is hard to understand, but the whole “chosen people” thing came to an end around the same time Jesus chose to pay for the sins of the whole world and Judaism became the religion of anti-Christ." DissidentRight


Wow. You not only read the Bible, but you actually comprehend it.

You know... that's not as common as one would think.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:46 PM  

@91

Pussy-girl, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Idiot.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:46 PM  

@Tom Kratman

Brevity is the soul of wit, don't you know.

Too much text in one block mate!

We aren't all hifalutin legal types like you who can slog through that slab of latin alphabetic output!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 2:47 PM  

S1AL,

They would have pulled a Hermit Kingdom if they wanted only the direct progeny to inhabit the country. They accepted immigration, or they would have written the Naturalization Act of 1790 differently. They wanted to maintain the same source rock, so to speak

Blogger VD June 24, 2017 2:47 PM  

This is contradictory to the Naturalization Act of 1790 that is so commonly cited here. You're left choosing between arguing that they changed their minds in 4 years, or that they didn't intend that those blessings be extended to naturalized citizens, which is obviously absurd.

It's not absurd at all. The Preamble to the Constitution is the defining ideal. The Naturalization Act of 1790 is the practical compromise with the current situation. Your problem is that you don't understand that US Citizen != We the People or Posterity of We the People.

As others have pointed out, madness lies every other way. You and Qaddafi can claim that everyone is an American if you like. In that case, there is no such thing as American.

Do you insist that you are also the Posterity of Rome and the Iroquois Nation?

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 2:48 PM  

White Nationalists (alt-Retards?) seem to have founded the United States.

http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen

Not British, just white.

Blogger Esmar Tuek June 24, 2017 2:49 PM  

Conservative fighters, I'm shaking at the thought. Couldn't even defend the right of a little girl to use the bathroom free of big hairy men in skirts. "Couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag" may have a replacement phase

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:49 PM  

Which would be significant, Grog, were I trying to be funny. Since I am not...

Anonymous Godfrey June 24, 2017 2:49 PM  

@97

You beat me to it.



Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 2:49 PM  

@S1AL

Vox.... ^case in favor for why 10,000 lawyers on the bottom of the sea is a good start.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:50 PM  

Yes, as a matter of fact, since Posteritas also meant "future times" in latin, we _are_ the posterity of Rome.

Anonymous DissidentRight June 24, 2017 2:51 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:"The Naturalization Act of 1790 was incredibly restrictive. Washington signed it only law. White people only."

Absolutely, but not restricted to British white people, and certainly not only descendants of those here for the revolution, so called.


But a naturalized white immigrant isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as an American. Theoretically, if enough non-English speaking Europeans had immigrated, the dominant language of the US would no longer be English, and therefore not American.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 2:52 PM  

@61 Why did Israel get repeatedly invaded? Why did Israel repeatedly go into captivity? And, the return of Israel today, is the beginning of, what?

It is not about "Israel", or "the Jews", but geographical cosmology.

Try The Unseen Realm, by Dr. Michael Heiser.

And, while you are at it, think about WHO Abraham's descendants are.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 2:52 PM  

They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:52 PM  

"US Citizen != We the People or Posterity of We the People."

Except that, as demonstrated, posterity is not limited to genetic descendant.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 2:53 PM  

"But a naturalized white immigrant isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as an American."

They don't seem to have drawn the distinction between American and American Citizen.

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams June 24, 2017 2:53 PM  

@Al From Bay Shore

Good luck with your goals. I really hope they come to pass. It's the best hope for a peaceful black-white coexistence.

Happy birthday!!

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 2:55 PM  

@108, That one was for you, Tom.

Anonymous White Nationalist June 24, 2017 2:56 PM  

If muh Constitution is what enables this invasion, then it should be burned along with its supporters.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 2:56 PM  

"Anyone who is not against us is for us."

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 2:57 PM  

@ VD

Don't worry, you'll get your own nation on former US soil. Maintaining continental integrity is not important. Maintaining homogeneous and sustainable nation-states is.

This is plausible however it is by no means certain.
We have historical analogues for example Brazil.
Perhaps what will happen when h'whites become a minority in the good ole USA is precisely what happened when they became a minority in other historical analogues such as Brazil.
Were there any bloody revolutions on the streets? No.
Were there are ethnic wars? Not really.
You mention Bosnia and so on and that is possible however we seem to be seeing that Europe is a different things from the colonial countries USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa.
Speaking of South Africa there has been no Alt-Right rising in South Africa on the contrary the whites are on the brink of being genocided out of existence, there is no push back.
What people don't know about South Africa is that the blacks were not slaves there and the blacks were migrants into the white colonies there, and they were minorities furthermore, but by outbreeding the whites they gained the ascendancy.
It seems quite likely that in the USA it will become more and more like Brazil, that is to say, small affluent and well-to-do white gated communities, surrounded in a sea of third world chaos. No white ethno-state...
This is what is likely to happen in the former British colonial countries.
Europe may be different.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:00 PM  

"If muh Constitution is what enables this invasion, then it should be burned along with its supporters."

Probably a little short sighted and showing a somewhat limited grasp of history. We let in lots of (white) folks from the beginning because we had enemies all around and a continent to conquer and tame. It later got expanded past the point of reason, indeed, tom insanity, but nothing is perfect and nothing good lasts forever.

Blogger Billy Ray June 24, 2017 3:00 PM  

"A nation is a people, not borders or an idea." WRONG

our forefathers bought forth a NEW nation, conceived in LIBERTY

America IS AN IDEA. that is the basis of American exceptionalism, we are MORE than just race, we are a heavenly cause. we revert to just being white folks, then we are no different from everyone else. this white nationalism shit is just recycled KKK crap from the 1920s

and if you are so pro whitey does this mean you want white hillary over black ben carson? oh right, can;t let facts get in the way of your racist whitey uber alles rant

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:01 PM  

Not sure quite how, Aeoli.

Anonymous BBGKB June 24, 2017 3:02 PM  

Is Pizzagate offtopic to OafCuckers?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/breaking-feds-explain-sweet-deal-for-billionaire-sex-offender-epstein/nN5WTmFcZRaRXzHZSYWtLP/

I didn't know Ken Star defended Epstein

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 3:02 PM  

Holy shit Billy Ray. You went full potato.

Blogger S1AL June 24, 2017 3:05 PM  

"Do you insist that you are also the Posterity of Rome and the Iroquois Nation?"

Kratman keeps bearing me to it, but in a sense of inheritance of customs, yes to the first. No to the second, but only because it's the wrong group of Amerind.

And you've created the false dichotomy that one must choose between "magic dirt" and "genetic descendants only". It's completely consistent with my other views to say that the practical reality is a middle ground, wherein those who are not genetic descendants may be grafted into the nation, as has been prescribed by virtually every civilization on the planet, to one degree or another.

It is also equally consistent for me to say that we have way too damn much immigration and that I prefer to live in a fundamentally, though not necessarily completely, white society of primarily British (*) character and culture.

*I'm noting, because it amuses me, that the British were already a conglomerate ethnicity, 25% German and some amount of French.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:05 PM  

"Don't worry, you'll get your own nation on former US soil. Maintaining continental integrity is not important. Maintaining homogeneous and sustainable nation-states is."

It's militarily preposterous to give up a contiguous chunk of land, inside your borders, to a numerous people who do not bear you good will. See, forex, Rome and the Goths. It would be better to simple go full on genocide, now, since that will be the end result.

However, that is not the limit of choices. We used to get along rather better than we do now. We might again if we extirpated the liberalism that has done so much to ruin the blacks and to sour relations between us.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 3:07 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Not sure quite how, Aeoli.

There are four lessons in there if you can find them.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 24, 2017 3:08 PM  

our forefathers bought forth a NEW nation, conceived in LIBERTY

Lincoln was a white nationalist

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 3:09 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:"A nation is a people, not borders or an idea." WRONG

No you are wrong.

Nation comes from the latin word nascere - to be born.

It relates to birth.

Nation does not mean state or country. It relates to birth and as we know from people like John McCain who was born in Panama, is he a Panamanian? Is that his nationality? No.
You are wrong.

Anonymous DissidentRight June 24, 2017 3:09 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:"But a naturalized white immigrant isn’t (necessarily) the same thing as an American."

They don't seem to have drawn the distinction between American and American Citizen.

And now there are millions and millions of American citizens who have foreign loyalties, speak English as a second language (if at all), and commit various acts of hot and cold war against other American citizens on a regular basis.

And this is all perfectly Constitutional, despite the fact that the Constitution specifies “posterity”? The fact that the term has other definitions doesn’t mean it can be defined to NOT mean “genetic descendants”. If the Constitution becomes incoherent when this particular definition is used, maybe the rest of the Constitution should bend around it, instead of vice versa. Given the costs involved...

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 3:10 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Which would be significant, Grog, were I trying to be funny. Since I am not...
Then why am I laughing at you?

Billy Ray wrote:America IS AN IDEA.
What is that IDEA?
Find me what percentage of the populace actually holds to that IDEA.
Then go watch your wife's boyfriend molest her son.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 24, 2017 3:10 PM  

And then there's John Jay in the Federalist No. 2:

"I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.


I approve of the alt white/ alt retard following this advice and converting to Christianity.

Anonymous DissidentRight June 24, 2017 3:10 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:our forefathers bought forth a NEW nation, conceived in LIBERTY

Lincoln was a white nationalist

Lincoln was a Yankee Supremacist.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 3:11 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:our forefathers bought forth a NEW nation, conceived in LIBERTY

Lincoln was a white nationalist


I disavow.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:11 PM  

@123

But, not being the King of Israel, not being Israili, not having married a pagan, and being a limited utility eugenicist, I don't think they apply to me.

Anonymous Sharrukin June 24, 2017 3:11 PM  

117. Billy Ray

The founders were white nationalists. No citizenship for non-whites.

And you say this was God inspired? Cool.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 3:11 PM  

Cut it out Snidely.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:12 PM  

Probably because you're not that bright, Snidely.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 3:13 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:@123

But, not being the King of Israel, not being Israili, not having married a pagan, and being a limited utility eugenicist, I don't think they apply to me.


It's a difficult book. What was Solomon's thing that he was famous for?

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 24, 2017 3:13 PM  

@117
You know how rollercoasters have signs that tell you how tall you have to be able to ride? This blog has a minimum IQ, and you are way below it. Scurry back to National Review, cucky.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:14 PM  

@126

Yes. The founding fathers may well have made a mistake. And, even if they didn't, what they allowed eventually became a major mistake.

As to the interpretation of the Constitution, you have mine. You don't have to like it.

Anonymous dr kill June 24, 2017 3:14 PM  

I'm enjoying this thread so much, I wish to only add that this so-called extreme position taken by VD is the only logical place for us to begin. This is the top of the hill, it's only down for any other idea

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 3:14 PM  

Bye-bye West. You are a has-been. Who no longer shares the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, and customs. It has become nothing but a confused mixture of sounds and voices of tumult, turmoil, uproar, bedlam, and clamor. - Elder Son

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:15 PM  

I'm not in the mood for 20 questions, Aeoli.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 3:15 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:It's militarily preposterous to give up a contiguous chunk of land, inside your borders, to a numerous people who do not bear you good will. See, forex, Rome and the Goths. It would be better to simple go full on genocide, now, since that will be the end result.
That ship has sailed. They are here, and we must deal with them.
Genocide might be the result, but we should avoid it if we can. And, frankly, I'm pretty sure the Goths had a +2SD IQ over our own violent minority.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:17 PM  

"Lincoln was a Yankee Supremacist."

Probably not. There's a pretty fair argument to be made that he intended a white nation (with some Injun admixture), but that his intent failed over the simply logistic impossibility of sending all the blacks to Africa or to Panama (which was plan B). He was fundamentally pragmatic, really, and had only one obvious goal, to keep the United States as one single nation.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 3:18 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:It's militarily preposterous to give up a contiguous chunk of land, inside your borders, to a numerous people who do not bear you good will. See, forex, Rome and the Goths. It would be better to simple go full on genocide, now, since that will be the end result.

The military don't cede territory, that is up to the statesmen when the peace is drawn up.

In the case of Islam in Europe, there can be no such agreements since this is a European conception of war and peace, not recognised or adhered to by the proponents and practioners of Jihad!

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) June 24, 2017 3:18 PM  

Holy shit Billy Ray. You went full potato.

The Irish have to go home now.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 3:19 PM  

We'll have to wait until I'm in the mood to sperg out, then.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:20 PM  

Probably 1 SD or slightly less.

But the IQ hardly matters, as any Rhodesian planter burned out and murdered by border crosses from Zambia and Mozambique would surely assert...via Ouija Board.

So it's still military imbecility. Fight the genocidal war or figure out something else, but don't make the prospects of success in that war less.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:21 PM  

I think you may have missed the point, Grog.

Contemplate, for a bit, all - and I mean _ALL_ - the "benefits" Rome gained by ceding contiguous areas to migrating barbarian tribes.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:23 PM  

And how the hell did I misspell Israeli?

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 3:23 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 3:29 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:But the IQ hardly matters, as any Rhodesian planter burned out and murdered by border crosses from Zambia and Mozambique would surely assert...via Ouija Board.
Isolated planters outnumbered a hundred or more to one are not the same thing as nation states.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 3:31 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I think you may have missed the point, Grog.

Contemplate, for a bit, all - and I mean _ALL_ - the "benefits" Rome gained by ceding contiguous areas to migrating barbarian tribes.


Yes I may have.

However in the second bit you are implying that it was the northern/eastern Germanic Europeans who brought down classical civilisation.

I forgive you for having this view for it is the conventional view. However I stumbled upon a better explanation of it which is that it was Islam that destroyed classical civilisation which after examining the lines of evidence and the very robust arguments, makes a lot more sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

It could be wrong but I haven't heard better arguments to refute it.

Anonymous FP June 24, 2017 3:33 PM  

@58

"There’s that muttering again, “Well, it doesn’t cover blacks.”

That’s absolutely true, no argument at all. The Fourteenth Amendment covered blacks. Rome wasn’t built in a day."

Indeed. It took 147 years for the 14th to be interpreted to also mean gay marriage is a right across all 50 states and territories.

Yet, marriage, let alone gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution nor the 14th.

Lawyers/judges have twice now upheld that taxation doesn't have to be equalized because interstate commerce clause. Despite the Constitution saying taxation explicitly has to be equal among all. The only exception for the feds is the income tax amendment.

Maybe I just don't care what lawyers and judges think anymore about the law.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 3:33 PM  

Careful now. Many of you are guilty of Whitesplaining.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/if-youre-white-and-have-opinions-youre-now-guilty-of-whitesplaining/

A big no-no in multicultural schizophrenic America.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable June 24, 2017 3:33 PM  

["Posterity"] can also mean simply later times...

Sure, until you plug the word "our" in front of it. Then it's a little more personal. Give it up, Tom. You know they didn't intend what we've got today. Not even close.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:34 PM  

@125 :John McCain who was born in Panama, is he a Panamanian?"

I should have caught this sooner, really.

If he'd wanted to assert Panamanian citizenship, ISTR that Panama considered the Canal Zone to be still sovereign Panamanian soil, so, yes, I think he could have been...if, again, he'd wanted to.

However, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, by which we acquired the Canal Zone, allowed the US to treat the Zone "as if sovereign." Hence, we maintained our own civil administration, our own laws, our own police, our own prisons, and our own Army there. Since a treaty becomes, in effect, a part of the constitution (though not, as many lefties have been trying to push in several ways for various ends, superior to the constitution), the Canal Zone and people born in it were probably entitled to be called natural born American citizens.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:37 PM  

@154

If you had read with some care, you would have seen that I covered "our" and that it makes no difference. If you would apply some brainpower, you would see that it doesn't matter to the question of what was intended that it turned out to be a mistake, which, to some extent, it did. You can argue it's a mistake, no problem. But their meaning at the time doesn't change because it turned out to have been a mistake.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:40 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:45 PM  

@159

Vox actually seems to be talking about a balkanized former United States of pissant, petty, and preposterous sovereignties.

However, no matter. The farmer is always going to be outnumbered by the platoon of raiders. It's an aspect of geometry and demographics, as well as military art. The defender is scattered and thin; the attacker can concentrate.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:46 PM  

That was supposed to be @150, Snidely.

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 24, 2017 3:47 PM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:
Holy shit Billy Ray. You went full potato.

Poor Billy never had much to start with. The last post exhibits not only full-retard but utopian heresy based on Judeo-Christ to boot. The "shining city" Billy refers to (the Fake Banana Empire) is a massive Babylonian tower of steaming coprolite, alive only with the buzzing of flies. It's definitely a suitable temple for a spiritual entity of a certain type...

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:47 PM  

@152

Yes, but every cloud has its silver lining. It's the 14th that has rendered most gun grabbing laws in the states unconstitutional.

I wonder how many folks here realize that the argument, "This X in the constitution turned out badly, eventually, hence the whole thing must be scrapped" is philosophically not all that different from the atheist plaint, "Well, there cannot be a god because the world isn't Heaven."

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 24, 2017 3:47 PM  

Wildly divergent interpretations of the Constitution and Intent are -- themselves, and ironically -- the outcome of a multiculturalism and intellectual panoply never intended.

Anonymous Bukulu June 24, 2017 3:48 PM  

Nah, I vote Moby.

Blogger VD June 24, 2017 3:48 PM  

Except that, as demonstrated, posterity is not limited to genetic descendant.

It hasn't been demonstrated. You've made a logical case. But the logic is based, among other questionable things we shall leave for the present, on the assumption that the signers of the Constitution are the same as the 1790 Congress.

Is that the case?

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 3:49 PM  

Fact. Whites in America who hold traditional white American culture are fast being out-bred by immigrants, old and new, of various cultural flavors. If this trend is not stopped, white traditional Americans WILL BE foreigners and strangers in the land of their ancestors.

Whites have a choice. Continue to be assimilated into this multicultural world that demands the destruction of traditional white culture and subservience to globalism, or end multiculturalism.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 24, 2017 3:52 PM  

If we're getting into aspects of territory & control, the two most valuable regions of the USA are the plains of the Midwest and the Central Valley in California. Any breakup of the USA or break down in borders will lead to attempts to conquer those regions. A push further south from controlling either region will net a huge supply of oil production.

If things go Order Down, severe ethnic clenasing will happen to secure those regions. It's the nature of the situation.

Blogger Quicksilver75 June 24, 2017 3:52 PM  

The continuing reflexive instinct for tut tutting those to one's right will hobble the Oathkeepers/Cuckers. Their tut tutting instinct is just a desire to ingratiate themselves with the establishment, or to some fictional Idealized "Pristine Center".
Normies & Pristine Centrists are not politically invested enough to really care anyway, and certainly aren't going to praise the Oathkeepers for these scolds of more ethno-nationalist types.

Empty Gestures which simply lower morale, sow chaos, and help the Left.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:53 PM  

@151

Islam finished it off, yes, not least by burning the scrolls of the library at Alexandria to heat bath water. But the Western Empire, the Latinate Empire formed by the city from which we, politically, descended, was done in by the earlier waves of barbarian migration, especially after ceding them homelands within its own boundaries.

Contemplate, too, what happens to Islam if the Western Empire never fell.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 3:54 PM  

I said what was the case; they're contemporaries.

But that alone is not what the case is built on. Look at the clauses I cited. Look at the dictionaries of the day and shortly thereafter I cited to. Look at the whole thing.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 3:55 PM  

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

Anonymous Jewnited State of Gay June 24, 2017 3:57 PM  

>>I wonder how many folks here realize that the argument, "This X in the constitution turned out badly, eventually, hence the whole thing must be scrapped"

Muh Constitution is literally their god. They will worship this piece of paper even as their daughters are raped and sons are murdered.

Anonymous VFM #6306 June 24, 2017 4:00 PM  

The Kratman error: Because "our" does not strongly enough modify "posterity", "our posterity" can't possibly have meant only the simplest, most likely interpretation (descendants).

The Day error: that the strong "our" is not knowingly weakened within the same document in Section 9 (of article 1) and section 1 of article 2.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 4:01 PM  

Ignore at your own peril.

Have a nice white day.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:02 PM  

@172

No, it's that "our," applied to any of the three definitions, doesn't make one of them overriding.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:03 PM  

@171

There's this thing called "amendment," you know.

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 4:03 PM  

@Tom Kratman

Arabian Islam ended the papyrus trade.

https://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-islam-destroyed-literary.html?m=1

Arabian Islam destroyed the ancient Mediterranean agriculture from North Africa to the Levant. As complex as anything the Chinese rice Terrance Culture or Southwest North American Indian Culture produced.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/who-really-killed-pax-romana.html?m=1

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:04 PM  

Yes, but the western empire was already gone by then, takin'.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 24, 2017 4:09 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:@159

Vox actually seems to be talking about a balkanized former United States of pissant, petty, and preposterous sovereignties.

However, no matter. The farmer is always going to be outnumbered by the platoon of raiders. It's an aspect of geometry and demographics, as well as military art. The defender is scattered and thin; the attacker can concentrate.


Now this is more interesting: the "weapons" of 4GW (e.g. 4chan and YouTube) reward diffusion and discourage concentration. If this situation lasts (and I won't suggest it will because I don't know), then we're looking at a future where Lanchester's law is standing on its head (i.e. a fraction in the exponent). I'll look around to see if anyone's ever modeled that.

Blogger Elder Son June 24, 2017 4:11 PM  

And then we watch whites become: nothing but a confused mixture of sounds and voices of tumult, turmoil, uproar, bedlam, and clamor.

As they multicult explain themselves into oblivion. Because muh "our posterity".

TJ knew. Listen to TJ.

Anonymous VFM #6306 June 24, 2017 4:14 PM  

The dictionaries include variant definitions, yes, but there is no way the Founders meant "future foreigners" with the phrase "our posterity" even though that technically is allowed in one of the Johnson definitions.

No way. Not remotely possible.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 4:15 PM  

@155

I didn't say citizenship, I said nationality.

The central point of Vox's original tweet was exactly that point.

Nation is from latin nascere, to be born, as in the nativity.

It's about your origin of birth rather than your geographical coordinates or legal jurisdiction.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 4:21 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Yes, but the western empire was already gone by then, takin'.

That may be right. It was definitely very weak.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. June 24, 2017 4:22 PM  

Either the signers of the Constitution all agreed as to what was meant by "Posterity" or they did not. If they did, there is necessarily a most applicable, and therefore over-riding, definition of "Posterity" needed to interpret the document properly. If they didn't agree, we would almost certainly have documentation of the disagreement. There is no such documentation.

In the context of the document and the milieu of the time, coupled with the writings of anyone who entered the orbit of the Constitution and the fact that the signers of the Constitution were all of common descent and custom, it's clear that what was meant by "Posterity" was Descendants: children, children's children, and so on, indefinitely; the race that proceeds from the progenitor; succeeding generations as opposed to ancestors.

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 24, 2017 4:24 PM  

@Kratman, How? Culturally, everyone was still Romanized. They were 30% literate with localized areas upwards of 90%. North Africa was still intimately tied as a breadbasket and source of medicines and ores.

Compare with after the Islamic expansion when literacy was reduced to .1% to monasteries and nunneries. Everything fell apart and the true dark ages hit Europe.

I'm reminded of your Caliphate book. The empire is old, fossilized, but new blood is trying to push out. Then suddenly, the rug is yanked from everyone.

Anonymous Scintan June 24, 2017 4:25 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I know you don't see this, Vox, but when you make the argument "they couldn't foresee" you are tacitly admitting that they didn't foresee. In other words, they intended what I claim, not what you do. I don't know why you non-lawyers keep making this mistake...

I am a lawyer, and I suggest that you re-visit your logic here, because it doesn't hold up.

Blogger pyrrhus June 24, 2017 4:26 PM  

What the signers meant (which is not in doubt, since the word "posterity" was well known) is currently irrelevant anyway....Either the people who made this country, the "nation", assert their rights to what they built, or they allow population replacement by other races, which will end in genocide...

Anonymous patrick kelly June 24, 2017 4:26 PM  

"the argument, "This X in the constitution turned out badly, eventually, hence the whole thing must be scrapped""

No, as it is currently applied in implemented by the PTB it is a zombie document, wielded contrary to original intended purpose (promoting liberty and freedom of self governed nation) to the point where it is no longer worthy or due whatever oath or allegiance of any who bother to cite them.

Any of those who show up to harm and destroy my family, church, neighborhood,community et'all under color of "oathkeeping" deserve every bit of blow'back, violence, and destruction upon themselves and theirs.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:29 PM  

Then perhaps you need to go back to your studies.

He's been arguing that they intended X. Here he argued that they couldn't foresee the result of Y, which is the opposite of X. They would not have had to have foreseen the result of Y, the opposite of X, if they had intended X all along. It's not a case of arguing in the alternative, but of arguing for the mutually exclusive, when X and Y are mutually exclusive.

Blogger SirGroggy June 24, 2017 4:30 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 24, 2017 4:30 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:Vox actually seems to be talking about a balkanized former United States of pissant, petty, and preposterous sovereignties.

However, no matter. The farmer is always going to be outnumbered by the platoon of raiders. It's an aspect of geometry and demographics, as well as military art. The defender is scattered and thin; the attacker can concentrate.

Which is the reason for the rise of the nation-state in the first place. If there is a future of pissant, petty, and preposterous sovereignties, it will be a temporary situation, of necessity. Either one grows stronger and subsumes the rest, or several confederate to provide mutual defense.
Aeoli Pera wrote:If this situation lasts (and I won't suggest it will because I don't know), then we're looking at a future where Lanchester's law is standing on its head
I had never heard of Lanchester's Law, so I looked it up. I can't imagine it being of any particular use as a predictive model except in terms of 1st generation and 2nd generation war. It's us to describe, say, the Battle of Britain has to rely on ex-post adjustment to actually describe the progress of combat.
For 4th generation, it completely misses where the actual conflict is happening.

Anonymous Avalanche June 24, 2017 4:33 PM  

@57 "our descendants," "our succeeding generations"

Go the other way in the tree: "our parents, (or forebears or ancestors": any could have been used?) and "our preceding generations." Those terms do NOT imply "anyone in the country"; they imply actual biological lines of descent.

How many levels do we (or more importantly, did THEY) include in "our descendants"? If, in general use, "our descendants" means children and grandchildren -- then "succeeding generations" is further *offspring* -- direct line.

Do any of the writings of the Founding Fathers show usage of that word in such a way as to give a hint to their meaning? (Does the OED for that time?)

Tom, you have made the decision that "succeeding generations" means anyone. I think many of us do not make that the intended definition. I very much doubt the Founding Fathers were contemplating what we're being swamped by now! Or even a minor version of same.


Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother June 24, 2017 4:35 PM  

The intent of the posterity phrase in the Preamble has many pieces of supporting evidence, most of which is quoted here. One Franklin quote that I can't find at the moment concerngs the German immigrants, and Franklin's concerns over whether they would be able to assimilate with the Englishmen present in The Colonies.

It's as much in doubt as the intent of the Second Amendment and its supporting evidence.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:36 PM  

I think you are missing the higher point, Patrick.

Everything good or bad must be measured not just by scope, length, depth, and intensity, but also by _duration_. The most intense multiple orgasm in history is a bad deal when followed by an eternity in Hell, for example.

In this case, the constitution lasted reasonably well for a reasonably long time, providing generally good government, prosperity, and domestic harmony. Like everything else, it's rotted. It's not quite dead yet, no - see Heller, et prog. - but it is very, very ill. This, however, neither refutes that it did quite a bit of good for quite a long time, nor suggests that any other approach would have been better. It's all "Whaaaaa....whaaaa...it isn't perfect, Mommy; get rid of it. Build a time machine and go back and get rid of it from the beginning!"

Atheists, too, whine regularly that if there were a god everything here and now would be perfect and always would have been perfect. They are like those who are bitching about the constitution ab initio.

Anonymous Panzer Man June 24, 2017 4:38 PM  

Something that nobody ever mentions, either, is that not only is immigration overpopulating this continent, it's also encouraging the Third Worlders to keep breeding.

Sure, they have basically no restraint anyway. But allowing them to dump their awful surplus on our countries endlessly encourages them continue producing that surplus in the first place (and helps to temporarily stymie the natural processes that would otherwise prevent it).

Is there any point where pro-immigration people think there's too much immigration?

Generally, no. Most advocates speak of it like an infinite tide; there cannot be such a thing as "too much immigration" by their lights, even though the system is getting strained already.

This means it's not a falsifiable theory, and that it's therefore a fanatic, cultic belief rather than anything remotely rational or constructive.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT June 24, 2017 4:39 PM  

That is NOT what white nationalism is all about. They advocate 'saving' their race at expense of harming innocents; i.e. anyone not white.

So sending people back to their homes to be among their own kind is harming them?

Wow. Why so racist?

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:39 PM  

@191

"I very much doubt the Founding Fathers were contemplating what we're being swamped by now! Or even a minor version of same."

Which in no way either refutes that they intended posterity to mean less than future generations, not necessarily blood descended (Washington, you know, had no posterity by that definition), nor surmounts the three definitions then extant, nor overrides the 1790 act, nor refutes that they explicitly wrote into the constitution that naturalized, not naturally born here, citizens could hold any office in the land but one after a certain number of year had passed after they became citizens.

Blogger Nationalist Flicka June 24, 2017 4:41 PM  

**Oathcuckers is a perfect shiv. Ironic how many names can be perfectly mocked by changing part of it to cuck**

The window has surely shifted.

I remember the first time someone affiliated with OK followed me on Twitter (years ago). I thought I must be treading into "extremist" territory.

Now it happens, and I think, "Eh pu$$y. He'll unfollow me after a day or two".

Pretty funny.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:42 PM  

@194

Pussy-girl: You're still an idiot, and a dismally ignorant one, too. The universe is not composed solely of pro-unlimited-immigration and anti-immigration-period souls. There is a huge gap, larger even than the empty space between your ears, between those stances.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 24, 2017 4:45 PM  

By the way, "cuckman" doesn't really bother me, mostly because untrue. You, however, are a pussy and an idiot. Live with it; you're going to be pussy-girl here until you either change your nick or the sun runs out of hydrogen.

"People [who are pussy-girls] who live in glass houses ought not throw {"cucks"].

Anonymous patrick kelly June 24, 2017 4:47 PM  

"It's all "Whaaaaa....whaaaa...it isn't perfect, Mommy; get rid of it. Build a time machine and go back and get rid of it from the beginning!""

Yeah, that's silly and I think a straw man, but I will admit this is not the first time I've been perplexed by discussions here between you and Vox.

This blog serves to amuse and confuse me at the same time, and hopefully I learn something along the way.

BTW Tom I perceive you to be a generally patient and charitable man. Please hang around.

1 – 200 of 511 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