ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

Anti-American conservatives

In which Overgrown Hobbit demonstrates that she is far too short and dishonest for this ride.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Moammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Sarah D'Almeida de Almeida Hoyt to the logical conclusion that the contemporary United States is not a nation, but rather, an idea that belongs to all nations and that immigration to the USA is a basic human right.

If Vox Day does not care for people making up lies about him, he should not make them up about other people. Mrs Hoyt has stated on more than once that immigration into the United States is in fact a privilege; one that the United States may extend or withdraw at will.

A privilege, moreover that if the recipient is not properly grateful for, treating it as an adopted son would his admission into a new family and tribe, he does not deserve and ought not be granted.

Where she, and I, differ from Vox Day is that the founding principles of America are ALSO important, not just the land and the people. Liberty, rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people, in which all men are sovereign, are crucial to our identity as Americans. "Posterity" that lack it, are no true Americans, adopted sons and daughters that do are.

The idea the these values make her the same as a damned commie or a Muslim is slander.

It is as false as claiming that because Vox Day is wrong about race trumping culture in IQ, and because he claims that IQ is a necessary requirement for civil society, that he also believes that IQ determines virtue.

He owes Mrs. Hoyt an apology for that calumny.
First, I didn't make up any lies. Second, the fact that I can draw more accurate conclusions from Hoyt's statements than Hoyt herself can makes her logically incoherent, it does not make me a calumnist. Third, Hoyt and Hobbit are both factually wrong and historically revisionist. Fourth, Sarah Hoyt is not merely a Fake American, she is openly anti-American. And fifth, you always know that someone is intellectually dishonest when they edit a quote in such a way that leaves the statement grammatically incorrect. This was the full statement that Overgrown Hobbit disingenuously cropped.

It's going to be very interesting to see which conservatives finally abandon their ahistorical equalitarian-based civic nationalism and which follow Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Moammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Sarah D'Almeida Hoyt to the logical conclusion that the contemporary United States is not a nation, but rather, an idea that belongs to all nations and that immigration to the USA is a basic human right. 

Overgrown Hobbit was trying to disguise the fact that my statement did not address what Hoyt says on the subject, but rather, the conclusions that logically follow from her statements. Which, in this particular context, does happen to render her no different than the particular damned commie and pair of Muslims referenced. So, what has Sarah Hoyt actually said on the subject?
I Was Born American

Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents who would no more become American than fly unassisted, (and who desire it less than they wish to have have their heads shaved by a warthog) but I figure that was an accident of circumstance.  What really matters is that I was an American in my heart.  I just had to get here and become one in truth. (And that, by itself, is an American attitude.)

This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.  You can find it (if you know where to look) even when reading British novels.

We’re not like that.  Whether we were born elsewhere or here, Americans — those of us who are proud of the name —  are rebels, revolutionaries, something new under the sun: a people who believe people should be equal in their right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue their happiness undisturbed by either inimical neighbors or oppressive “betters.”... Those beliefs make me American. 
The idea that one "had to get here and become one in truth" is actually an intrinsically not-American thought, by definition. It is, rather, a common attitude among Fake Americans who want to lay false claim to the inheritance that belongs to the Posterity of the original We the People. But the belief that she is an American, however sincere, no more makes a Portuguese woman an American than the belief that she is male would make her a man. It gets even worse in a subsequent piece, where Hoyt actually denies the existence of America as a nation of blood and soil.
I was born in Portugal, of Portuguese parents, and so far as I know (it’s hard to stand on the marital faithfulness of people you never met even if they were your ancestresses) have no American ancestor, ever.  I probably have British blood, somewhere.  Being from the north of Portugal it is virtually impossible I don’t, when you consider trade going back to the 4th century B.C. and a tendency for well-to-do British families to send their remittance men to the area before there was an Empire.

What does this have to do with being American? Despite the genetic ignorance of people who claim that America is a nation like old Europe of “blood and soil”? Clear nothing.

I’ve been known to say I was born American, it just took me a few years to make it official. Is this strictly true?  Kind of.  If you squint and shake the magic 8-Ball.

Of course, I didn’t know the name for what I was or what I wanted.  I had not read that “immortal poetry” of the Declaration of Independence.  All I knew is that I wasn’t precisely right where I was, and while I loved my family and the village in which I grew up, all my impulses -- indeed, my way of being -- were at odds with the local culture and the local beliefs....

As almost everyone here should be aware, being an American – not just fitting in the culture, and because that’s regional it means I’ll need to learn to talk and walk again if I move across the country again – is an ongoing process, an ongoing fight between liberty and totalitarian impulses which exist in every society and possibly in every human.  And it is a struggle to free yourself from the inherited nonsense that has plagued other societies too: ideas of class and inherited rank or ability.
Lest you think I am reading too much into Hoyt's denial of the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution, rest assured, she is consistent in denying and rejecting it.

We are a radical experiment, a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief. 

Now try to square that statement with the preamble that defines the purpose of the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posterity, as I have conclusively proven, means "direct genetic descendants", not "future history" or "succeeding generations" or anything else. Paper Americans, Fake Americans, absolutely love the idea that America is not a material nation like every other nation in the history of Man. That allows them to claim that they are not just Real Americans, they are Better Americans than the real thing, even as they preserve their national identities, endlessly lecture their "fellow Americans" about the way things are done back in the "old country", and attempt to change American society to be more to their liking. And notice that like so many Fake Americans before her, indeed, like Overgrown Hobbit, Hoyt is openly deriding both the genuine American nation as well as the very purpose of the Constitution to which she claims to have sworn herself. Now, here is the statement by Overgrown Hobbit that proves my original point about the Proposition Nation propagandists and shows that Overgrown Hobbit is intrinsically anti-American herself.

Liberty, rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people, in which all men are sovereign, are crucial to our identity as Americans. "Posterity" that lack it, are no true Americans, adopted sons and daughters that do are.

I must have missed the bit about Proposition Policing in the Constitution. If this is adoptive gratitude, I can't imagine what a lack of it would look like! And idea that one should apologize to a Fake American like Hoyt, an immigrant who exhibits open contempt for both the historical We the People as well as their direct genetic descendants, for accurately characterizing her anti-American views and the conclusions that are logically drawn from those views, is absurd. She is no more American than I am Italian, Argentine, or Zulu. Of course, we can't expect Sarah Hoyt to understand what Posterity means, or grasp the core purpose of the U.S. Constitution, or to accept the fact that America is an actual blood-and-soil nation and not a mere idea to which anyone, anywhere in the world, can profess allegience, any more than we can expect any other Portuguese, any other immigrant, or any other descendant of immigrants to do so against their own self-perceived interests.

John Locke warned us of people like Hoyt and Hobbit. Even though nothing gives them the right to dispossess the American posterity and turn those Americans out of the inheritance which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations, they are indeed apt to think themselves the masters.

Labels: , ,

134 Comments:

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 6:34 AM  

That's one of the reasons you simply cannot expect an Englishman or Canadian to understand WHY we consider the 2nd amendment so important. They simply lack the cultural matrix to understand that every armed American considers themselves to be the last line of defense against criminals, enemies, and Tyrants. They lack the upbringing to realize that we take the fact that we are citizens and not subjects very, very seriously... and that guns in our hands are drastically less dangerous than 'baseball bats in the hands of peasants' in their home country.

That is why, even though they look and talk like us, immigrants from countries like Canada and the UK are actually MORE dangerous en masse than third world invaders... we can recognize that those brown hordes that gabber incoherently are dangerous, but how do you recognize a Canadian enemy before he starts making videos mocking Heroes-turned-NRA leaders that recently passed away?

They ALL have to go back.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 6:38 AM  

"Liberty, rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people"

I shudder to think that this thin gruel ever sounded substantial to me in comparison to the hearty stew of breeding and folkways.

Anything so complex as modern civilization can not be boiled down to essentials adoptable by Englishmen and Jakartans alike. They are superficialities.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 6:42 AM  

"A government that serves the people" has NEVER been part of our cultural heritage. OUR heritage is "A government that IS the people".
Most Americans understand instinctively and are offended by the prospect of getting 'serviced' by our public masters.

Blogger McChuck July 03, 2018 6:44 AM  

Ah, the never ending battle between 'nature' and 'nurture'. The unending wars between 'race' and 'culture'.

Not all who are born to the blood adopt the culture. Not all who adopt the culture were born to the blood. "Not all X..."

What even the most dedicated and loyal of immigrants fail to realize is that, not being born and raised here, in fact being raised in another culture, they will always carry with them part of their native culture, and they will fail to understand part of our culture. They will pass this to their children, even if unintentionally. The third generation may be truly American, but only if the immigrants marry into American families and deliberately turn their backs on the old ways.

Exhibit 1: "My big fat Greek wedding." Greeks all the way down.
Exhibit 2: "The Godfather." Sicilians all the way down.
Exhibit 3: "Chinatown." Forget it, Jake. It's Chinese all the way down.
Exhibit 4: African-Americans. Africans all the way down. This is the prime example of "and." They have neither the blood nor the culture.
Exhibit 5: The Niihau Incident. Japanese all the way down.
Exhibit 6: MS-13. El Salvadoran all the way down.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 6:48 AM  

Forget that qualifying 'most'. ALL Americans. If they don't understand it, they are not Americans.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 03, 2018 6:49 AM  

This is a fabulous sentence:

"Despite the genetic ignorance of people who claim that America is a nation like old Europe of “blood and soil”?"

... containing as it does her major thesis and it's direct opposite.

And she has the gall to speak of other people's ignorance. So, Sarah, where does genetic ignorance come from in a tribe not connected by blood and soil?

Santa's elves, I suppose.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 6:55 AM  

"how do you recognize a Canadian enemy"

Dipthongs.

Blogger Good Will July 03, 2018 6:58 AM  

The high school my father attended in Southern Calif was 87% White when he was a student. By the time I taught there, it was 99% Hispanic. The Hispanic principal, herself the daughter of illegal immigrants, told me I did not "fit with our culture" and forced me out.

Our culture?! Who did she think created the institutions, laws and infrastructure which supported this culture? This was MY country!

But it had been invaded by millions of Hispanic peasants and now they have taken control of it.

Blogger Uncle John's Band July 03, 2018 7:07 AM  

This poster occasionally pops up with a signature blend of breezy smugness and immunity to logic. The thesis boils down to 'accepting reality upsets me, so I'll pretend it's different.'

An idiot like this only wakes up when reality makes their delusions too emotionally painful.

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 7:12 AM  

tublecane wrote:"how do you recognize a Canadian enemy"

Dipthongs.


You just declared parts of the South as Canadian.

Blogger Salt July 03, 2018 7:13 AM  

I think Posterity is required to include immigration, but not without an accurate understanding of the nuances of such inclusion, of which the 1st Congress gave some indication. The nuanced immigrant eventually obtains the right to vote, an act which, by its very nature, can jeopardize the strictest interpretation of posterity. It would be ludicrous to state posterity as referencing descendants solely while granting the immigrant equal status, when earned, in the club with no bright line to forever delineate between the two.

But I don't think arguing posterity is the real issue either. That damnable statue and poem have hijacked the true meaning of liberty. "Posterity" that lack it, are no true Americans, adopted sons and daughters that do are."

Sarah Hoyt adopted us, "I’ve been known to say I was born American, it just took me a few years to make it official", not the other way around.

The fabric of America and the immigrant have always been an issue, but it wasn't till 1965 et seq that it became openly destructive.

Build The Wall. Send them all back.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd July 03, 2018 7:15 AM  

They tout all these shared principles and values, but have nothing to say when their new batch "Americans" piss on those values.
The newcomers can recreate their homelands completely, right down to the ritualistic child genital mutilation, and the cucks will have zero to say about it.

Blogger Wynn Lloyd July 03, 2018 7:17 AM  

To become posterity they should have to intermarry with us and adopt our culture.

Blogger Okrane S. July 03, 2018 7:21 AM  

I perfectly understand where your narrative comes from here, however Id like to point out that culture always changes over time. Even without any outside influence the culture of America in the 20th century would not have stayed the same compared to the one of 18th century.

Therefore I fail to understand how these claims of purity have any meaning on long enough time scales where absolutely nothing remains constant.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 7:26 AM  

@4- It's not purely a nature/nurture thing. There are different levels of nurturing, you know.

Obvious, a 2nd-generation Mexican-American doesn't get the same cultural experience as someone of Northwest European stock whose American ancestry dates back more than a century. We have a huge problem with second-generation immigrants, for a fact.

Different parts of our culture have differing provenances. Some are from yesterday, others are from time out of mind.

I always remind myself when talking about culture this way of a scene from Tender Is the Night. The main character is acting as a sort of battlefield guide describing what motivated the men who marched across the Somme (I think):

"This Western front business couldn't be done again, not for a long time. The young men think they could do it but they couldn't. They could fight the first Marne again but not this. This took religion and years of plenty and tremendous sureties and the exact relation that existed between classes...You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancee, and little cafes in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the marie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather's whiskers."

Imagine all the sentimental equipment of all the people over the years the American nation has existed, and how they persisted in our culture. Ponder whether a child born on U.S. soil to Syrian Muslims, grown up amidst our Current Year culture, could EVER take in American folkways as fully as more amenable groups.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 03, 2018 7:27 AM  

"Therefore I fail to understand how these claims of purity have any meaning on long enough time scales where absolutely nothing remains constant."

Your failure to understand is not a limit on the possibilities of history.

Blogger Nathan Bissonette July 03, 2018 7:28 AM  

Limiting "American" to "posterity" implies the Founders intended to establish an aristocracy similar to the one they were hoping to throw off: their descendants, having certain rights; other free men, not having them; and women/slaves, having none at all. Even if that were the original intent in the initial organizational document, it has been altered by subsequent amendments. A new vision guides the nation, a more egalitarian vision, one that affords the same rights to descendants of French-Canadian fur trappers who paddled their long canoes into the lakes of what became Minnesota as the rights afforded to the descendants of Englishmen who landed the Mayflower on the coast of what became Massachusetts. And that's a feature of the original document - that the government it established could be amended by ink instead of by bloodshed alone.

The "descendants only" analysis could be likened to the analysis used by those who insist the federal income tax amendment was never properly ratified and therefore the tax need not be paid: historically correct, but rendered obsolete by subsequent societal acceptance and now irrelevant.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 7:29 AM  

@6- I think that's supposed to mean they're ignorant of the science of genetics, not that their genes are making them ignorant.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 03, 2018 7:30 AM  

On the personal level with Sarah is that her hubby is probably not a shitlord or if he is masculine he is not all that literate and what she says goes right over his head.

To put this gently, for Sarah's benefit and to our nation's relief Sarah's hubby needs to apply a bit more direction for Sarah.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 7:32 AM  

@10- The Linguistics Brigade if the Patriot Militia will tell us the exact pronunciations to listen for.

Blogger Chase July 03, 2018 7:35 AM  

In some ways I wish I’d just stayed asleep. It would be easier.

At this point listening to people blather on about, They’re just trying to make their lives better!” is absolutely intolerable. IDGAF - they are forthright in their view of this country: they see it as a piggy bank. But this is my *home*. I don’t get another one if this one gets ruined, unlike those dual-(non)citizens. If this goes to hell (any further), I don’t get to lick up and move to Israel. Rage-inducing is mild.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 7:36 AM  

@14- I changed when I grew from childhood to adolescence to manhood. I would also have changed if at the age of 12 someone had chopped off my legs?

Do you think I would have changed in the same way? Presumably not. So what's your quibble?

Blogger Uncle John's Band July 03, 2018 7:38 AM  

@14. Okrane S.

Think it through. Organic development within a national group is fundamentally different from displacement by another alien culture.

Source: history.

Blogger papabear July 03, 2018 7:40 AM  

"Limiting "American" to "posterity" implies the Founders intended to establish an aristocracy similar to the one they were hoping to throw off: their descendants, having certain rights; other free men, not having them; and women/slaves, having none at all."

It doesn't imply that at all.

They wrote on behalf of all [Anglo-]American free men.

Repeal the 14th and the 19th.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 03, 2018 7:45 AM  

Honestly after getting that lecture about French fur trappers I wish my Anglo-Saxon ancestors had used them for target practice and bear bait.

I think of the word "Equality" as a magic word given to children, to keep it short ask the children what they are going to do with "Equality" once they get "equality." The children would be better off with a candy bar.

Blogger Peaceful Poster July 03, 2018 7:46 AM  

The way Overgrown Hobbit is white knighting for Sarah Hoyt, it's pretty clear he's a sexist and misogynist.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 7:46 AM  

The "descendants only" analysis could be likened to the analysis used by those who insist the federal income tax amendment was never properly ratified and therefore the tax need not be paid: historically correct, but rendered obsolete by subsequent societal acceptance and now irrelevant.

You just proved my point, Nathan. Due to the ignoring of the purpose of the Constitution and the adulterated state of the American nation and the revised definition of what it means to be an American, conservatives have no ability whatsoever to deny AMLO's assertion that it is a basic human right for everyone on the planet to become an American and live in the United States.

They are created equal, after all. And they adhere to the proposition by virtue of their desire to go to the United States and make a better life for themselves and their family.

The truth may be ignored, but it is never irrelevant.

Do you not understand that the current situation now demonstrates the U.S. Constitution to be a complete failure by its own lights, and therefore, irrelevant?

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 7:49 AM  

@17- A goodly portion of the country *was* aristocratic at the Founding.

Today, we still have legal classes with divergent powers and responsibilities, not-un-dis-anti-ir-a-like the yoke of Mad King George. Parents lording over children, citizens over noncitizens, people with clean records over felons, etc. are not Who We Are.

Blogger Salt July 03, 2018 7:55 AM  

VD wrote:Do you not understand that the current situation now demonstrates the U.S. Constitution to be a complete failure by its own lights, and therefore, irrelevant?

I doubt it was ever organically expected to last as long as it has. Franklin had his misgivings, stating "A Republic, if you can keep it".

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 03, 2018 7:57 AM  

tublecane wrote:@6- I think that's supposed to mean they're ignorant of the science of genetics, not that their genes are making them ignorant.

I did consider that her point was perhaps intended to say that her opponents are ignorant of the historical facts of the genetic makeup of earlier waves of American settlers, and she's using this to claim that later waves are essentially (and I use that term very literally, that she's saying that in their essence they are) merely more of the same.

But that's also historic, scientific, cultural, anthropological, psychological and spiritual nonsense.

They're not the same. Their effects have not been the same. Their genetic propensities are not the same. Their thinking is not the same. Their religion is not the same. Their culture is not the same. IOW, neither their nature nor their nurture are the same.

The fate of the nation is not the same as it would have been.

But if that's what she intended, she did a shit job of saying it.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 7:57 AM  

I think Posterity is required to include immigration, but not without an accurate understanding of the nuances of such inclusion, of which the 1st Congress gave some indication. The nuanced immigrant eventually obtains the right to vote, an act which, by its very nature, can jeopardize the strictest interpretation of posterity. It would be ludicrous to state posterity as referencing descendants solely while granting the immigrant equal status, when earned, in the club with no bright line to forever delineate between the two.

The meaning of the word "Posterity", as it is used in the Preamble and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers is perfectly clear and you're making the same stupid legal mistake that Kratman did.

The fact that a different group of people did or did not do something more than a year later does not change what the word meant or the purposes of those who wrote it at the time. Subsequent paperwork and the granting of various rights, permissions, and responsibilities do not alter definitions, genetics, or the past.

Blogger Robert July 03, 2018 8:00 AM  

When foreigners start up about how they deserve to be Americans, I marvel at what faithless citizens of their native lands they are. Why should they not decide in ten years that they have really always been Uruguayans or dedicated Papuans?

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 8:03 AM  

The New American Democrat version

Blogger Chase July 03, 2018 8:05 AM  

Yep. And both are correct.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 03, 2018 8:08 AM  

"Do you not understand that the current situation now demonstrates the U.S. Constitution to be a complete failure by its own lights, and therefore, irrelevant?"

To the degree it was intended to prevent the current situation, which is the alt*Right position, it is a complete failure.

To the degree it wasn't so intended, which is our enemies' position, it is completely irrelevant.

There's nothing more needs to be said about it.

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 8:12 AM  

@32
I have lovely female friend who immigrated from Australia in the '80s; she became a citizen this year at age 61; her parents migrated to Australia from Italy when they were young. Other than her accent, you would not think her to be Australian let alone American: she fills her Facebook page with things Italian; so much so that I think her third language is American English. Quite frankly, she is basically a generational mosquito.

Blogger PCA July 03, 2018 8:15 AM  

Calumniator, not "calumnist."

Blogger Stan July 03, 2018 8:30 AM  

Going by originalism theory as espoused here, only those who are pure and undefiled descendents of the original 13 colonies qualify as Americans. No geneological insurgencies of non-13-colony bloodline could be allowed and must be purged.

Sending those of Irish/Italian descent must be sent back to... where?
Sending those who came with states admitted after the Constitution was written must be sent back to... where?

My forebears came with the acquisition of Ohio, Kansas and New Mexico. Where should I be sent back TO?

Must I now fight not only the Left, but also the Alt-Right, which is becoming rigidly totalitarian on this subject?

Blogger Duh-ave July 03, 2018 8:31 AM  

"... about French fur trappers I wish my Anglo-Saxon ancestors had used them for target practice and bear bait."

After the recent suprising revelation of the lack of Danish and Roman genitics in modern England, perhaps they did. It will be interesting to see what the Minnesota genome has to say.

Blogger Abigail July 03, 2018 8:32 AM  

But the belief that she is an American, however sincere, no more makes a Portuguese woman an American than the belief that she is male would make her a man.

Bingo. Hoyt has written before about how psychologically wrenching and painful it is to assimilate. Well, real Americans don't go through that because by birth and rearing we are actually Americans! Now, since she has made an effort, and intermarried, and has no intention to up stakes and go back to Portugal if things get tough, her presence here wouldn't be a problem... except that like most immigrants, however much she claims to be an American, her displayed loyalties are to *other immigrants like herself* and not to the family and people she married into. Now it's to her credit that she maintains what contact she can with her parents and takes her children to visit them in Portugal, but the fact remains that real Americans and their children do not have that kind of foreign entanglement in their familial loyalties.

Blogger Mr. Deficient July 03, 2018 8:37 AM  

@38 The issue is not whether you and yours are inherently a problem that needs to go back but whether you can come to the realization that you are here for the benefit and at the behest of American Posterity.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 03, 2018 8:49 AM  

I'll start to take these civ nats seriously when they start to advocate for an Inquisition to ensure adherence to their beloved principles. Which is, of course, the only way to implement their newly defined "nation."

But of course they will do no such thing. In practice they advocate a bloody free for all. The best of them only want to keep out criminals. The rest are happy to see us become a third world bazaar.

Blogger Salt July 03, 2018 8:56 AM  

VD wrote:The meaning of the word "Posterity", as it is used in the Preamble and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers is perfectly clear and you're making the same stupid legal mistake that Kratman did.

The 1st Congress's immigration act (polluting posterity) was not challenged on unconstitutional grounds (dang it, there's that legal again) which your interpretation (purposes of those who wrote it at the time) would have demanded.

Blogger FP July 03, 2018 8:56 AM  

Good Will wrote:The high school my father attended in Southern Calif was 87% White when he was a student. By the time I taught there, it was 99% Hispanic. The Hispanic principal, herself the daughter of illegal immigrants, told me I did not "fit with our culture" and forced me out.

Our culture?! Who did she think created the institutions, laws and infrastructure which supported this culture? This was MY country!

But it had been invaded by millions of Hispanic peasants and now they have taken control of it.


That was my main gripe with Mrs. Hoyt a year or two ago when she wrote about how she knew better than native Americans what socialism was since she grew up in the socialist education/culture of Portugal. She hadn't grown up American (sans 12th grade in Ohio as a exchange student) but knew better than actual Americans. Does she know what its like to grow up in California and now see Trump supporters chased down the streets by Mexicans and that one skinny Somali from MN? The whole southwest? And now in the past ten or so years, as every other part of the USA filled with migrants who will never be Americans. They're too busy making California Mexico again etc.. Or electing middle class socialistas from West Chester County.

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2018 8:57 AM  

> Anything so complex as modern civilization can not be boiled down to essentials adoptable by Englishmen and Jakartans alike.

As Nate has noted in the past, not everyone is like you. Americans like to think their ideas and experiences are universally applicable. History has demonstrated conclusively that they are not, and that trying to apply them elsewhere is as likely to lead to disaster as improvement.

> Not all who are born to the blood adopt the culture. Not all who adopt the culture were born to the blood. "Not all X..."

True. But while society is composed of individuals, statistical reversion to the mean rules. You have to play the odds, and those are easily determined.

> But it had been invaded by millions of Hispanic peasants and now they have taken control of it.

They think they have, yes. But they can't maintain it. If we leave or are forced out, it will collapse behind us.

> Okrane S.

Shut up, Tad.

> Limiting "American" to "posterity" implies the Founders intended to establish an aristocracy similar to the one they were hoping to throw off: their descendants, having certain rights; other free men, not having them; and women/slaves, having none at all.

When you think it implies and the reality of what it means aren't the same thing.

> My forebears came with the acquisition of Ohio, Kansas and New Mexico. Where should I be sent back TO?

If you insist on taking that side, the closest border is six feet away. And yes, that's what this is almost certainly going to come to. I don't like it, but reality doesn't care if I like it or not.

> Must I now fight not only the Left, but also the Alt-Right, which is becoming rigidly totalitarian on this subject?

That's your call, not ours.

Blogger Sim1776 July 03, 2018 9:01 AM  

Build the wall with interlocking fields of fire and uh, oh yeah, they must go back! I'd be happy with the Immigration Act of 1924 being restored and retroactive. Maybe even go back further. Mrs. Hoyt is just another example of why. What's the cutoff to qualify as "blood and soil"? My last English ancestor immigrated in the early 1700s. My family has been involved in every war the US has fought including both sides of the War of Northern Aggression. I tire of these "Americans" claiming the Propositional Nation crap. Why couldn't they make their homelands better? They're cowards who came to piss in our gene pool.

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 9:01 AM  

Mr. Deficient wrote:@38 The issue is not whether you and yours are inherently a problem that needs to go back but whether you can come to the realization that you are here for the benefit and at the behest of American Posterity.

That comment makes all who came after the Constitution was ratified second class citizens. Congratulations.

@38 raises an interesting question regarding the states added after the final original ratification of the Constitution really American statrapies. Given that Washington owns 90% of the land west of the Mississippi, perhaps that is the case. And the residents of those satrapies are they merely cloth of the land to be used or removed as desired?

What about those states that ratified after the Constitution was ratified and officially established June 21, 1788; looking at you Rhode Island, Georgia, and Connecticut; and you haughty Virginia, the home Washington,Jefferson, and Lee, really American?

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 9:05 AM  

If these were real Americans, the LP would be the #2 party, there would be a move to repeal the 17th and 16th amendment, end the Fed, as well as Social Security and Medicare (carefully).

Civic Nationalists and Fake Americans can give exquisite platitudes about abstract "Liberty" and "Freedom", but when you ask them specifics, they want the same socialism lite and Federal Supremacy instead of Federalism or subsidiarity. They want theoretical liberty but practical socialism.

We are at the edge of a civic reformation, and it looks to return to nationalism. And the reformation was a bloody war in parts. Not all used reasoning from the scripture, in many places it was convert the prince. Both Catholicism or Luther/Calvinism are things you need to assent to (after you believe in Jesus), but they all had to have actual churches. But there are clearly different beliefs. If you believe in Transubstantion, you aren't a Lutheran, even if you aren't a Catholic. But if you don't, you aren't a Catholic.

Even De Toqueville who documented the cause and effects of liberty in the USA didn't claim to be an American even though he agreed with everything, or that it was good. But latecomers would want to restore this America 1.0 (sans slavery) not with weak assent, but with rabid activism.

The Constitution is opensource, so those who want it should try to create their own Jefferson's land in their own countries and adopt it to the extent practical. Heard of Liberland? Instead they come here and bring the 70% non-American ideas with them.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 9:06 AM  

The 1st Congress's immigration act (polluting posterity) was not challenged on unconstitutional grounds (dang it, there's that legal again) which your interpretation (purposes of those who wrote it at the time) would have demanded.

Now you're being a complete moron and confusing the purpose of the constitution with the constitution itself as well as trying to retroactively revise historical word definitions. Moreover, it is totally irrelevant if someone chooses to challenge an act of Congress or not; there is nothing that automatically triggers such challenges.

You're simply not smart enough for this, Salt. Just stop digging.

Blogger Abigail July 03, 2018 9:12 AM  

I'm so sick and tired of immigrants whining about "second class citizen" bullsht. No, you idiots, just because you aren't of the NATION doesn't mean that you are a second class citizen. It means you ought to be grateful to the people who took you in and gave you the exact same legal rights as their own descendents and instead of trying to pretend you're just the same even as you NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT NOT BEING ONE OF US.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 9:13 AM  

@Stan- We probably made a mistake not denying citizenship to Micks and wops, and keeping them as resident aliens if we wanted them.

In any case I don't understand how people fail to discriminate between members of the American nation and citizens of the U.S.

My forebears have been here as far back as the 1820s, and they were settlers in the Midwest, not industrial cogs. Nevertheless, I know this country was not made for me. 150+ years hasn't changed that.

But why jump to "you have to go back?" We can discriminate as to who's better and worse for the vountrc, and who stays. Literally no one of whom I'm aware is arguing that U.S. territory must be purged of all but descendents of the Founders.

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 03, 2018 9:14 AM  

My forebears came with the acquisition of Ohio, Kansas and New Mexico. Where should I be sent back TO?

Must I now fight not only the Left, but also the Alt-Right, which is becoming rigidly totalitarian on this subject?


Must you show no respect, or even humility? I'm a mix of pre-Revolutionary settlers and 19th century immigrants. Those immigrants came here for a reason. Their native culture, language, etc. disappeared almost entirely. So I'm more-or-less American. I just leave it at that and don't demand respect for Ellis Island.

Make a choice. If you choose American, then be that, and just be thankful. The idea that all arrivals are equal means the end of a nation.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 9:21 AM  

@dienw- "that comment makes *all* who came after the Constitution was ratified second class citizens."

Would that it were so, but alas, if they're born here they have the same legal status as other citizens. But don't get bogged down in the citizen issue. There's more to being American than being a citizen of the U.S. and the several states.

Just because you're a citizen doesn't mean the country was made for you, or that it can survive with nothing but people like you.

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 9:23 AM  

Salt wrote:
Sarah Hoyt adopted us, "I’ve been known to say I was born American, it just took me a few years to make it official", not the other way around.

You have hit on a very important point. Adoption is by the will of those doing the adoption. No matter how much a person may want to be adopted it doesn't matter; the choice belongs to the adopter, not the adoptee.

This is the salient point being lost in this discussion. A person desiring to immigrate can only present themselves in a lawfully proper manner. It is up to us, the country, to decide if we want to adopt them into our blood and soil, or not. It is not their choice. It is ours.

While a lot of people don't like it, this is how God acts also. Jesus told his disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." John 15:16. And in the seminal born-again discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus, Jesus says, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

There are many more supporting verses but the premise is the same, as it is here in the discussion about immigration. The only choice the adoptee has is to reject the offer of adoption, if offered, just as the rich young ruler did when Jesus invited him to follow him. Matthew 19:22.

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 03, 2018 9:25 AM  

tz wrote:We are at the edge of a civic reformation, and it looks to return to nationalism. And the reformation was a bloody war in parts.

The Reformation, with the its subsequent conflicts, is a much more useful analogy for the present moment than everyone's favorite 1930's timeline. I need to set down my WWII books for a moment and read more about the Schmalkaldic War.

Blogger Cloom Glue July 03, 2018 9:30 AM  

I was stripped of my diphthongs at the border so I could not ask for a serviette at Dunking Doughnuts.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 9:30 AM  

Reading those Sara Hoyt quotes, I kept being reminded of Rachel Dolezal. They really have drop-in replacement sort of positions. "I feel therefore I am."

Blogger ZhukovG July 03, 2018 9:31 AM  

@Stan: First, quit crying. Second, turn on your brain. Consider:

That a truth from history, is not pragmatic in the present, does not make it any less true.

Now are you going to throw in your lot with American Nationalism or are you going support the Globalist Left. Those are no other choices; understand?

As for me, if I found out tomorrow that I was born a very pale skinned Zulu. I would still serve American Nationalism to the very best of my ability.

Be a patriot or be a traitor, but no whining.

Blogger John July 03, 2018 9:35 AM  

Should the next major update to Western political theory state that the State has no more right to define or redefine a nation, or arbitrarily grant citizenship to foreigners, than it does to conduct warrantless searches or seizures, or deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process?

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 9:39 AM  

Cloom Glue wrote:I was stripped of my diphthongs at the border so I could not ask for a serviette at Dunking Doughnuts.


I was not considered a proper retail clerk in G'boro NC until I was able to make single vowels into diphthongs.

Blogger veryfunnyminion July 03, 2018 9:41 AM  

"You just declared parts of the South as Canadian"

The Cajuns literally are, French-Canadians deported by the British from the Maritimes 250 years ago. How integrated are they after all this time? They didn't trigger any chain migration either.

Blogger Chris Mallory July 03, 2018 9:47 AM  

dienw wrote:@38 raises an interesting question regarding the states added after the final original ratification of the Constitution

Other than the Mexican acquisitions, Louisiana, and a handful of Spaniards in Florida, who do you think was living in those areas?

French trappers raised a few forts to act as trading posts, but they did not colonize America.
There were red savages, but we killed them or moved them to reservations.

Native born Americans moved west, conquering as they went.

dienw wrote:What about those states that ratified after the Constitution was ratified and officially established June 21, 1788; looking at you Rhode Island, Georgia, and Connecticut; and you haughty Virginia, the home Washington,Jefferson, and Lee, really American?

They were American in 1776. They had already formed a nation under the much superior Articles of Confederation. They sent delegates the the coup that gave us the Constitution.

Blogger Grampy Niemira July 03, 2018 9:48 AM  

I wonder if I would qualify as an American. I was born here, I served in the armed forces, I support the Constitution,and think this is the greatest nation on Earth. But my grandparents came from Ireland so I'm only third generation.

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 9:50 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 9:52 AM  

Refugees sometimes don't like the USA neighborhoods they are relocated to like Chicago's south side. Maybe they can go back and say don't come here.

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 9:57 AM  

@62 The Articles of Confederation weren't better - they had problems too, but there is a tenedency to project all pollyanna and pangloss to the utopia that would have been if only X didn't happen.
Liberty is never on autopilot - the Devil never sleeps, and the only thing he hates more than liberty is life itself.
And if the 1.0 Americans weren't up to the task of preserving liberty under the Constitution, what do you think they would have done if the articles simply were extended? What part of eternal vigilance don't people understand, as well as the requirement for the blood of Tyrants purchased with the blood of patriots.

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 03, 2018 10:03 AM  

Maybe a useful way to think about immigrant ancestors is bastardy. A bastard is not the same as a legitimate child. If you're a bastard, should you go around bragging about your dissolute father? No, and neither should you apologize for anything. You didn't do it. Just recognize that not everything is the same.

"So you're saying all immigrants are bastards???" No, I'm saying stop going on and on about those wonderful bastards.

Blogger Stan July 03, 2018 10:03 AM  

VD says that one must consider the "intent" of the Constitution, and that undoubtedly is the case.

Similarly one must consider the "intent" of VDs insistent that "posterity" equals "bloodline of the originals". If that intent is as-written, then very few, if any, will be able to present pure bloodlines in order to be omitted from the presumptive purge being sought.

So "posterity" cannot be equated to "bloodline of the originals", even for VD himself. Given that, what are we to think the "intent" of the emphasis on posterity resolves to? On the surface, the demand for purity of the blood is non-coherent. However, what else could it "mean" other than what it says?

Blogger Don't Call Me Len July 03, 2018 10:09 AM  

When foreigners start up about how they deserve to be Americans, I marvel at what faithless citizens of their native lands they are. Why should they not decide in ten years that they have really always been Uruguayans or dedicated Papuans?

"They were very proud of their foreigners at Central Headquarters, and of the whole over-complicated and inefficient system that supported them. They had it in their heads that a man could be a traitor to his own people and still not be crippled by the weaknesses that had driven him to treachery. " - Who?, Algis Budrys

Blogger John July 03, 2018 10:13 AM  

The fact that Posterity can be traitors to the Constitution does not imply they are Not-Posterity.

The fact that Not-Posterity can be loyal to the Constitution does not imply that they are Posterity.

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 10:14 AM  

One common interpretation of the Constitution is that it is a contract between the government and the people. One very important aspect of contracts is that it is the two parties who determine the meaning of the terms and clauses at the time of adoption. Those meanings are then set in stone and any change to the particulars requires amending the contract, hence the inclusion of a process for amendment.

Contracts are not living documents that are reinterpreted later but are always dependent on the original agreed upon meanings and requirements. Once you grasp that, everything else falls into place.

Blogger Mocheirge July 03, 2018 10:17 AM  

Everytime I hear some civnat bemoan "where do I go back to?" after being told "you have to go back", I can feel my jaw clench and forehead heat up. These people claim that my own flesh and blood nation does not exist, then have the gall to use their own lack of a nation to guilt me into accepting them.

Blogger Salt July 03, 2018 10:20 AM  

Stan wrote:Similarly one must consider the "intent" of VDs insistent that "posterity" equals "bloodline of the originals". If that intent is as-written, then very few, if any, will be able to present pure bloodlines in order to be omitted from the presumptive purge being sought.

We can gather at Wannsee and discuss it.

Blogger pyrrhus July 03, 2018 10:30 AM  

"No true American"...It's the No True Scotsman fallacy all over again....

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 03, 2018 10:33 AM  

Don't know if my dna qualifies me as prosperity, don't really care. Mostly Micksican ancestry on one side of my family, lot's of anglo-saxon on the other. Have to go back at least 4 generations to find any of them not in North America anyway, so far no one in the family has been able to trace for sure where they came from or how they got here. Pre-Civil War there's no trace on either side.

I'm fine with being predominantly governed and culturally dominated by those who are prosperity.

Civilization run by heterosexual christian males of primarily north-western European descent is preferable to any other AFAIC. Not much chance of me becoming Japanese or Chinese anyway.

Don't be a whiny "what about me" bitch about everything and maybe you'll get to stay and enjoy it. Aiming your rifle at the other side of the border probably helps plead your cause.

Blogger John July 03, 2018 10:35 AM  

@50 I'm so sick and tired of immigrants whining about "second class citizen" bullsht. No, you idiots, just because you aren't of the NATION doesn't mean that you are a second class citizen. It means you ought to be grateful to the people who took you in and gave you the exact same legal rights as their own descendents and instead of trying to pretend you're just the same even as you NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT NOT BEING ONE OF US.

Eh, that is why immigrants must be second-class citizens. Their citizenship must be revokable for any violation of their loyalty oath. And their children must go through the exact same process of naturalization to acquire citizenship. Only native children are citizens by right. Assimilation requires intermarriage.

Blogger Matthew McDaniel July 03, 2018 10:37 AM  

We must answer the Irish Question it IQ.

Blogger Sam July 03, 2018 10:43 AM  

@66
The obvious answer is form our own monarchy, just like everyone else did when they got independence.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 03, 2018 10:47 AM  

VD wrote:

You just proved my point, Nathan. Due to the ignoring of the purpose of the Constitution and the adulterated state of the American nation and the revised definition of what it means to be an American, conservatives have no ability whatsoever to deny AMLO's assertion that it is a basic human right for everyone on the planet to become an American and live in the United States.

They are created equal, after all. And they adhere to the proposition by virtue of their desire to go to the United States and make a better life for themselves and their family.

The truth may be ignored, but it is never irrelevant.

Do you not understand that the current situation now demonstrates the U.S. Constitution to be a complete failure by its own lights, and therefore, irrelevant?


I don't think the Constitution failed -- the people who have implemented it over time have failed. The Constitution was a really good try. It still has residual value. It can work -- sometimes.

Sarah Hoyt would be more honest if she said, "I like the American idea, but, hey, I am not an American." It's all a matter of degree. That's why Vox you can live in Italy -- you'll never be an Italian, but you can move within that culture.

For someone to move within a different nation/culture they have to (1) respect the cultural/national differences;(2) understand that you're not there to change their culture and impose yours, (3) you have some signficant degree of common ethics, mores, and beliefs, and (4) you don't create enclaves that are designed to change the national culture.

But in the end you're a visitor, and you should comport yourself appropriately because you have been granted a priviledge as a guest.

Blogger Crave July 03, 2018 10:50 AM  

Just look at the butt hurt caused by having foreign bloodlines rather than one related by consanguinity to the real American nation. These foreign blood fans "patriotically" try to force their "true American" meaning through purity spiraling the discussion in an effort to supplant the long established meaning. VD already smashed your arguments by proving the definition of Posterity used by the founding stock in the Preamble. Care to argue the meaning of Consanguinity used in the Declaration?

As a mix of Pre-Revolutionary Anglo stock and American Indian I understand the consternation you foreigners feel about the possibility of being forced off American lands. Most have some mix of real American blood or American Indian in their bloodline, which would be enough to prevent deportation whence your foreign stock came. For the others I feel no pity. I look at my nation and see its dispossession and feel the foreign oppression of my people every day. One need not look far to find it. The Supreme Court has not a single example of the founding stock. Just a room full of Papists and Jews dictating which parts of my people's words and rights will be savaged by their foreign fuckery today as they change definitions to fit their own purposes.

Blogger Xellos July 03, 2018 10:53 AM  

"I Was Born American

Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents"

Kek. Only a few words in and it's apparent globalist bullocks. After all, if one can be American simply by wishing so, why should immigration be denied to any such True American and not remain just a technicality to be automatically granted? How can the American government rescind the right to live in America to Americans?

Blogger pyrrhus July 03, 2018 10:56 AM  

"Sending those of Irish/Italian descent must be sent back to... where?"
Err..Ireland and Italy, although no one is advocating that at present. But at least 1/3 of Italian immigrants eventually returned to Italy of their own volition.

Blogger pyrrhus July 03, 2018 11:08 AM  

@80 When I look back at my four bloodlines, it's revealing. One came to Maryland in 1630, and fought the British, and the Indians at Tippecanoe. One was Scots-Irish that came over in the late 1700s, and fought the British. Two arrived in the late 19th
century from Norway and Switzerland, generally supported FDR and would never have dreamed of challenging the Federal government on anything. Latecomers have completely different attitudes toward the American Nation.

Blogger JohnofAustria July 03, 2018 11:12 AM  

I'm only a small portion Heritage American, the rest is largely Mick. Ditto my kids, although some of their Mother's Mick blood goes back to pre-revolutionary days.

But my point is, I was raised by my Anglophile father to see the English culture we were lucky enough to be part of as a blessing for our dumb selves, and that we must be more zealous than real Americans in protecting it to be worthy of living here. So he's been a lawyer and fought Communism all his life and I joined the Corps and now fight in the culture war. Don't insist you rate it, prove it.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 03, 2018 11:19 AM  

To whom does "we the people" refer?

Blogger TM Lutas July 03, 2018 11:19 AM  

One thing is undeniable, you spelled Sarah Hoyt's name wrong. Sarah D'Almeida is a pen name. I think if you're going to use it that way it's supposed to be surrounded by quotes, i.e. Sarah "D'Almeida" Hoyt but I'm not a professional writer. This is not nearly the first time you've written about Sarah Hoyt but it seems to be the harshest. What changed?

I think your take on Sarah Hoyt here was better:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/05/speaking-out-vs-shooting.html
"For every Sarah Hoyt who immigrated and successfully managed the transition to American traditions and values"

This one was pretty good too:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/01/burning-down-house.html
"SARAH HOYT, BEAUTIFUL BUT EVIL SPACE PRINCESS"

This was a comment on Sad Puppies riffing off of Sarah's writing and obviously including her:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/sjws-in-sf-sad-puppy-version.html
"Let the others trail in our wake at their own pace. As long as they refrain from either attacking us or getting in our way, they are not part of the problem. They are trying to be part of the solution, even if they go about it in different and suboptimal ways."

And I did not know this until now but apparently she's a Castalia House author.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/06/forbidden-thoughts-in-audiobook.html

Here you have a much more realistic take on Sarah Hoyt's actual position on immigration
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/immigration-and-transformation.html

Sorry, no good pull quote for the last one, so read the whole thing.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 11:46 AM  

Man, lot of sperging today.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 11:59 AM  

John wrote:The fact that Posterity can be traitors to the Constitution does not imply they are Not-Posterity.

The fact that Not-Posterity can be loyal to the Constitution does not imply that they are Posterity.


I am amazed when I see someone who can use simple logic these days. No joke, so damn few people today can think logically at all that I really enjoy a small display of logic.

Perhaps that is the reason some of the VD posts here give me so much enjoyment.

Blogger Lance E July 03, 2018 12:14 PM  

"rule of law rather than men, and a government that serves the people, in which all men are sovereign"

All three of these principles are incoherent.

Laws can't enforce themselves.

Government, by definition, governs the people; it cannot serve and govern at the same time.

And sovereignty, by definition, is absolute and undisputed power. You are not "sovereign" in any sense of the word unless you can personally defend your home and family from an opposing army.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 12:18 PM  

A commenter or two mentioned the Articles of Confederation. Most view the articles as vastly superior to the Constitution, but a few do not.

The reason that the Articles might have led to a better outcome is that it kept all the 13 "states" as real nations. I don't see how the US could have become an empire under that arrangement. I don't see how Tennessee (assuming it joined the US confederacy under the Articles) would have ever allowed unrestricted immigration. Perhaps NY would have.

I also think the native Americans would have fared much better and have held onto their own nationhood. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

Of course, it is probably useless to play "what if" at this point since we have been invaded and western civilization itself is under assault. But for God's sake I hope no one else will disregard the Articles because they think some of us believe that the Articles would have led to heaven on Earth. We do not.

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 12:40 PM  

Mark Stoval wrote:The reason that the Articles might have led to a better outcome is that it kept all the 13 "states" as real nations.

So in a sense, the Articles proposed something like a modified EU structure, which if I am understanding it correctly would have been way ahead of its time.

Blogger Chris Mallory July 03, 2018 12:51 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:One came to Maryland in 1630, and fought the British, and the Indians at Tippecanoe.

The Battle of Tippecanoe didn't take place until 1811.
The British might have had an agent or two present, but there were no British troops at the battle.

Blogger Starboard July 03, 2018 1:03 PM  

Anecdotal: My entire adult life has been spent moving all over the country, first for my work and then with my husband for his work. The regional culture that we alter with our presence also alters us. In the South I sounded like a Yankee. On visits back to my home state, they claimed I had a southern accent. When we moved to the west coast, I found the liberalism and hippy Gaia worship offputting, but when we lived in my husband's home state, I found the insular communities difficult to approach much less create friendships. And this is moving between majority white cultures within the US. If our American culture is so different regionally, how much more different are the various Caucasian cultures spread across the globe? And if those cultures are different, how much more different are the cultures of other people and religions around the world.

Now that we have moved so much, we don't necessarily fit anywhere naturally. Returning home to his state or mine would be a culture shock for us now, and we would rightly be outsiders for at least a decade if not more. Remember that this just within the US. Ramped up for the global transients seeking citizenship, the problem is magnified. The hysteria we see from paperwork citizen non-Americans probably has to do with this lostness. They don't fit here, but don't fit at home either.

I see Mrs. Hoyt first came to the US as an exchange student. This was probably the moment when her teenage disatisfaction was poisoned with the foreign ideals that made abandoning her home sound like a good idea in the first place.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:11 PM  

So "posterity" cannot be equated to "bloodline of the originals", even for VD himself.

You are literally too stupid to be involved in this discussion. Posterity IS the bloodline of the originals. It cannot be anything else.

Whether the posterity still exists or not is irrelevant. That is what it is.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:13 PM  

One thing is undeniable, you spelled Sarah Hoyt's name wrong.

That is absolutely deniable. You don't know what you're talking about. Again.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:15 PM  

I wonder if I would qualify as an American.

You don't. You're a citizen of the United States. You're a resident of the North American continent. But you're not American posterity. This isn't that hard.

Blogger VFM #7634 July 03, 2018 1:17 PM  

I think the rule should be that Europeans (non-American whites) have to go back if they vote for the Democrats and act all bleeding-heart like the nonwhites and immigrants do. Voting patterns are the sine qua non of not groking being American.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:18 PM  

After all, if one can be American simply by wishing so, why should immigration be denied to any such True American and not remain just a technicality to be automatically granted? How can the American government rescind the right to live in America to Americans?

That was my original point. These conservatives, who conserve nothing, create arguments based on rhetoric that readily serve the socialists they claim to oppose.

Blogger VFM #7634 July 03, 2018 1:23 PM  

"Only a few words in and it's apparent globalist bullocks. After all, if one can be American simply by wishing so, why should immigration be denied to any such True American and not remain just a technicality to be automatically granted?"

@Xellos
Sarah Hoyt sounds a bit like trans-black activist Rachel Dolezal, formerly of the NAACP. The question should be, should Americans have to accept trans-Americans from anywhere in the world?

Blogger Were-Puppy July 03, 2018 1:33 PM  

Civ Nat is another form of theft. Inheritance theft.

Blogger Dangeresque July 03, 2018 1:56 PM  

"All I knew is that I wasn’t precisely right where I was, and while I loved my family and the village in which I grew up, all my impulses -- indeed, my way of being -- were at odds with the local culture and the local beliefs...."

In other words: I was a degenerate and I had to go somewhere where I could get away with it.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 03, 2018 1:57 PM  

@32 Robert
When foreigners start up about how they deserve to be Americans, I marvel at what faithless citizens of their native lands they are. Why should they not decide in ten years that they have really always been Uruguayans or dedicated Papuans?
---

Because muh dual citizenship. They can have their cake, and eat it too.

Blogger TM Lutas July 03, 2018 2:07 PM  

@95 VD - You are very rarely so foolish. You just claimed that you know how to spell someone else's name better than they do. That's not your finest moment.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 2:16 PM  

You are very rarely so foolish.

You're astonishingly stupid. You really are. Go ask Sarah what her full name is, you moron.

It's not "Sarah Hoyt".

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 2:57 PM  

@91 Peter Gent

Mark Stoval wrote: "The reason that the Articles might have led to a better outcome is that it kept all the 13 "states" as real nations."

Peter Gent wrote: "So in a sense, the Articles proposed something like a modified EU structure, which if I am understanding it correctly would have been way ahead of its time."

Only is a vague sense. The articles of confederation created a central government that was mostly a mutual defense pact.

The central government could not tax, tell the various states how to govern their area, enact laws that anyone had to follow, and each state had the right to leave the union at any time.

The Articles of Confederation was the sort of thing that would preserve the various nations/tribes. Plus, I bet the native Americans would have fared well as I can't see how the US would have ever expanded to the far west under the Articles of Confederation.

It is worth reading the Articles yourself to see what was the first government of the USA for 10 years or so.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 3:02 PM  

Well, will you look at that! It turns out that I was wrong!

Sarah Hoyt's name is not Sarah D'Almeida Hoyt, it is Sarah de Almeida Hoyt. My sincere apologies.

A noted author, Sarah de Almeida Hoyt writes fiction in various genres. Most notably, the first book in her Shakespearean fantasy series Ill Met by Moonlight was a finalist for the 2002 Mythopoeic Fantasy Award.

And the next time you pull this sort of stupid false correction shit, TM Lutas, you'll be banned from commenting here. You've been warned.

Blogger Mr Darcy July 03, 2018 3:30 PM  

@47 dienw said, "[...] What about those states that ratified after the Constitution was ratified and officially established June 21, 1788; looking at you Rhode Island, Georgia, and Connecticut; and you haughty Virginia, the home Washington,Jefferson, and Lee, really American?"

Georgia was the fourth state to ratify. 2 JAN 1788. So you should probably look elsewhere.

Blogger Mr Darcy July 03, 2018 3:34 PM  

@ Abigail #50:

Hoo-RAY! Well said.

Blogger Stan July 03, 2018 3:42 PM  

VD has gone completely over the edge. His anger at those non-posterity posters consists of "you're too stupid", and as above, "you'll be banned". VD very likely cannot produce a fully validated document showing his own purity of bloodline. Yet his implied position is that the USA belongs only to those with purity of the blood of the founding fathers.

I suppose that this will be banned, as it is not in line with the purity of blood position being touted here. Still, I maintain that to be as evil as every other "purity" position ever espoused.

Blogger Mr Darcy July 03, 2018 3:53 PM  

" [...] French trappers raised a few forts to act as trading posts, but they did not colonize America. [...]"

Well ... maybe not if you don't count New Orleans, Mobile, Pass Christian, Pascagoula, Biloxi, Kaskaskia (Ill.); St Louis & Ste Genevieve (MO); Detroit, etc., etc.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 4:11 PM  

VD has gone completely over the edge. His anger at those non-posterity posters consists of "you're too stupid", and as above, "you'll be banned". VD very likely cannot produce a fully validated document showing his own purity of bloodline. Yet his implied position is that the USA belongs only to those with purity of the blood of the founding fathers.

You are stupid, Stan. There is no point in permitting idiots like you to comment here, especially since absolutely none of you whining, butt-hurt interlopers have managed to so much as make a scratch in my conclusive case against civic nationalism. Now you're resorting to emotional projection and an appeal to the genetic fallacy.

As for me, I am an American Indian with some American ancestry. And yes, the USA belongs only to those who are descended from We the People, of whom the Founding Fathers were but a very small subset.

Blogger SirHamster July 03, 2018 4:13 PM  

VD wrote:I wonder if I would qualify as an American.

You don't. You're a citizen of the United States. You're a resident of the North American continent. But you're not American posterity. This isn't that hard.


It isn't hard.

For those who are American citizens but not posterity, we are at a point where you must choose - protect and preserve America for her posterity (where perhaps one day your children will be part of that posterity), or try to build something else in America's place, replacing America's posterity.

If you don't pick that first one, you're anti-American. It is not hard to understand, though it may be hard to choose. But decide you must.

Blogger Stan July 03, 2018 4:16 PM  

That's still purity of blood, to be exercised as the pure-of-blood wish. Like it or not, that is what you espouse.

Feel free to ban me for "stupidity" and/or dissent, or for being of impure blood. That's where you are leading this.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 5:05 PM  

That's still purity of blood, to be exercised as the pure-of-blood wish. Like it or not, that is what you espouse.

For the Nth time, Stan, it's not about me. It's not about you. It's about what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote.

If we were discussing how I envisioned the ideal state, we'd be discussing whether people as stupid as you are should be euthanized or just sterilized.

Blogger Fernando Negro July 03, 2018 5:53 PM  

(From a Portuguese myself,)

Just because one likes, or agrees, more with the laws of another country, that doesn't make him or her a national/citizen of that same (foreign) country.

National identity (or nationhood) is so much more than the mere (explicit or implicit) traditional view of State-citizens relationship transmitted by the family and culture that one is born in... (And, I won't even talk about "genetic inheritance" - and, how that affects the way that one behaves.)

Even between anarcho-syndicalists of different countries, who all share the (exact) same political ideals (and who very openly reject national traditions, in themselves, when they don't agree with the latter) you can notice such big differences in the way they behave...

*Sara* (surely her real Portuguese name - and not "Sarah", which is an English form, not used in Portugal - and, that she most likely changed to fit her personal views) is either a One-World/NWO propagandist and/or someone who (like so-called "transsexuals") is just trying to convince herself, and others, that she's something that she's really not, and can never be...

If I'm an anarchist (as I have been, for years) and I like and identify myself more with the Catalans, in political terms (who are culturally rebels, and were once able to create an anarchist society) and if I decided to learn their language, would that make me a Catalan? No way... Not even close!

If I grew up in the (big city) suburbs, and decide to go live in the countryside (like I have done, in the past) does that make me a native of the place where I moved to? Not by any chance. Because, either consciously or subconsciously, I will always have personality traits created by the place were I grew up in... And, therefore, I would always be (just) a "suburban living in the countryside" - and not a "hillbilly", or anything of the sort. (And, again, I'm not even talking about whole different peoples, and about how most - or the essence - of how one behaves is very much dictated by genes...)

Looks like *Sara* (again, her real name) is starting to confuse facts with fiction, or worlds that she would like to live in.

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 6:06 PM  

No need to single out the American nation for any special treatment. Pick any country you like, or don't like.

No matter how well I speak Japanese or wear the traditional garb or eat the crap they call food....I will never be Japanese, even if I take on a Japanese name. Yes, the Japanese women are often lovely, and I could spend the rest of my life being entertained with them, in the most subtle and remote ways, but I could never be Japanese or taken as Japanese nor would any of my own people think I am Japanese. No matter how many times I watched the entire Shogun series and decided to make myself Ninja or Samurai, and carry two sacred swords in my sash, I would never be Japanese to anyone.

Some people would say this is because the Japanese are a race and not just a nation. That would be incorrect. The Japanese know they came to the islands from the Chinese mainland, many years ago, and there were Caucasians living on the islands....whom they call the Ainu. Today, the official count of these people is 25,000 but unofficial estimates are 200,000.

This whole egalitarian nonsense has been stretched too far already. You do not get to decide who you are or what you are. You can pretend to be someone else....the other gender, another race, another nationality. You could even decide to defy your age and pretend to be 4 years old, if you care to. But this is nothing more than pretense and fantasy. It may even be a mental illness.

Blogger Fernando Negro July 03, 2018 6:13 PM  

(And, if I ever had the chance to tell her - or anyone else - this,)

If you identify yourself more as a "Libertarian", and agree much more with the U.S. Constitution (in opposition to your own country's) then (if you live in a Democracy) there's no one stopping you from forming a new political party, to try to emulate such ideals and practices.

The way that countries and societies evolve, is by the people who live in such places taking matters into their own hands, and improve the countries they live in. (Just like the Republicans who, in Portugal, overthrew the Monarchy, or the military officers in the same country who overthrew the Fascist Dictatorship they lived in.)

No *one* (single) people invented every progressive political ideal that exists, and its practices, on its own. And, the same way that the U.S. Founding Fathers took inspiration in, and learned things from, Ancient Greece or even Ancient Rome, so we (in Europe, and elsewhere) can learn from what is done in the U.S., and start trying to emulate such.

The, nowadays, very much practised (between people with no-to-very-little values) option of just fleeing to somewhere else where *other* people decided to improve the societies they lived in (instead of doing the same thing yourself) is usually the coward's and lazy person's way of "solving" the problems.

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 6:19 PM  

@115 Fernando Negro
"*Sara* (surely her real Portuguese name - and not "Sarah", which is an English form, not used in Portugal - and, that she most likely changed to fit her personal views) is either a One-World/NWO propagandist and/or someone who (like so-called "transsexuals") is just trying to convince herself, and others, that she's something that she's really not, and can never be..."

That is the part that is actually confusing. If they actually believe this is One World, why would they need to go anywhere? If the people are the same everywhere and every country is equal (and unnecessarily distinct), for what reason would anyone go to another country? I understand snowbirds going South for the winter if they dislike the cold and the inconvenience of ice and snow. I can even understand people who go North during the hot summer. Wisconsin and Michigan are beautiful in the summer and the temps usually very mild. But unless their movements have something to do with money or climate (which would only be temporary), then their own beliefs and philosophy contradict their own migratory behavior.
If it truly is One World, why go anywhere else on the planet?

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 7:16 PM  

Mark Stoval wrote:The reason that the Articles might have led to a better outcome is that it kept all the 13 "states" as real nations. I don't see how the US could have become an empire under that arrangement. I don't see how Tennessee (assuming it joined the US confederacy under the Articles) would have ever allowed unrestricted immigration. Perhaps NY would have.

You underestimate the rationalizing abilities of one Abraham Hanks Shipley Sternberg Lincoln, and the corruption and selfishness of those who served him.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 8:24 PM  

@76- I've been wondering if we shouldn't get rid of all birthright citizenship. Not that there'd be no distinction between the children of citizens and the children of interlopers. But that those able to claim citizenship from birth now are merely provisional citizens until they have "skin in the game."

I don't think military service should be the rite of passage, because that institution has been at least partially corrupted. Maybe if we had a real militia movement. Property ownership could be one. Or maybe just acclamation by your community. "This lads proven himself. I nominate him for membership in our citizen club."

On the flip-side, have people's citizenship be in jeopardy when they run afoul of the law or demonstrate seditious or treasonous inclinations. Also, make ostracism great again.

If we ever get back to the pre-'65 balance, we could ease off a little.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 8:41 PM  

@89- Popular sovereignty is a bungle of a concept, though it may serve well as a myth. It's dangerous, however, because it tends to lead us into what you might call the Rousseau Paradox, wherein we fail to reconcile radical individualism with a totalitarian General Will.

There's so much deception in Enlightenment thought. Popular sovereignty is one of them, because it hides where the real power lies. Even if you're an atheist and think the Divine Right of Kings is a deception, at least with an "absolute" monarchy you know where ultimate power resides. If not in the monarch himself, in who controls him. Or the idea of him.

Blogger tublecane July 03, 2018 8:51 PM  

@109- Why so down on purity, bro?

It appears you think incanting that word has some sort of meaning. Try that over in Israel, please.

I'm shocked people have stuck to "you have to go back" and not moved onto asserting the belief that genetic inheritance has something to do with posterity requires Heritage America to throw others in gas chambers.

Blogger John July 03, 2018 10:53 PM  

@76 I disagree. The point of a nation-state is for the State to protect and defend the nation and its interests. Native children are part of the nation, ergo they are born citizens. This does not imply that all male citizens should be equally eligible to serve in office, on a jury, and vote. I think a simple, good, and effective qualification for that would be the birth of your second legitimate child, along with a public demonstration that you can hit a target at X yards with your battle rifle (or at least that you own one). Legitimate children are the ultimate proof of skin in the game. Requiring property ownership is also a good idea.

Obviously, for a Constitutional republic to work, you have to be able to disenfranchise voting citizens for treason or sedition against the Constitution. However, the State should not have the authority to strip citizenship from natives. That's tantamount to giving the State the authority to redefine the definition of a native.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 11:45 PM  

@Tublecane-

Gas Chambers are no fun, and throw away a good training opportunity for Target practice.

Releasing a horde of South felons just across the border, and using them for low-intensity target practice, will help those few that are fast enough to escape spread the word that we are not playing around anymore.

Additionally, it will be invaluable training.

Blogger tublecane July 04, 2018 1:12 AM  

@123- The state would be able to redefine the relationship between nativity and citizenship, not nativity itself, which would still confer privileges.

For instance, in Classical Athens, citizenship was only open to adult males born to citizens in good legal standing who had undergone military training. I don't recall what happened to the male offspring of citizens who don't fit those criteria, but I don't think they were considered on par with other non-citizens. And at least they had a chance .

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 04, 2018 6:01 AM  

Lord love a duck. For the record: Vox Day is wrong on this one. The jury is out as to whether I was foolish to honor-signal my comment. Probably.

But for the tiresome anklebiters I've enabled: Vive Castalia. Vive Infogalactic. Vive Arkhaven.

Ca ira.

Blogger VD July 04, 2018 7:25 AM  

For the record: Vox Day is wrong on this one.

You see, this is why I usually just resort to telling people that they are stupid and ignorant. Because even when a comprehensive and conclusive case is presented, complete with citations, it's just hand-waved away because opinions.

Blogger tc July 04, 2018 8:30 AM  

"I was born in Portugal, of Portuguese parents, and so far as I know (it’s hard to stand on the marital faithfulness of people you never met even if they were your ancestresses) have no American ancestor, ever."

Am I imagining, or this this thing is calling it's mother a whore? Dunno, mabbe someone óshould ax it's mother how she feels about dat...


"All I knew is that I wasn’t precisely right where I was, and while I loved my family and the village in which I grew up, all my impulses -- indeed, my way of being -- were at odds with the local culture and the local beliefs...."

Well now, so ya did'n like da way thangs were in da Ol'country...and ran away to a new country, that you had in your head, that actually doesn't excist, and the one you find moving here by the grace of the good folk living you do not seem to have any foundness for.

So now you want to change this new country of yours to something. Do not much care to what, but I have a suggestion.

Go back to that wonderful village that you have grown up in, with the wonderful ancestors and wonderful customs, and change it into anything you wish it was like. That is your birthright.

Look, you love the idea of Amerika, I get it. The idea is not under 7 seals and copyright protection. Make a Lil'amerika right out of Puerta Whereverua you were born in.
Sure, you is a revolutionary. A right out rebel. I believe you. Please, make a convert of all those wundaba portugese in your village of your birth. Bring them lightness.

We have enough dreamers right here.

You have to go back.

Blogger Stan July 04, 2018 8:44 AM  

And there it is:

Vox:
"If we were discussing how I envisioned the ideal state, we'd be discussing whether people as stupid as you are should be euthanized or just sterilized."

Tublecane:
"I'm shocked people have stuck to "you have to go back" and not moved onto asserting the belief that genetic inheritance has something to do with posterity requires Heritage America to throw others in gas chambers."

If your argument is purely pragmatic and without a moral conclusion for coherence - you claim to be Christian, so in order to be morally coherent the argument must be compatible with Christ - then your argument is actually Nietzschean and based on wording in a document which conveys power to specific blood-lines. That is non-coherent with your proclaimed basis for moral decision making.

Vox:
"For the Nth time, Stan, it's not about me. It's not about you. It's about what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote."

They wrote a document which has the capability of being changed in order to correct human error inherent in the Founding Fathers, who both were human and not gods, and who provided mechanisms to account for their human fallibilty. Some of those were identified almost immediately and were corrected in the amendments called the Bill of Rights. Others followed and some were enacted and then cancelled.

Your position is one of rigid personal attachment to a conclusion which is logical odds with your presumptive moral position. It has led you into a nasty bent regarding disagreement, with threats of death, dismemberment, and presuppositions of stupidity as the only explanation for dissent. Who, exactly, does that resemble? Biblical verse numbers which support your claim of the infallibility and coherence of your logical cum moral declarations would be appreciated. If the logical is non-coherent with the moral, then the Constitution and the USA is not in any manner a Christian creation. Then Nietzsche would be correct, and power would be the only valid principle.

Thanks

Blogger Dire Badger July 04, 2018 9:31 AM  

What is it about people who have never been in a foreign country that makes them think they have a handle on what makes America different?

"Indians always walk in single file. I saw one once."

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants July 04, 2018 11:08 AM  

Euthanized. Definitely euthanized.

Blogger tublecane July 04, 2018 10:46 PM  

"your argument is actually Nietzschean"

What does that even mean?

"must be compatible with Christ...conveys power to specific bloodlines. That is non-coherent with your proclaimed basis for moral decision making."

Have you ever read the Bible? Did you skip over the part with all the begetting? Why do you imagine it was important for them to trace Christ's descent from King David?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 05, 2018 7:45 AM  

Weebs were "born Japanese in America." It's like, obvious.

Blogger R Webfoot July 05, 2018 3:04 PM  

@The Overgrown Hobbit
"The jury is out as to whether I was foolish to honor-signal my comment. Probably."

... It is a bit odd, to be tell Vox Day that you disapprove that something he said could be interpreted to have implications which, although they were not exactly his intent, do sound kinda mean.

That being said, you and many others are confused over the term American, of which there are at least three separate meanings, and the distinction between them is not commonly discussed.

The fallacy of Ambiguity is the one where separate meanings of the same word are treated as if there was no distinction. This makes it harder to discuss anything when there is emotional contamination, or sleight-of-hand from a charlatan. On the subject of science, Vox has tried to make honest conversation easier by coining separate phrases for what he identifies as three separate things which are commonly conflated. This has not yet been done for the term American.

Vox has been using "American" to refer specifically to the Amerikaner descendants of the original Americans. Your reference to certain values as being important to "our identity as Americans" is a separate thing; you are using "Americans" to refer to people who respect the cultural traditions upon which those founding Americans constructed their nation-state. That is a separate concept. Globalists use the word American as exclusively as possible to refer to a third concept, that of paper citizens of the American empire, without regard to the traditions and political philosophy upon which the American people founded the nation-state.

The ambiguity allows for the latter two definitions to be falsely conflated, and for any reference to the first to be brushed aside.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts