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

Darkstream: Everyone is an American now



From the transcript:

So the Mexican elections finished up and the results were not surprising to anyone who's been paying attention,  but they're certainly significant. You know the remarkable thing wasn't that Mexico elected a pretty serious socialist on the Venezuelan model, but the massive amount of the guy won by. If I recall correctly he had nearly 60 percent more votes than his closest rival, and what I want to discuss is the statement that he made where he was talking about how everyone has a right to live in the United States. Everyone apparently is an American now. So how does somebody come up with something like this? Where does it come from? You know, why would a foreign leader say something that is that seemingly insane?

The answer is very simple. He's not even close to being the first foreign leader who said something like this. A lot of people don't realize it, but Moammar Qaddafi used to say exactly the same thing: America belongs to everyone, America belongs to the world. More recently the Iranian president, or former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said much the same thing. He said America is a concept that belongs to the world and no government has the right to tell people that they can't go and live in the United States.

Now a lot of people are saying well, how can this be? How can AMLO, this Mexican president, be talking like this? They don't know about Qaddafi, they don't know about the Iranian president using the same language, but the reality is that this concept is directly traceable to the idea that conservatives have been using in order to try to justify their dislike for identity politics and their dislike for the idea that white Americans might have a nationality of their own, that there might be an American nation.

You know, it's not the Mexicans, it's not the Iranians, it's not the Libyans, who came up with the idea that there is no such thing as an American nation. If you want to hear people talk about that you've got people like Ben Shapiro who will talk your ears off about how America is not a nation, America is a concept, America is a a nation of immigrants, America is a melting pot. Come on! You guys have all heard these concepts. In fact, I would be willing to bet that since this audience tends to be a bit more right wing than the norm, I would bet that at least three-quarters of you subscribed to those concepts at some point.

So I'm going to make some of you extremely uncomfortable here, because what I'm going to tell you - and this is not going to be comfortable for those of you who are US citizens - a lot of you are not Americans and you never were. Your parents aren't, you're grandparents aren't, because Americans
are defined very, very clearly and the United States Constitution was written for a very specific group of people and that doesn't include immigrants, it doesn't include refugees, it doesn't include the great grand children of former immigrants, it doesn't include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution.

Labels: , ,

210 Comments:

1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»
Blogger August July 03, 2018 11:12 AM  

If I am any part of the posterity, it is not on either of my grandfather's sides.

But it isn't just when certain ancestors came here. There is also the Louisiana Purchase. The people who spoke French in Louisiana literally called the English speakers from the North 'the Americans'. I think some still do.

Blogger Okrane S. July 03, 2018 11:14 AM  

Can't this be generalized to any nation though? Hypocrites don't need a valid reason to state that it's the human right of moochers to emigrate to where the welfare is highest. Reasons can be made up.

Similar arguments have been made on how Indians have a right to invade the UK as payback for colonization and so many other examples out there.

Its all pure sophistry and does not require some minute technical fault in the US constitution for them to claim right to free stuff.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown July 03, 2018 11:24 AM  

"...it doesn't include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution."

Too much awesome.
Potential comment overload.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 11:28 AM  

"America is a concept that belongs to the world"

Which means there is no need to come to the United States. We have never made a secret of how our culture or system of government work. Copy them, and turn your OWN country into an America. Or pick and choose, turn your country into something better than it was (see Japan for an example of this).

But the ability of the United States to absorb immigrants has been overtaxed...by several orders of magnitude. Civic nationalist I might be, but I agree with Vox. We need to ship back as many immigrants as possible.

There's a Dirty Little Secret nobody has mentioned. Periods of high immigration into the United States have correlated strongly with periods of political violence. Wave 3 (ca. 1750-1790) with the American Revolution. Wave 4 (ca. 1835-1865) with the Civil War. Wave 5 (ca. 1895-1925) with multiple political assassinations and civil unrest. And Wave 6 (ca. 1955-present) with high crime and even more civil unrest.

Immigration = Civil War 2.0, with all its horrors.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 11:36 AM  

As B. Franklin responded after the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when asked what sort of a nation was now the US, ' A Republic, if you can keep it.'

Of course, we now know they couldn't keep it, not in light of the forces at work in the world. Such is history. Nothing ever remains the same, and as the Good Book states (Pslam 127), ' Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.'

America was not founded on explicitly Christian or Biblical principles,despite the lip-service paid, but rather those of the Enlightenment. It was never going to last. God told us so.In fact America's rise and fall has been remarkably rapid historically speaking.

Blogger PW July 03, 2018 11:42 AM  

Vox, if my ancestors fought for the British in the revolutionary war, does that make me not American?

Blogger Lazarus July 03, 2018 11:44 AM  

former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said much the same thing


Not just say it, but actually wrote a letter to Trump about it.

Blogger S1AL July 03, 2018 11:46 AM  

"In fact America's rise and fall has been remarkably rapid historically speaking."

No, it hasn't. The average European republic lasted less than 80 years. Most kingdoms survived without a civil war, deposition, and execution, for about 3-5 generations - if that. The USSR collapsed in 50 years.

Japan? Emperors, Shoguns, etc. Had a staggeringly high early mortality rate/government overthrow.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 11:54 AM  

@8

Are we discussing polity or ethnic origins? If the former, race does not matter, if the latter, well that has no bearing on the form of a nation's government. The two you see are not synonymous over time. Ethnic European nations and culture have survived all many of political shifts and systemic changes.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 11:56 AM  

@8

And yet Japan remains Japanese

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 12:07 PM  

@6 PW: You have to go back. I'll loan you a musket...playing Oliver Cromwell in the UK should be a snap. The only people capable of opposing you will be cheering you on. :-)

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 12:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Salt July 03, 2018 12:10 PM  

He said America is a concept that belongs to the world and no government has the right to tell people that they can't go and live in the United States."

If it's such a concept, why did he not emulate it?

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 12:13 PM  

As historian Christopher Dawson has rightly determined in his work: Culture is Downstream of religion (paraphrasing)
America's founding was essentially a-religious and therefore lacked the strong cultural back-bone we see in other ethnic cultures that have developed as a result of the permeation of religious belief in forming said cultures. The laborers simply labored in vain with regards the American project. Sad but true. One can try and argue that the religious culture was implicit by virtue of ethnicity, but this is not good enough. We see the fruits of Enlightment thought in Europe - revolution and atheism to name but two, and we understand that these are not sturdy building blocks for a sustainable culture. The Enlightenment in large part is the sine-qua-non force that has resulted in modern Europe's and America's woes. 'Separation of Church and State' is the prime example of the denial of Logos that permeates American cultural life.

Blogger RobertT July 03, 2018 12:16 PM  

Good to know my great grandmother & her numerous sisters were members of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Blogger RobertT July 03, 2018 12:24 PM  

"The average European republic lasted less than 80 years."

Life is notoriously impermanent. The average business lasts less than ten years. That U.S. has endured more than 200 years as a functioning democracy is remarkable.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 12:24 PM  

I agree, no government has that right.

But we as a people have that right. And the people that live here have decided No. Third world cesspits and decrepit corrupt old world nation governments 'own' their nations. in this country WE own the government... it belongs to us, and if it says something we don't agree with it is our responsibility to cut it off at the knees.
So No, our 'government' doesn't have the right to decide who gets to live her and who doesn't. And foreign governments DEFINITELY do not have that right.

WE have decided that we are "No fucking Vacancy" and that we need to empty all the guest rooms, and I will be MORE than Happy to shoot any foreigner that decides that it is THEIR choice.

Blogger Elijah July 03, 2018 12:25 PM  

i go so far as to say only white southerners are american. you yankees can go back to the UK and italy etc.....

Blogger Tank July 03, 2018 12:26 PM  

The "America" you refer to has not existed for over a hundred years. That was a better "America," but it's not "who we are now." That "America" has been less than 50 percent of the population for a long, long time.

Blogger insight July 03, 2018 12:27 PM  

How come mehico doesn't look like Spain? After all the mestizos have Spanish genes in there somewhere. They should have been able to emulate the Spanish.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 12:28 PM  

RobertT wrote:"The average European republic lasted less than 80 years."

Life is notoriously impermanent. The average business lasts less than ten years. That U.S. has endured more than 200 years as a functioning democracy is remarkable.


It hasn't. It has survived about 80 years as a dysfunctional undeclared Oligarchy with the trappings of democracy. Before that it had about 80 years as a dysfunctional republic with some democratic leanings, and before THAT about 40 years as a functional representative republic.

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 03, 2018 12:28 PM  

This sort of Americanism comes pretty close to heresy. Just add baptism to the naturalization ceremony, and the phrase "All are Americans in Christ Jesus."

Blogger James July 03, 2018 12:29 PM  

I actually used to predict this in the first BO administration. I would tell people "Everybody in the world is a potential American so they must have all the rights and privileges of Americans." People would laugh and tell me how absurd that was. Ha Ha. The jokes on them!

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 12:30 PM  

I think the last 20 years or so have probably been a lot more like a thinly-disguised dysfunctional feudalism.

Blogger Pope Cleophus I July 03, 2018 12:31 PM  

СССР
30 декабря 1922 года
26 декабря 1991 года
30 December 1922 to 26 December 1991
Not quite 69 years. Happy 29th birthday to me.

Blogger insight July 03, 2018 12:33 PM  

The Mexicants just doubled down on their stupidity by picking that clown as their "leader". Trump has to build a wall now.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 12:34 PM  

@16 'That U.S. has endured more than 200 years as a functioning democracy'

Highly debatable in light of some of the more egregious anti-democratic actions of the Supreme Court, and the Banking Elite influence on domestic and foreign policy. I will have to look it up as my memory fails, but one recent(-ish) President made the claim that he had no true power. I think it was FDR, not certain. It was written about by the writer and journalist, Douglas Reed, in on of his excellent books. And what about that 'Military Industrial Complex'Eisenhower warned us about 60 odd years ago?

Blogger Henry Lee July 03, 2018 12:35 PM  

Guess that lets me out. I think this is an extreme position based on an eccentric interpretation of one word. My paternal German ancestors came to Virginia well before the Revolution. My great-aunt had to get into the DAR through marriage to one of the Calverts of Maryland. Sorry all those generations felt they were Americans while fighting in the subsequent wars. Been nice knowing you.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 12:37 PM  

@22 'Just add baptism to the naturalization ceremony, and the phrase "All are Americans in Christ Jesus."'

If only they would!

Blogger Mocheirge July 03, 2018 12:37 PM  

Ledford Ledford wrote:Just add baptism to the naturalization ceremony, and the phrase "All are Americans in Judeo-Christ."

FIFY

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 03, 2018 12:39 PM  

Henry Lee,

#wompwomp

Blogger Long Live The West July 03, 2018 12:46 PM  

Saying America doesn't exist anymore is beyond stupid. If it doesn't exist then we should let the hordes in.

Is America suffering from poison? Yes.

But the fight is still going on. And the time is coming where we'll get to fight for our land and reclaim it.

I am an American. That will never change no matter how many invaders we let in.

We're in the phase of get fit, get a gun, and get some friends who are fit with guns.

Long Live the West!

Blogger Jamie-R July 03, 2018 12:50 PM  

PW wrote:Vox, if my ancestors fought for the British in the revolutionary war, does that make me not American?

Isn't this Canadian In Denial?

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 03, 2018 12:52 PM  

Well, Vox, being a good Aristotelian logician, you are starting from a key premise.

To paraphrase (and please correct me if I am wrong) the founders had in mind the descendants of English colonist, and everybody who DOESN'T descend from them is, ergo, NOT an American. You are using a Aristotelian universal affirmation -- all As are B, all not A is not a B. (Though I bet the Revolutionaries who descended from the Dutch at Fort Nassau may chafe a bit at the notion that "Posterity" doesn't apply to them).

Anyway, being a "not A" I still have an American passport and consider msyself thoroughly American. To me, your premise means shit, but hey, I still luv ya!

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 03, 2018 12:53 PM  

This thread is evidence of why the American Republic could not be kept.

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 12:57 PM  

Well my grandfather was a direct male descendant of Wellington and we had officers fighting on both sides of the Revolutionary War. His family name was listed during the Bicentennial as one of the great American family names. Does the fact that he married an Irish wench disqualify me?

Blogger papabear July 03, 2018 1:03 PM  

"America's founding was essentially a-religious and therefore lacked the strong cultural back-bone we see in other ethnic cultures that have developed as a result of the permeation of religious belief in forming said cultures. The laborers simply labored in vain with regards the American project. Sad but true. One can try and argue that the religious culture was implicit by virtue of ethnicity, but this is not good enough. We see the fruits of Enlightment thought in Europe - revolution and atheism to name but two, and we understand that these are not sturdy building blocks for a sustainable culture."

It wasn't the Enlightenment that was the problem, but (1) the baggage of the state, which was treated as the norm. And then the amplification of the state, when the federal system was replaced by a national state.

And (2) the logic of Protestantism. There were state churches, which did not violate the First Amendment. But these went away rather quickly nonetheless. Some colonies were even founded for religious reasons. One can see religious tolerance of different Christian sects as a pragmatic necessity, or just part of the agenda of the state to replace religion with itself. Which leads us back to (1).

No mainstream Catholic historian (or political philosopher) has really handled the problem of the modern state well.

Blogger S1AL July 03, 2018 1:03 PM  

"This thread is evidence of why the American Republic could not be kept."

Franklin had something to say about that, too.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 03, 2018 1:05 PM  

FYI: Vox can not magically award you founding stock posterity status, even if you put forth a compelling reason why you are the exception to the rule.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 1:13 PM  

@39

It doesn't matter. Foundational stock is no guarantee of future success, as we now know. The fall of so many European nations today indicates that something else is required to protect identity. Genes alone have not supplied the necessary impetus, and this 'something else' is a common culture born of belief in the Savior, an idea that needs protection by the State, but also the State must be subservient to the demands of religion and God's Law. America never had this. Many modern European nations have abandoned this worldview that once they held. God is not mocked.

Blogger Austin Ballast July 03, 2018 1:16 PM  

No procedures would have been made for non-English to become US citizens if that was the only path. That doesn't make the modern idiocy correct, but to claim the US was only supposed to be from Englishmen is idiocy as well.

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 1:17 PM  

Has anybody informed Europe that nearly 150M+ descendants of their emigrants are returning?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 03, 2018 1:18 PM  

This is going to be another comment section chock-full of stupid.

For those paying attention in the peanut gallery, start taking down names of the squalling Non-Americans, we'll probably need them later.

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 1:20 PM  

insight wrote:How come mehico doesn't look like Spain? After all the mestizos have Spanish genes in there somewhere. They should have been able to emulate the Spanish.
If you examine the fact that wherever Catholicism became rooted in the New World (almost all countries south of the U.S.) the European cultural stability did not gain a foothold. I have often thought about this and have noted that in those countries (and Latin America is a good example), the Catholicism became adulterated with local pagan customs (Inca and Aztec) and the indigenous populations have never really mixed with their Spanish and Portuguese colonizers. Since politics is downstream from religion, a compromised, dishonest religion will lead to a compromised dishonest government and that is what we see throughout the lands south of us.

I also have always thought that the Reformation was one of the reasons that importance of rights under the law became so in the areas of Europe that became Protestant.

This is just an observation. I have not done any serious study on this.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 1:20 PM  

@37 No mainstream Catholic historian (or political philosopher) has really handled the problem of the modern state well.

I disagree. Solange Hertz and Charles A. Coulombe (to name but 2) have both tackled this subject coherently and convincingly

Blogger dienw July 03, 2018 1:22 PM  

Our representatives in the Senate and House have twice voted in new governments in place of the Constitution without our consent: 1878 and 1933. Under these conditions who would not be a true American: there are now three different sets of true Americans; are those who came after 1933 the ones who have to go back?

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 1:25 PM  

@44 If you examine the fact that wherever Catholicism became rooted in the New World (almost all countries south of the U.S.) the European cultural stability did not gain a foothold

Slavery and poor education are largely to blame. The Church called for an end to the slave system in S.America and was largely ignored. When it was finally abandoned it had long entrenched an inequitable 2 tier system (which still persists) and no means were employed to bridge this gap post slavery. It was a failure of imagination and human effort more than anything else.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:26 PM  

I think this is an extreme position based on an eccentric interpretation of one word.

You're completely and utterly wrong. It is a precise position that has been conclusively demonstrated to be correct.

To me, your premise means shit, but hey, I still luv ya!

And yet, you claim to value the Constitution? Your position is totally incoherent. You have no basis whatsoever for denying anyone else in the world the right to claim American identity as legitimate as your own.

Blogger insight July 03, 2018 1:29 PM  

Tribalism/genes are very obvious every Sunday morning in churches across the land. It is what it is.

Blogger Elijah July 03, 2018 1:29 PM  

if you cannot trace your ancestry back to before 1933, then yes, you have to go back!

Blogger insight July 03, 2018 1:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Lovekraft July 03, 2018 1:32 PM  

This is just going to end up forcing more nations to build walls, detention centers and billions of dollars diverted from useful endeavors into fighting the Global Immigration Racket.

The globalists bank on one thing: that third world birthrates will ensure a steady supply of malleable and easily-manipulated takers. And, with their fortunes, will be able to enact endless campaigns of harassment (and worse) against the stable free states that globalists covet (due to these states having Christian majorities).

I think we will be seeing the rise of alt-right ideology centered around the line of 'Disentanglement' from other cultures/races.

Blogger RobertT July 03, 2018 1:32 PM  

Trump proved that our underlying democratic bloodlines were still intact. Whether it's a democracy or a republic or an oligarchy or something else, I'll leave that to you. Honestly, that bores me to tears. But astonishingly, despite everything you mentioned, elections still work.

Blogger SidVic July 03, 2018 1:34 PM  

I think Lincoln touched upon this issue in the L-Douglas debates. Seems a bit extreme to me, but good food for thought. Vox is the butcher in Gangs of New york!

Blogger Nathan Bissonette July 03, 2018 1:35 PM  

If "posterity" included female descendants of Founders who thus were entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, was the 19th Amendment a silly waste of time?

Blogger Lovekraft July 03, 2018 1:35 PM  

@VD: could it be argued that the Constitution is a "Separationist" document, rather than an inclusionist one?

I think the left/right, nationist/globalist struggle may be boiled down to "Those who want to be left alone vs those who want to meddle/control others."

Blogger Peter Gent July 03, 2018 1:41 PM  

Note completely off topic but important: There is an interesting article about Tim Berners-Lee who is trying to reclaim the internet from the corporate (or as we might say, globalist) takeover and return it to the free association, individualistic place he envisioned. It says he always knew that in the wrong hands it could become the destroyer of worlds. He is now trying to use technology to fix that. We will see. We will also see if they let him do it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis July 03, 2018 1:43 PM  

Is one American ancestor enough to make you an American?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 03, 2018 1:48 PM  

By this definition Sons of the Texas Revolution who did not descend from Americans are not Americans. And that's fine.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 1:51 PM  

If your ancestors fought with the British against the colonials, what is your status as an American? Interesting question. The colonials could be quite lenient with royalists and the like after the war. For example, the Hessian mercenaries were allowed to stay, and the usual pattern for them was to accrue great wealth in the United States then head back to Europe laden with reward. But they were never considered Americans by Americans.

As for the US citizenship of royalists, well that was a problem. According to that David Ramsey treatise, even if you were born in the colonies as a legal subject of the British crown, but fought against the colonies or even went absent for the Revolutionary War, you were not considered a United States citizen after the war. You had to become naturalized.

(and as to this notion that Catholics never had a good response to the modern state, what about Pope Leo's _Rerum novarum_? but that's an aside, I guess)

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 1:53 PM  

If "posterity" included female descendants of Founders who thus were entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, was the 19th Amendment a silly waste of time?

Give it up, Nathan. You're wrong. Don't play the Gamma game of looking for the irrelevant non-exception that will just maybe allow you to try to salvage your hopeless case.

Yes, by definition, Posterity includes male and female descendants. But there is no right to vote, so the question is moot.

Blogger John Rampton July 03, 2018 1:56 PM  

Let's just say for argument's sake that my ancestors did not squat on this soil before 1787. Have I not learned the language, learned the history, fulfilled honorable military service, paid my taxes, fulfilled my duty as citizen, and pledged allegiance? How have I not been properly assimilated in any way more meaningful than the current crop riding the dole?

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 2:00 PM  

Let's just say for argument's sake that my ancestors did not squat on this soil before 1787. Have I not learned the language, learned the history, fulfilled honorable military service, paid my taxes, fulfilled my duty as citizen, and pledged allegiance? How have I not been properly assimilated in any way more meaningful than the current crop riding the dole?

What does that have to do with anything? You're still not an American. Did any of that modify your blood type?

This really isn't that hard. It boggles my mind that so many of you find this a difficult concept to grasp.

Do you understand that the STATE is not the NATION? Then you should be able to understand that if your parents are not POSTERITY, then you are not an American. Do you ever call yourself an Anglo-American? Or an African-American? If not, why not?

Have you not learned the language?

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 03, 2018 2:00 PM  

People want America to be an exception to the natural human pattern of living somewhere among people more or less like yourself. Not everyone, everywhere, and at all times, but mostly yes.

The major exceptions are invasions.

If you try to set yourself up as an exception you'll find out why it's a rule.

Blogger ZhukovG July 03, 2018 2:01 PM  

It is amazing how many people lack basic reading comprehension. Or allow emotion to completely short circuit their commonsense.

You'd think Vox was communicating in Swahili.

This isn't difficult. It certainly isn't something to get your panties in a twist over.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 2:02 PM  

Regarding which parent confers nationality or can both parents confer nationality? The colonies were British, following English Common Law in which nationality is conferred exclusively by the father. That was the case until about 30 years ago, when the British formally expanded it to mothers (and introduced a bunch of confusion, btw. Do you get to pick??). It's become a mess in US law these days. Only God knows how SCOTUS might rule on such a case these day, but odds are not good for traditional views (eek! oppressive patriarchy!)

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 2:03 PM  

@27

"And what about that 'Military Industrial Complex'Eisenhower warned us about 60 odd years ago?"

Strange how the same people who never let us forget about Eisenhower's warning about the Military/Industrial Complex COMPLETELY OMIT his other warning (IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH OF HIS SPEECH!) about the Media/Academic Complex, and how, it, too, is dangerous to the health of the nation.

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar July 03, 2018 2:04 PM  

Does not Mexico fit the definition of a belligerent?
Does this not justify the construction of repatriation facilities SOUTH of our southern border?
Make Annexation Great Again.
You'd think that they had learned.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 2:06 PM  

@32

"We're in the phase of get fit, get a gun, and get some friends who are fit with guns."


1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you’re probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on “pucker factor” than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. “All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket.”

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won’t work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don’t drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than “4”.

25. You can’t miss fast enough to win.

Blogger centexguy July 03, 2018 2:06 PM  

And right on queue Bill Kristol tweets this:
"This ad will air tomorrow morning, July 4th, on selected stations including Fox News, to remind our fellow Americans, Republicans and conservatives that we are a nation of immigrants, and stronger for it."

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 03, 2018 2:14 PM  

HOW DO YOU DO, FELLOW AMERICANS?

Blogger papabear July 03, 2018 2:16 PM  

#60 Rerum Novarum doesn't go far enough, and question the legitimacy of the state. (Because it doesn't have the philosophical tools to do so.) Christian theology tends to give large-scale polities (empires and states) the benefit of the doubt in the name of respecting "authority."

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:16 PM  

Some of the people commenting on this thread are obtuse. It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself American. That literally has nothing to do with it. You can consider yourself a horse or a grizzly bear too but it does not make you one.

People cannot seem to understand the important distinction between Nation and State. Citizenship has to do with the machinery of the State. A state can confer citizenship on whoever it wants. A state has no ability to confer nationality.

I could just as soon confer Chinese nationality on you as I could confer American nationality. Which is to say not at all. By contrast, I have conferred U.S. citizenship on people during the course of my consular work.

These two things SHOULD be linked but it is one of the peculiarities of history and bad legislation that they are not in the United States of America at present

Arguing that "well, I feel like an American, therefore I am one," is a form of special pleading that is stupid on its face.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 2:17 PM  

Fortunately, I am descended from veterans of the Continental Army on both sides. :-)

Blogger S1AL July 03, 2018 2:22 PM  

"These two things SHOULD be linked but it is one of the peculiarities of history and bad legislation that they are not in the United States of America at present"

That is not peculiar, historically.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 2:24 PM  

@73: Very good point. You're quite right, we DO get citizenship confused with membership in the nation - having the cultural background so deeply ingrained that it's an irremovable part of your personality. Thanks for reminding me.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:25 PM  

If America is a creedal nation, then what do you do with those who do not agree with or believe the creed?

I will tell you, you have to excommunicate them. It is that or the creed means nothing. And to do that it means that you have to have the tools to determine who believes it and who does not and loyalty oaths and an apparatus for finding people who say they believe in the creed but do not. In other words, you have to have inquisitors and witch hunters and the like. But nobody thinks through that.

Otherwise, you open the American Nation up to anyone who mouths platitudes like "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness." And that would mean pretty much everyone is an American. Which is, of course, absurd.

By contrast, if you say that the American Nation are the posterity of those of the Founding then you have a coherent nation which is recognizable and has distinct characteristics and does not require unleashing some kind of apparatus like the one described above.

Blogger CoolHand July 03, 2018 2:27 PM  

While I take VD's point vis a vis what/who is posterity, that's quite a hill to climb.

If the cucks think that it is impossible to deport just the millions of illegals here currently, I rather think they (and a goodly many hard right folks as well) are going to balk outright at deporting something like 2/3's of the current population, especially seeing as how a largish majority of those tenth generation immigrants don't actually have any home country to go back to.

IMO this entire discussion is academic.

The real Americans will sort themselves from the fake Americans the old fashioned way, by which side of the coming war they decide to fight on.

Those that stand and fight with us can stay, or we all die together.

Those that oppose us may go to hell, and if we're lucky, we'll get to send them on that trip personally.

Blogger LP999-16 July 03, 2018 2:28 PM  

The presentation was not uncomfortable at all, it was informative and correct. As always, excellent, audio is always fine, its all good.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:32 PM  

While I take your point, CoolHand, saying that they do not have countries to go back to still misses the point.

Most, if not all of them, still have NATIONS to go back to. Not that I think it is going to be possible to repatriate a lot of those folks but it is important that we recognize who is an American and who is not so we do not get gulled into the "nation of immigrants" and "huddled masses" arguments.

Those have been well crafted and pushed extremely hard on the population and have done incredible damage. They are exactly why we cannot deport the millions of illegals who are in the U.S. currently. Because we have too many American Nationals who buy into this without thinking about its implications.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 2:41 PM  

papabear wrote:#60 Rerum Novarum doesn't go far enough, and question the legitimacy of the state. (Because it doesn't have the philosophical tools to do so.) Christian theology tends to give large-scale polities (empires and states) the benefit of the doubt in the name of respecting "authority."

You expect Plato's _Republic_ from the starting point of "render unto Caesar"? St. Augustine's City Of God was not earthly, could not be, and always opposed to the Earthly City. The Church isn't the guidance for Satan on how to build that Earthly City. But an implicit charge is built-in that however such schemes fall out they will fail and fall short. So I don't know what you expect. Pope Leo's _Rerum novarum_ is a major text that was ahead of its time in anticipating how the modern state was developing and also what Christians could do to combat it. It's outstanding example of a cogent religious commentary on the modern state. But yeah, _The Republic_ it's not.

Blogger ace July 03, 2018 2:42 PM  

If everyone is an American want a new demonym with meaning. If I'm not an American, I still want a new demonym.

Blogger Retrenched July 03, 2018 2:43 PM  

Someone tell Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan that they're not real Americans and need to go back to Ireland

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 03, 2018 2:43 PM  

Thanks to immigration, we no longer have a recognizable nation. Even the bloodiest violence imaginable isn't going to bring back the America of 1787 and all we can do now is decide to whether and how to go about building a new nation. But allowing immigration to continue unchecked is surrender. If the entire world wants to lay claim to America, the only thing that can stop them is us.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:47 PM  

All we can do is gun up and get ready for what is coming. There may eventually be a "new" American nation but it is going to have to A) recognize itself as such with the whole blood and soil thing made explicit, if it is going to survive and B) explicitly reject a creedal universality as the basis of its existence.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:49 PM  

I imagine telling that to Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan would be hilarious. But hey, it is not as if it is the mistake of the present generation that they let the ancestors of those two out of the potato patch and into the country in the first place. We will get to them later. We have other more pressing problems first.

Blogger Richard Holmes July 03, 2018 2:53 PM  

So I'm going to make some of you extremely uncomfortable here, because what I'm going to tell you - and this is not going to be comfortable for those of you who are US citizens - a lot of you are not Americans and you never were. Your parents aren't, you're grandparents aren't, because Americans
are defined very, very clearly and the United States Constitution was written for a very specific group of people and that doesn't include immigrants, it doesn't include refugees, it doesn't include the great grand children of former immigrants, it doesn't include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution. - VD


you know what. I really thought I fell into the none of my ancestors were american. But I found out differently not too long ago. I found out I am 60% british and I have a great something grandfather that fought in the revolutionary war. I was completely shocked. I still have relatives that belong to the group "Daughters of the Revolution". To be honest I was shocked.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 2:53 PM  

If the cucks think that it is impossible to deport just the millions of illegals here currently, I rather think they (and a goodly many hard right folks as well) are going to balk outright at deporting something like 2/3's of the current population, especially seeing as how a largish majority of those tenth generation immigrants don't actually have any home country to go back to.

What does deportation have to do with discerning genuine nationality? Why do some of you automatically leap from A to N?

The fact that most US citizens are not Americans does not mean that all non-Americans must be immediately deported. After all, they have never, ever, been Americans.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 2:53 PM  

We already have demonyms for the Johnny-come-latelies: Paper-Americans. Or Wretched Refuse-Americans, if you prefer.

Blogger Peaceful Poster July 03, 2018 3:00 PM  

VD, you always receive more push back on this topic than any other.

And you always stick to your guns, and to the truth, which is that a nation (including the American nation) is a people with common blood, history and culture.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 03, 2018 3:02 PM  

Austin Ballast,

The procedures were pretty simple, and laid out in the Naturalization Act of 1790. White, and of good character after living here for two years.

Here is the actual text, and there is some really clear direction also on the Natural Born Citizen and 14th Amendment "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" questions:

"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,

(Franklin and Jefferson had a very narrow view of what white means)

Who shall have resided within the limits and the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the stated wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens, Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Natural born citizen defined

Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

You see Austin, it's right there in black and white.

Blogger Richard Holmes July 03, 2018 3:04 PM  

Ok VD. I get your point. Most people in the USA who are "citizens" are not americans. Now what? You know they aren't going to be removed. Even you by admission isn't an american. But you are a citizen. Now what? Where is this going? I am very curious,...

Blogger ace July 03, 2018 3:05 PM  

Typical American.

Blogger Kudos The Lexecutioner July 03, 2018 3:06 PM  

I am descended from DAR stock, one of whom fought with Washington at the Battle of Trenton. I AM The Posterity.

If I moved to Japan, went to work for Sony, learned to speak Japanese fluently, wore a kimono every day, and ate sushi at every meal, I would never be Japanese.

Magic Dirt is bullshit.

Honestly, this isn't rocket surgery.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 3:08 PM  

Sherwood family wrote:itizenship has to do with the machinery of the State. A state can confer citizenship on whoever it wants. A state has no ability to confer nationality.

Lots of truth to that, but there is more. Nations have their own internal laws and customs, independent of whatever a state may legislate. Romans may have called it 'mores', it springs from the internal goings-on of the life of a nation. So it finds expression in English Common Law, for example, which accrued not through bills passing through bicameral legislatures of royal edicts, but through the tussle of life in England through the ages and the accumulated ways of the English. All nations have them, even in Somalia where they don't have a functioning state, they still have rules people are expected to live by.

Of course nations have their own membership rules regardless of what a state may decree. For example in our case we had the notion that nationality and social legitimacy confers from the father. It used to be a quite shameful and regrettable thing to be a bastard, that word had real bite. This served a lot of purpose in the nation, for example pressure against out-of-wedlock births and also pressure against miscegenation. Not to mention keeping straight national membership questions.

And today we see some fruits of the war against this by the state against its own nation, and how effectively a state can indeed wage such a war.

Had it not been so successful in the United States, there is no way Barack Obama could have been elected president. Even though he may have been born in Hawaii to an American mother, his father was a Kenyan foreign national. So he's a Kenyan. Would have saved us a bunch of heartache. (and also the efforts of the wet team that took out the lady who signed his birth certificate).

Furthermore, Ted Cruz had a Cuban father and an American mother but was somehow born in Canada. So, what is he? Cuban. No question. Even under Canadian law that was in place at the time, he's clearly Cuban, not Canadian. And even under American law in place at the time, he's not American (parents never filed a Notice Of Live Birth with the American consulate).

But we are so wrapped around the axle now and confused we cannot say with broad agreement who belongs to whom anymore in America. And we aren't in such a hot position to deny any of the foreigners claiming to be American these days now, are we? Not if the civnats have their day, we won't.

It's anything goes situation increasingly.

Blogger CitizenOutkast July 03, 2018 3:12 PM  

Just curious, because I haven't seen it asked yet, but what "percentage" of American do you need to be, do you think, to be a "real American?" I had no interest in tracing my genealogy until my father wanted to know, so we looked it up and could get, on his side, as far as just after the Civil War with my family coming from Germany (so, out of respect to Franklin, I guess I'll stay out of PA). However, once here, I believe they married citizens. I have to look, because he was more interested in just his paternal side.

So, if, by some chance, I find that my grandfather married a woman who could be traced all the way back, would that make my father a real American? Could someone be 1/2 American? Or is the blood demand 100%?

Frankly, I don't care. I would personally first worry about sending all non-white immigrants back, but that's because they have shown that on the whole, they don't contribute enough to balance out the negative of their people being here. For every one Dinesh (being generous) there are thousands of Apus.

So what's the metric, just for academic reasons?

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 3:18 PM  

We do not have Nuremberg Laws or Limpieza de sangre statutes to declare what quantum of American blood you have to be to be part of the nation. We may get to that point but for the present our "mores" have never dictated that requirement.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener July 03, 2018 3:18 PM  

If you like the "who's a real American" game, just wait for the "who's a real human" game that will happen once biotech firms start selling transgenic embryos.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 3:25 PM  

A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, values, traditions, ethnicity, descent, religion and history.

Notice included is both common descent as well as a common ethnicity. They are not the same thing.

At times in history, there have been multiple nations occupying the same general area and even cooperating with one another.

With a return to legal "right of association" and a vigorous defense of "state's rights"; the USA could survive and expel those who don't belong here. An area like what is now Michigan might allow multiple European nations (tribes)to live there while East Tennessee might allow only the Scots-Irish.

What we need first is to recognize the truth of what the words mean, and the truth of history. Good on Vox Day for pounding home the truth.

Blogger Dad29 July 03, 2018 3:33 PM  

Well, since you've declared that I am not "an American", may I stop paying those damn taxes?

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 3:38 PM  

Now what? Where is this going? I am very curious....

Who says it is going anywhere? This is merely a response to the very public assertion by the President-elect of Mexico, among others, that anyone, anywhere in the world, can be an American.

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 3:38 PM  

Well, since you've declared that I am not "an American", may I stop paying those damn taxes?

Of course not. Do you pay your taxes to America?

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:40 PM  

@46

"Our representatives in the Senate and House have twice voted in new governments in place of the Constitution without our consent: 1878 and 1933."

Sounds like an interesting theory. Please clarify. I would like to know more about your idea which you so briefly alluded to here.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 3:41 PM  

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/

Let's look at who IS paying the taxes, Dad29. Maybe we should insist that everyone else who is in America should pay their fair share?

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:42 PM  

@47

"When it was finally abandoned it had long entrenched an inequitable 2 tier system (which still persists) and no means were employed to bridge this gap post slavery. It was a failure of imagination and human effort more than anything else."

Or the Catholic slave-owners decided to get rid of de jure slavery (to get their church off their backs, but kept de facto slavery because they are unwilling to give up power and a monopoly on wealth.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:44 PM  

@52

"This is just going to end up forcing more nations to build walls, detention centers and billions of dollars diverted from useful endeavors into fighting the Global Immigration Racket."

Fighting the Global Immigration Racket *IS* a useful endeavor.

Just because the electric bill in the dentist's office is considered "overhead" by his accountant, doesn't mean that having electric lights and electric dental tools isn't useful.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 3:45 PM  

@VD What does that have to do with anything? You're still not an American. Did any of that modify your blood type?

If this is the only metric for Americanism then Britons who share the same haplotypes not born here are also American....surely?

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 3:46 PM  

Red Bane, that is why the term is "Blood and Soil." Obviously, Britons do not meet the last part of that designation.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:48 PM  

@54

"Vox is the butcher in Gangs of New york!"

Bill the Butcher was a real person. And the gang he lead was the original incarnation of The Bowery Boys. At that time, their primary motivation was convincing Potato-Faministas to go back to the other side of the Atlantic... or at least get the hell off of Manhattan Island. They didn't get into petty crime until later.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 3:48 PM  

@105 Or the Catholic slave-owners decided to get rid of de jure slavery (to get their church off their backs, but kept de facto slavery because they are unwilling to give up power and a monopoly on wealth

No. I have had long discussions with a Brazilian friend on this matter. The former slaves were simply released into the wild...literally, to fend for themselves. They were no longer kept in employment. Having nowhere to go however they simply formed barrios and ghettos close to the point of release and close to their former lives.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 3:50 PM  

@104: YES! Rule of the Payers! One of my fondest dreams is to restrict the vote to those who bear a burden of supporting the Government, one way or another.

I like the idea of 100 Points of Equity being earned in the two years prior to the election year. 1 Point = $100 in Federal income tax = 1 day paid active military service = 4 hours unpaid voluntary labor service. Any adult non-felon citizen can vote...provided he has done his part in running the country.

Blogger CoolHand July 03, 2018 3:51 PM  

@88 Point taken. I inferred much more than you actually said, that's on me.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 3:53 PM  

@108

Does this include the soil not part of the original colonies or those lands later purchases?

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:55 PM  

@55

"If "posterity" included female descendants of Founders who thus were entitled to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, was the 19th Amendment a silly waste of time?"

Nobody said that women weren't CITIZENS. However, giving them the right to vote was the second IDIOTIC move in destroying the nation (the first being the neutering of state governments by removing their representation in the Senate, transforming the Senate into a second, smaller House of Representatives, by mandating that Senators be elected by the people, not by by the states' legislatures.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 3:56 PM  

@56

"I think the left/right, nationist/globalist struggle may be boiled down to "Those who want to be left alone vs those who want to meddle/control others."

Or more simply; Aristotle / Plato

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2018 3:58 PM  

> IMO this entire discussion is academic. ... The real Americans will sort themselves from the fake Americans the old fashioned way, by which side of the coming war they decide to fight on.

Of course. But if you'd like any chance to avoid that option, then you need to understand how we got here and what we can do about it. You start that process with definitions.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 3:58 PM  

@67 Strange how the same people who never let us forget about Eisenhower's warning about the Military/Industrial Complex COMPLETELY OMIT his other warning (IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH OF HIS SPEECH!) about the Media/Academic Complex, and how, it, too, is dangerous to the health of the nation.


None of which has an bearing on the point in question,ie, that claims of sound and unsullied American democracy lasting hundreds of years are in fact erroneous.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 03, 2018 4:04 PM  

Peter Gent wrote:Well my grandfather was a direct male descendant of Wellington and we had officers fighting on both sides of the Revolutionary War. His family name was listed during the Bicentennial as one of the great American family names. Does the fact that he married an Irish wench disqualify me?

If you think ``You have to go back'' applies to you, you are probably right.

dienw wrote:: there are now three different sets of true Americans; are those who came after 1933 the ones who have to go back?

Why don't we start with the Third World subset of post-1965 group, and then see where that gets us?

Sherwood family wrote:If America is a creedal nation, then what do you do with those who do not agree with or believe the creed?

... In other words, you have to have inquisitors and witch hunters and the like. But nobody thinks through that.


This is the most obvious thing in the world, and the most deliberately overlooked by the deliberately obtuse CivNat cucks.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 4:06 PM  

@57

"It says he always knew that in the wrong hands it could become the destroyer of worlds. He is now trying to use technology to fix that. We will see. We will also see if they let him do it."

Twitter and YouTube ban Tim Berners-Lee in 5... 4... 3...


(If you say it can't happen, recall the sad tale of Brendan Eich)

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 4:07 PM  

Red Bane, the soil belongs to those who conquer it. And it was American Nationals who conquered the bulk of it from sea to shining sea. They added it to the patrimony of those lands they originally took.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 4:07 PM  

@58

"Is one American ancestor enough to make you an American?"

Why do you worry so?

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 4:11 PM  

@121

Exactly. And new waves of conquerors are soon to pour in and start a whole new chapter for the history books. Just the same ancient story playing out across the temporal field of play known as planet Earth.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 4:17 PM  

@68

"Does not Mexico fit the definition of a belligerent?
Does this not justify the construction of repatriation facilities SOUTH of our southern border?"

It justifies detention facilities for all Mexican Nationals -- constructed in the most desolate, uninhabited, unsupporting-of-human-life locations approximately 100 miles from the Canadian border.

With NO facilities catering to pregnant women. IF you get pregnant in the detention camp -- tough toogies -- squat out your sprog on the frozen tundra.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 4:19 PM  

Only if we let them. I, for one, will defend my heritage.

"Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods,"

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 4:20 PM  

My mother's side of the family came to Tennessee from South Carolina, two brothers, both Revolutionary War veterans, were given land grants on Desha Creek in lieu of bounties....along with Jackson, Overton, Donelson, Winchester, Bledsoe and much of what later became Nashville. They have been there ever since. (Some of the family still live on the original land grant.) One of the brothers was apparently killed by Indians and the other brother (Colin) inherited his adjacent section of land.

Dad's side of the family were living in Fairfax County, Virginia in 1687. They also moved to South Carolina first, before coming to Tennessee. No idea why South Carolina was particularly attractive.

There are too many people in this country who do not even see themselves as Americans. They did not leave foreign lands behind, they brought their country with them. They had no part in making this country or in making this country great. Many of them own none of the land themselves, so their claim is no more than that of nomadic squatters. To occupy a place takes more than a tent and campfire. I cannot stop being an American because there is nothing else I could be.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 4:21 PM  

@70

We need to start an email campaign to Bill Kristol

"Lynching is our strength"

And of course

You may run,
and you may hide,
You still get
helicopter ride

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 03, 2018 4:22 PM  

VD wrote:
What does deportation have to do with discerning genuine nationality? Why do some of you automatically leap from A to N?


There are Paperwork Americans who do, urgently, have to go back. E.g., Somali-Americans, just for a start. I suppose it's only natural that people would jump from that urgent necessity to the idea that all Paperwork Americans have to go back.

As I said above, if you think you have to go back, you're probably right. If you behave yourself, we'll probably never notice you're still here. The urgent cases are the ones who have proven they mostly cannot behave.

Blogger Richard Holmes July 03, 2018 4:23 PM  

Who says it is going anywhere? This is merely a response to the very public assertion by the President-elect of Mexico, among others, that anyone, anywhere in the world, can be an American.-VD

Ok, Fair enough. Thanks

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 4:26 PM  

@77

"
I will tell you, you have to excommunicate them. It is that or the creed means nothing. And to do that it means that you have to have the tools to determine who believes it and who does not and loyalty oaths and an apparatus for finding people who say they believe in the creed but do not. In other words, you have to have inquisitors and witch hunters and the like. But nobody thinks through that. "


You have no idea how many of us in Michigan are just itching to kill every Moslem in and around Dearborn. Starting with the destruction of the mosque, and putting every store with signage in Arabic to the torch.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants July 03, 2018 4:29 PM  

I'm more than good with this, BOTH sides of my family fought in the Am Rev.

Blogger freddie_mac July 03, 2018 4:42 PM  

@84 Noah B The Savage Gardener
Even the bloodiest violence imaginable isn't going to bring back the America of 1787 and all we can do now is decide to whether and how to go about building a new nation.

Exactly. As the posterity discussion continues, we can see that very few Americans are actually authentic (posterity) Americans, and therefore the nation as envisioned by the Founders no longer exists. So, the main questions become: where do we go from here? How do we build on the wreckage?

Blogger Robert Pinkerton July 03, 2018 4:52 PM  

So many decades ago, when I eas in high school, civics classes emphasized that political citizenship absolutely trumped ethnicity. Whether or not this is a fortunate turn of events, that idea is almost finished unraveling.

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 4:59 PM  

The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey wrote:Sherwood family wrote: A state has no ability to confer nationality.

Furthermore, Ted Cruz had a Cuban father and an American mother but was somehow born in Canada. So, what is he? Cuban. No question. Even under Canadian law that was in place at the time, he's clearly Cuban, not Canadian. And even under American law in place at the time, he's not American (parents never filed a Notice Of Live Birth with the American consulate).


Neither of the parents of Ted Cruz were American citizens at the time of his birth. His mother had renounced her American citizenship before he was born and was naturalized as Canadian. His father was no longer a Cuban, and had been naturalized as Canadian. Ted was born in Calgary, Canada. There was nothing American about him. He was born Canadian of Canadian parents. While in college, Ted Cruz made road trips frequently to Canada, claiming to be Canadian at the border. Just how in the world, the Ted Cruz supporters jumped from this reality to the idea that he was a "natural born American" is beyond my imagination. Ted Cruz was never naturalized as an American citizen.

The Constitution of the United States states that every American is a dual citizen. They are a citizen of the US and they are a citizen of the state they were born in. Ted Cruz (and John McCain) were not born in any state. John McCain was naturalized by Act of Congress while attending the US Naval Academy. How that became a "natural born American", I could not say. Mitt Romney's father (George Romney) was born in Mexico, of Mormon missionary parents. That fact kept Governor George Romney from running for president. There was even an attempt to keep Barry Goldwater from running for president in 1964, because he was born in Arizona before it became a state!

Blogger Thanks, J. July 03, 2018 5:00 PM  

So I have some American ancestry I believe, a little bit, but not enough to be an American.(According to our good host.)

Now what?, is the question, Vox Day and readers.

Blogger Thanks, J. July 03, 2018 5:01 PM  

-A second (or is it third) revolution?

Blogger papabear July 03, 2018 5:05 PM  

@81 You expect Plato's _Republic_ from the starting point of "render unto Caesar"? St. Augustine's City Of God was not earthly, could not be, and always opposed to the Earthly City. The Church isn't the guidance for Satan on how to build that Earthly City. But an implicit charge is built-in that however such schemes fall out they will fail and fall short. So I don't know what you expect. Pope Leo's _Rerum novarum_ is a major text that was ahead of its time in anticipating how the modern state was developing and also what Christians could do to combat it. It's outstanding example of a cogent religious commentary on the modern state. But yeah, _The Republic_ it's not.

Actually, medieval Latin theology had already appropriated Aristotle and his Politics and there was work being done on the fundamental questions of political theory. Why this work was not developed even further in subsequent centuries is a historical question that should be addressed, even if there may have been somewhat of a small revival during the Counter-Reformation period and after with the silver age of scholasticism (Bellarmine and others). Unfortunately too many Latins took the wrong side in the debate over the divine right of kings.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 5:08 PM  

@78

"If the cucks think that it is impossible to deport just the millions of illegals here currently, I rather think they (and a goodly many hard right folks as well) are going to balk outright at deporting something like 2/3's of the current population, especially seeing as how a largish majority of those tenth generation immigrants don't actually have any home country to go back to.

IMO this entire discussion is academic.

The real Americans will sort themselves from the fake Americans the old fashioned way, by which side of the coming war they decide to fight on."

And that's why there won't be a need to deport 2/3 of the country..... unless

"Graveyard is the new deportation"

/boomer

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 5:10 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 5:11 PM  

@83

"Someone tell Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan that they're not real Americans and need to go back to Ireland."

Some have assimilated better than others.

However, exceptions demonstrate the rule.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 5:12 PM  

@132 As the posterity discussion continues, we can see that very few Americans are actually authentic (posterity) Americans, and therefore the nation as envisioned by the Founders no longer exists

Fair enough.

So...what shall we call this new land today discovered, and is it worth fighting for? I ask this question particularly of the true, but dwindling Americans who still practice their culture of 1776.

I have an image in mind of the dying Skeksis from Dark Crystal in mind right now.

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 5:16 PM  

When asked the question, whether it would be better to be a dead Lion or a live Hyena, many people would immediately decide to be alive rather than dead.

But I would choose to be the dead Lion, because the dead Lion was once a live Lion....and having lived as a Lion is much better than to have lived as a Hyena.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 5:22 PM  

@97

"We do not have Nuremberg Laws or Limpieza de sangre statutes to declare what quantum of American blood you have to be to be part of the nation."

It can be done by proxy indicators. Like, if you are of sound mind and able body, how much government handouts do you and your relatives receive?

That right there puts all the Latrinas and LaKeishas into the deportation ports, as well as a lot of Abduls and his one registered wife and 5 welfare wives all on the planes.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 5:24 PM  

@100

"Well, since you've declared that I am not "an American", may I stop paying those damn taxes?"

Not even if you join the armed forces.

GOVERNMENT demands its loot from everyone it can grab it from.

Blogger Sherwood family July 03, 2018 5:27 PM  

Good point. If we used that as a way of sorting we would quickly solve a number of problems.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 6:03 PM  

@132

"
Exactly. As the posterity discussion continues, we can see that very few Americans are actually authentic (posterity) Americans, and therefore the nation as envisioned by the Founders no longer exists. So, the main questions become: where do we go from here? How do we build on the wreckage?"

#1: Learn from their mistakes.

A -- Judges terms are limited to maximum 12 years.

B -- make it EXPLICIT that the legislature has the power to overturn court decisions (with say, 2/3 vote).

C -- Maximum one vote PER HOUSEHOLD. A Household consists of a man and woman who are married to each other. Voting is contingent upon not being a burden on the taxpayers: This encourages savings for retirement;

Abolition of Marxist Social Security (Marx: everyone is to receive a government pension)

Abolition of the Marxist real estate taxes (Marx: all real estate is to be rented from the state, which owns all land). You don't "lose" your house for failing to pay taxes -- you get EVICTED from the land which you stopped paying rent on. If YOU truly OWNED the land you were on, they would have no legal ability to remove you from YOUR LAND.

D -- Income taxes are counter-productive, as they discourage productivity, especially from the most talented and productive;

E -- Only real persons can be taxed, not fictitious persons (corporations), as this causes double taxation of the same money.

F -- Sales taxes are to be the preferred method of taxation.

G -- VAT taxes, because they hide the proportion of a price which comes from taxation, shall be prohibited. [Not done in the U.S., but we can learn from the Europeans].

H -- No officer of any corporation can sit on the board of directors of a second corporation if that second corporation has an officer on the board of directors of the first corporation. (This prevents cronyism in the private sector).

I -- No corporation may compensate any officer or other employee more than 100x the annual compensation of the lowest paid employee (pro-rated for part-time employment)
[ This which works both ways. Part time employees are to be evaluated pro rata as if they work 2000 hours/year, and likewise, if the CEO only actually works at the corporation irregularly (because, say, he's sitting on the board of directors of some other companies, or also working in government, etc.) that causes the CEO's annual compensation calculation to be evaluated higher than actual compensation -- therefore, introducing a lower cap for "part time" corporate officers, or mandating that the lowest paid employees receive better compenation. Compensation also includes salary, wages, insurance, benefits that are ACTUALLY USED (to prevent the corp from gaming the system by granting benefits that lower employees can't actually partake in), stock options (if the CEO executes a bunch of stock options... that's going to trigger payout of a huge bonus for the lowest-tier employees, etc.]

The purpose of this is to eliminate the need for minimum wage laws -- what is a fair "minimum wage" working in a mom & pop party store and bait shop is not a fair "minimum wage" for an automobile manufacturer.

Minimum wage laws are anethema, but likewise, so is ridiculously high earning disparities in today modern corporate world. This seeks to solve both problems.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 03, 2018 6:08 PM  

@130 Dirk Manly

You have no idea how many of us in Michigan are just itching to kill every Moslem in and around Dearborn. Starting with the destruction of the mosque, and putting every store with signage in Arabic to the torch.
---

Terrans vs Zerg

Blogger James Dixon July 03, 2018 6:52 PM  

> Now what?, is the question, Vox Day and readers.

Why are you asking us? Unless you live close to one of us we won't be the ones making the decision. Your neighbors will be.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 7:06 PM  

Lovekraft wrote:This is just going to end up forcing more nations to build walls, detention centers and billions of dollars diverted from useful endeavors into fighting the Global Immigration Racket.

Bullets are actually pretty cheap compared to the costs of a prison.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 7:08 PM  

Hey Vox, looks like you have found a near-perfect method for determining Gammas.

The Sperging and self-focus here is astonishing.

Blogger stevo July 03, 2018 7:13 PM  

To whoever is putting the darkstreams out as podcasts, thank you very much

Blogger Nathan Bissonette July 03, 2018 7:24 PM  

Vox, the fact you are mistaken about the definition of America doesn’t invalidate your points that the alt-right is inevitable, or that conservatism hasn’t conserved anything, or that open borders is suicide. But it bugs me to be called out for playing games when I’m not. Try this:

1st Major Premise: The Founders intended the Constitution to form a government for the benefit of their descendants.

1st Minor Premise: I am not a descendant of the Founders.

1st Conclusion: I am not an intended beneficiary of the Constitution.

Agreed. But . . .

2nd Major Premise: I am not an intended beneficiary of the Constitution.

2nd Minor Premise: Only intended beneficiaries of the Constitution are Americans.

2nd Conclusion: I am not an American.

The 2nd Conclusion is true only if the 2nd Minor Premise is valid. Is it? The government of the United States is a state. Is a “state” the same as a “nation”? Of course not: the United States is a multinational empire governing the Sioux Nation and American Nation and others. So is a “nation” defined by the organizational documents of the state that governs it? No.

Then what defines America the Nation? I say America the Nation is a group of people sharing a common language, history, culture and customs. Under my definition, you and I are Americans because we share those things, regardless of who we’re descended from or what form of government we live under. Qaddafi and AMLO and quite a few people born and raised in the United States are not Americans and never will be, because they don’t share them, either.

You say membership in America the Nation requires that plus an ancestral link to the Founders, but your definition is grounded in the government organizational document that we’ve rejected as controlling of the issue. The state governs the nation, it doesn’t define the nation that it governs.

Americans are not defined by the Constitution. The 2nd Minor Premise is false. The analysis fails. Stop using it. It’s not necessary to support your points and its falsity is distracting.

Blogger Long Live The West July 03, 2018 7:38 PM  

@DirkManly

Finally someone who agrees with the one vote per household idea!

Most idiots just say that it's sexist.

Blogger John July 03, 2018 7:45 PM  

In order to justify deporting the Invader-Americans, Ghetto-Americans, Judeo-Americans, Islamo-Americans, etc., we have to accept the difference between Americans and Not-Americans.

This does not imply that all Not-Americans will be deported, especially if they are Loyalists and blood-members of Western Civ. But it does imply that Not-Americans will be called on to demonstrate their loyalty.

However, in the case of Metizo-Americans and Ghetto-Americans, most of them will be called upon to demonstrate their loyalty by relocating.

Blogger Long Live The West July 03, 2018 7:47 PM  

Also just a thought for some of you...

If you ARE an American, why do you have to ask Vox if you are?

I know my family has been in America for hundreds od years, but I'll admit I don't know exactly how far back they go.

But guess what? I don't care if my family got here in 1788 instead of 1787. I don't look to someone on the internet to define who I am.

Would you die to defend this country, or will you run to another country when cramp hits the fan?

(Disclaimer for the clueless: No there is no magic dirt. If your mommy squated on a beach in California that doesn't make you an American)

Blogger SirHamster July 03, 2018 7:52 PM  

Nathan Bissonette wrote:I say America the Nation is a group of people sharing a common language, history, culture and customs. Under my definition, you and I are Americans because we share those things, regardless of who we’re descended from or what form of government we live under.

Stripping out the quality of blood relation makes your definition of nation inaccurate and deceptive.

The people of a nation are fundamentally related to each other. Ex: Israel being descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

America is the descendants of the Founding Fathers and their people. The rest of us are guests, with some marrying in or getting adopted.

Blogger Doktor Jeep July 03, 2018 8:27 PM  

So I'm going to end up back in Calabria trying to order gabagool...

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 8:29 PM  

@154

"However, in the case of Metizo-Americans and Ghetto-Americans, most of them will be called upon to demonstrate their loyalty by relocating."

They can demonstrate their loyalty to the idea by colonizing their homelands with the idea and building their OWN America in their homelands.

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 8:31 PM  

sink the ships

We could have sent food to Ireland instead of accepting refugees.

What next, Ebola? The Irish brought many things including the ancestors of Joe Kennedy and Cholera. Both were the gifts that keep on giving. And if you will excuse the microbial inaccuracy licence, they both went viral.

We already have it with XDR Tuberculosis, but I guess we all want to make the consumption economy ironic.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 03, 2018 8:32 PM  

"Stripping out the quality of blood relation makes your definition of nation inaccurate and deceptive."

Indeed, in the Slavic languages, the words for "Nation" and "Natal" (as in pertaining to birth) have the same root. Ditto for the Germanic languages. In English, that root is "Nat-"

Blogger VD July 03, 2018 8:36 PM  

I say America the Nation is a group of people sharing a common language, history, culture and customs.

You're absolutely wrong. You are being deceitful by intentionally omitting the very root of the word nation, the blood kinship based on birth.

Americans are not defined by the Constitution. The 2nd Minor Premise is false. The analysis fails. Stop using it. It’s not necessary to support your points and its falsity is distracting.

Both your logic and your analysis are entirely irrelevant. I never said that Americans are defined by the Constitution nor is my case in any way dependent upon that. All I am doing is proving that the Constitution was NOT intended to defend the rights of non-Americans. Americans are defined the same way every single other nation on Earth is.

And consider this your first and last warning. If you ever tell me what to do again, I will ban you from commenting here.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len July 03, 2018 8:45 PM  

there are now three different sets of true Americans; are those who came after 1933 the ones who have to go back

There's a very specific single-digit percentage of the US population that really needs to go back, but their nation doesn't seem all that keen to have them.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 8:46 PM  

"The Irish brought many things including the ancestors of Joe Kennedy and Cholera."

And the Kennedys were a damned sight more dangerous to the Republic.

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 8:46 PM  

@156

"Stripping out the quality of blood relation makes your definition of nation inaccurate and deceptive."

A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, values, traditions, ethnicity, descent, and history. I would also add a common religion but by that I mean that Christianity in its various forms such as Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

And the above is for a "nation" and not a "nation-state" or "The State". The USA is a State; inside it are many nations. Too many I think.

Blogger Hammerli280 July 03, 2018 8:48 PM  

@155: "Would you die to defend this country, or will you run to another country when cramp hits the fan?"

That's the test.

Blogger Red Bane July 03, 2018 8:59 PM  

@163

The Kennedy's, Like Churchill, were just pawns of the (((rootless cosmopolitan bankers)))

Blogger Mark Stoval July 03, 2018 9:05 PM  

The Twitter version:

Family > Tribe > nation.

But I am not sure that "tribe" and "nation" are not the exact same thing. The words mean the same to me anyway.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey July 03, 2018 9:42 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:Neither of the parents of Ted Cruz were American citizens at the time of his birth. His mother had renounced her American citizenship before he was born and was naturalized as Canadian. His father was no longer a Cuban, and had been naturalized as Canadian. Ted was born in Calgary, Canada.

FWIW, that's not the version I have heard. Rafael Cruz, the father of Ted, did become a Canadian citizen in 1973. That's according to this article:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada/

But Ted was born in 1970, when Rafael was a bonafide Cuban foreign national. So by Canadian law at the time, Ted Cruz is not a Canadian. He's Cuban.

Blogger Lazarus July 03, 2018 10:18 PM  

Feiglin has gamed this out already. Loyalty oaths are required.

Blogger Lazarus July 03, 2018 10:29 PM  

Using a country as a flag of convenience cannot be tolerated. Dual citizenship banned.

Blogger SirHamster July 03, 2018 10:31 PM  

Mark Stoval wrote:Family > Tribe > nation.

But I am not sure that "tribe" and "nation" are not the exact same thing. The words mean the same to me anyway.


As cults are small religions and religions are big cults, tribes are small nations and nations are big tribes.

Blogger tz July 03, 2018 10:49 PM  

AmCon goes CivNat

Blogger DonReynolds July 03, 2018 11:21 PM  

The yow-yow over who is a real American and who is not, should be considered pointless bickering. I am pretty certain I will never be asked to vote on the matter and if I know Americans, they are not going to deport a significant portion of current US citizens under any arrangement.

I would be delighted if this country would deport the million and a half of illegal aliens who openly defy the orders of removal (and some have had for years) already issued....having exhausted all appeals in the immigration courts. That would be a good start. Reducing the tens of millions of illegal aliens by deportation would be a real plus, too many of which have re-entered the US after being previously deported, which is a serious felony. Too many of these individuals have yet to be apprehended and do not have immigration court dates pending.

I would expect Americans to approach the problem with successive waves of deportations, and more likely to give specific classes of individuals a deadline to leave the country...or else they will be deported and their property confiscated and sold at public auction. The vast majority would leave with their loot intact rather than stay and risk losing it all.

What has suffered for many years is not just the Rule of Law, which is important, but also the credibility of the Federal government. Many of the illegal aliens defy the law because they have not seen any serious effort by the Feds to enforce it.

Blogger Dire Badger July 03, 2018 11:22 PM  

Long Live The West wrote:Would you die to defend this country, or will you run to another country when cramp hits the fan?

I refuse to die to defend my country. I will, however, RISK death to do so... I am also eager to help those who would attack my country die to prove their loyalty to their ideology.

But simply die? Not unless I take invaders with me to be my honor guard in hell.

Blogger Long Live The West July 03, 2018 11:41 PM  

@DireBadger

Of course.

By 'defending' I was implying death amongst a pile of brass.

Blogger lynnjynh9315 July 03, 2018 11:56 PM  

Nonsense, Vox. Only the original 13 territories were founded to be WASP ethnostates. Surely, you're not going to assert WASPS have a legitimate claim to Hawaii??

Many states were founded by other ethnic groups. The states of the Louisiana purchase, for example, were settled primarily by French and Germans, and (with the exception of Native Americans) they still have the strongest claim to them.

Blogger TM Lutas July 04, 2018 12:49 AM  

In emergencies, when the wolf is at the door, the fire is racing towards the barn, or whatever example you favor, smart people of good will put aside differences and try to enlarge the number of people who will fight to get everyone past the emergency.

Idiots will choose exactly that moment to start a purity spiral and try to wedge alliances apart and cause the maximum number of people to hedge their bets, minimizing the chances of victory in dealing with the disaster.

If I have to spell out the thread relevance for you, you are not tall enough for this ride.

As for Ahmadinejad, AMLO, et al, they can just apply for admission.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 04, 2018 1:58 AM  

You’re still using other people’s propensity to ignore the plain meaning of words as an excuse to ignore the plain meaning of words.

And you’re making Vox’s argument; the USA is not a nation but an empire.

A visibly fracturing empire.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 04, 2018 2:12 AM  

@173

"I would be delighted if this country would deport the million and a half of illegal aliens who openly defy the orders of removal (and some have had for years) already issued."

For violating their removal orders I would be happier if we shot them.


In the middle of the street.

Blogger Unknown July 04, 2018 3:48 AM  

" it doesn't include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution."
Hmmmmm.............the Admissions Clause, found at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, also known as New States Clause, grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.

Once the new Constitution went into effect, Congress admitted Vermont and Kentucky on equal terms and thereafter formalized the condition in its acts of admission for subsequent states, declaring that the new state enters "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever." Thus the Congress, utilizing the discretion allowed by the Framers, adopted a policy of equal status for newly admitted states.

Blogger VD July 04, 2018 4:13 AM  

Hmmmmm.............the Admissions Clause, found at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, also known as New States Clause, grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.

Irrelevant. Like others, you are confusing the document with the purpose of the document.

Blogger Carmina Fuentes July 04, 2018 8:11 AM  

I'm on board with deportations and/or partitioning, but claiming that the Constitution was intended for only the original families and descendants of the 13 Colonies fails. While I meet that criteria, anyhow, the fact is that the US Government purchased the Louisiana territory (and in a sense, the people inside it), normalized those (prior) citizens of France and Spain, making them "Americans", and legally bestowing citizenship upon them for the purposes of taxation.

While some New Englanders protested my (Spanish/French) ancestors' becoming citizens for many of the very reasons that are at issue today--the fact is they were made citizens by President Jefferson's actions, James Monroe's signature on the treaty and ratification by the US Congress. There was no provision to deport or export my ancestors living in those areas (Spanish or French) and they became taxable American citizens, by 1804, before the first Kennedy arrived by boat, and decades before the birth of Samuel Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker.

Blogger PVB July 04, 2018 10:20 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger PVB July 04, 2018 10:27 AM  

Perspective from 1782 so obviously pre-Constitution.

Source: St. John de Crevecoeur, J. Hector, 1735-1813.
Letters from an American farmer : describing certain provincial situations, manners, and customs ... and conveying some idea of the late and present interior circumstances of the British colonies in North America / written for the information of a friend in England, by J. Hector St. John ...
Published: London : Printed for T. Davies , 1782.
What is an American

Blogger VD July 04, 2018 10:46 AM  

the fact is that the US Government purchased the Louisiana territory (and in a sense, the people inside it), normalized those (prior) citizens of France and Spain, making them "Americans", and legally bestowing citizenship upon them for the purposes of taxation.

You are underlining my point. Neither paperwork nor real estate purchases changes your nationality.

Blogger DonReynolds July 04, 2018 2:34 PM  

Carmina Fuentes wrote:I'm on board with deportations and/or partitioning, but claiming that the Constitution was intended for only the original families and descendants of the 13 Colonies fails. While I meet that criteria, anyhow, the fact is that the US Government purchased the Louisiana territory (and in a sense, the people inside it), normalized those (prior) citizens of France and Spain, making them "Americans", and legally bestowing citizenship upon them for the purposes of taxation.

You seem to be leaving out a step. American citizenship was neither automatic or irresistible. There was no problem or stigma for any of these people to claim to be French or Spanish, which they clearly were, and they were free to come or go. In Little Rock, the US military marched in, the French soldiers lined up, and they had a changing of the flag ceremony. Down came the French tricolor and up went the stars and stripes. A truly rare event.

Another good example was the peace treaty that ended the Mexican War, in which the US added California and the rest of the land as territory of the US, and enlarged the new state of Texas. The American Indians of the area were not made citizens of the US, that would not happen until 1925. Everyone else living in the territory acquired from Mexico was given a time to act (two years) to either become American citizens, or exit the area back to Mexico, or do nothing and remain Mexican citizens in the USA. This applied to white Anglos as well as Spanish Mexicans. Get with the program, leave the area, or keep the citizenship you have. Nothing was automatic and nothing was irresistible, but after the two year window, the window would close.

Blogger Unknown July 04, 2018 3:17 PM  

Hmmmmm.............the Admissions Clause, found at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, also known as New States Clause, grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.
VD
"Irrelevant. Like others, you are confusing the document with the purpose of the document."

Oy Vey The Babylonian Talmud encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Gentiles whenever necessary!

Blogger Dire Badger July 04, 2018 5:17 PM  

Long Live The West wrote:@DireBadger
By 'defending' I was implying death amongst a pile of brass.



Here's a question for ya, that keeps me awake at night.

People who can get ahold of a time machine would go back and kill hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, or a number of other people whom they claim would save the world by killing despite a mountain of evidence that killing those particular individuals would have had likely no real effect in the long run, or possibly even WORSE effects on history.

And yet, there are individuals, easily found, who's deaths, today, could stop over a million murders a year and change a policy that has legalized the murder of hundreds of millions of innocents for the last 50 years. It could be one of several people, just enough to change the balance of power.

And yet all these wannabe heroes have never even tried to take this step. Is one 'innocent' life not worth billions? Is it ideological, or have Americans simply become too cowardly to take the risk?

I mean, I know why _I_ would not do it, for the same reason I would not go back in time and stop Hitler or Pol Pot (Although I might consider Lincoln). But I doubt very much that all those people who HAVE killed to try and stop it in the past are thinking along those lines.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 04, 2018 6:11 PM  

@176

"Nonsense, Vox. Only the original 13 territories were founded to be WASP ethnostates."

12 at most.

Maryland was WASC - White, Anglo-Saxon Catholic. It was SPECIFICALLY founded as a colony for Catholics. Jefferson covers this in the 1774 letter (the shot across the bow, so to speak) "A Summary View of the Rights of British North America"

[This letter said basically that the English crown never spent a drop of blood, or a single farthing in the founding, development or settlement of any of the colonies, and therefore, the King and Parliament has no more legal right to lay taxes on the Colonists than any of their other allies in the 7 years war, such as the Portuguese. It ends with a demand that the taxations cease, that the end of enforcing the Navigation Act against colonial ports, and removal of UK appointed governors and other officials, or THERE WILL BE WAR. The Declaration of Independance said, "We warned you. You didn't stop. Now we going to war with you."]

Blogger Dirk Manly July 04, 2018 6:13 PM  

@177

"In emergencies, when the wolf is at the door, the fire is racing towards the barn, or whatever example you favor,"

In light of the Pax Dickinson trollery, I now favor the neighbors pigs are running about....

Blogger DonReynolds July 04, 2018 7:12 PM  

@189 Dirk Manly
"Maryland was WASC - White, Anglo-Saxon Catholic. It was SPECIFICALLY founded as a colony for Catholics."

The King owed money to the Calvert family, who were Catholics, and the colony began with religious toleration but it did not last long. After a few years, Maryland banned further Catholic colonists from coming to the colony.

The only British colony to permanently allow Catholic settlement was Pennsylvania. Yes, the Quakers were big on religious tolerance and (same story) the King owed the Penn family a great deal of money and he paid them off with their own colony. Pennsylvania became a magnet for every imaginable cult and religion in the new world.... particularly Scot-Irish, German Shakers, Amish, and Mennonites....and Roman Catholics.

When they were passing out the colonies, they mistakenly thought the size of the colony was dependent on the length of the coastline. The Pennsylvania colony was intended to be tiny, with a tiny coastline of only a few miles, but the Penn family outsmarted everyone (Penn's Walk) and ended up with one of the largest and most prosperous colonies.

Blogger Da Man July 04, 2018 7:28 PM  

@Dirk Manly

"the English crown never spent a drop of blood, or a single farthing in the founding, development or settlement of any of the colonies" - Hmmmm...... The so-called forefathers were fond of talking out of their powdered assed leaving the poor working class and farmers the task of backing it up.
Seven Years' War, 1754–63 started with the ambush and death of a French officer from the musket of notorious land speculator George Washington. That war broke the Treasuries of France and England, obligated England to post more soldiers in the colonies resulting in the colonies paying a modest share of the cost. Between tariffs and The Royal Proclamation of 1763 the land speculators, tax evaders, and contraband pirates.....eer I mean ForeFathers would rather create another Brothers (blood bath) War than give up their accustomed rights to ill begotten gains.

Blogger Ukraine Trump July 05, 2018 12:15 AM  

By his own interpretation, Vox Day is neither American nor Italian. He is a landless, nationless ... citizen of the world !!!

Blogger Ukraine Trump July 05, 2018 12:25 AM  

By Vox Day's interpretation, in all likelihood, no more than 10% of current U.S. citizens can claim to be those Americans that the U.S. Constitution was intended for. So what's the point of bringing this up? Is Alt-Right supposed to advocate abandoning the Constitution? Rewriting it? If anything, Vox's argument lends more credibility to the claims of Qaddafi and Obradors. If only 10% of us are truly Americans, as defined by the Founding Fathers, then the concept has to be completely revised for the pragmatic purpose of legitimizing the rest of us.

Blogger Da Man July 05, 2018 3:45 AM  

@Ukraine Trump
Well then, since most White Americans back then were slaves or non-land holding decedents of slaves, WHO exactly were THOSE slave holding Elites really referring to???

Blogger Ukraine Trump July 05, 2018 7:38 AM  

Who were they referring to? Themselves and their descendants. So I suppose we need to scrap the Constitution and write a new one. For the dozen or so ethno-states to emerge.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 05, 2018 12:44 PM  

@291

"Seven Years' War, 1754–63 started with the ambush and death of a French officer from the musket of notorious land speculator George Washington."

He was on the expedition to remove the French fort in the Ohio Valley, however, I seriously doubt that Washington fired the shot. He was a lieutenant, not some nameless private, and if he fired the shot, I sincerely doubt that the French would have allied with an army lead by Washington -- regardless of whether there was a chance to harm the British or not.

"That war broke the Treasuries of France and England, obligated England to post more soldiers in the colonies"

The British Crown had *NEVER* posted troops
from England in the colonies ... nor paid the salaries of the Colonial troops wearing rred coats.

That was the entire premise of Jefferson's 1774 letter to King George, "A Summary View oof the Rights of British America."

England didn't send troops here because they wanted to protect the 13 colonies -- they sent troops here BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KILL THE FRENCH. Remember, at that time, from Ontario to the Atlantic was *ALL* New France. They weren't protecting "A British" colony up there.

"resulting in the colonies paying a modest share of the cost."

A cost which NOBODY asked the British crown to expend in the first place.

As Jefferson makes clear, the American Colonies were ALLIES, operating under their own governors, legislatures, and court system. They were not subject, and legally, no more liable to the British Crown's taxation laws than any other ally in the 7 Years' War. Jefferson points out that King George and Parliament didn't dare ttry to lay such taxes onto their Portuguese allies.

This is after Jefferson wrote a summary of the formation and development of each of the 13 colonies -- the origin of the charters, who put up the money for the founding of each colony (For example, Virginia, and accidentally Massachussetts, were both funded by the Virginia Corporation, a private commercial concern.

"Between tariffs and The Royal Proclamation of 1763 the land speculators, tax evaders, and contraband pirates.....eer I mean ForeFathers would rather create another Brothers (blood bath) War than give up their accustomed rights to ill begotten gains."

The French were out of line for building that fort in the Ohio Valley in the first place, and they knew it. The area was dominated with English-speaking colonists. The French were trying to undermine that by drawing local tribes into an alliance (and dishonestly implying that if the Indians helped kick out the English-speakers, that they English-speakers wouldn't be replaced with Frenchmen).

Blogger Dirk Manly July 05, 2018 12:54 PM  

https://www.britannica.com/event/French-and-Indian-War


A conflict between the two colonial powers over their rival North American claims was doubtless inevitable, but because their areas of trade exploitation were widely separated, that conflict might have been delayed for many years had not the governor-general of New France forced the issue. Although the French had a scant presence in the neighbourhood of the Allegheny River and the upper Ohio River where Pennsylvania traders were concentrated, in 1749 the governor-general ordered Pierre-Joseph Céloron de Blainville to compel the trading houses in that region to lower the British flags that flew above them. The traders, regarded as trespassers on French lands, were ordered to retreat to the eastern slopes of the Appalachians. This directive did not have the desired effect, however, and force was applied in 1752 when the important British colonial trading centre at Pickawillany on the upper Great Miami River was destroyed. That move was followed by the capture or killing of every English-speaking trader that the French and their Indian allies could find in the upper Ohio Valley. Those actions struck directly not only at the people of Pennsylvania but also at those of Virginia.

The government of Virginia took the position that the lands of the upper Ohio were clearly included in the colony’s 1609 charter. It argued that this grant gave Virginia a claim to the western lands that was more valid than New France’s claim, which was based upon La Salle’s much later journey down the Mississippi. In harmony with this point of view, the governor and council of Virginia had by the end of 1752 conditionally granted about 2,300 square miles (6,000 square km) of land in the Ohio Valley to settlers. As a result, almost every important Virginia family—including members of the Washington, Lee, and Randolph families—was vitally interested in the fate of the Ohio area. When news reached Williamsburg, the colonial capital, that the French were driving out English traders and building forts on the headwaters of the Allegheny in order to consolidate their positions, Lieut. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie determined to act. In October 1753 Dinwiddie dispatched young George Washington to the French Fort LeBouef (now Waterford, Pennsylvania) to warn the garrison there that it was occupying land that belonged to Virginia. After that mission failed, the Ohio Company of Virginia, which had received a special grant of upper Ohio Valley land, was encouraged to build a fort at the convergence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers (modern Pittsburgh), with the understanding that troops from Virginia would support the undertaking.

---

Notice that the original conflict was between the forces of the governor of New France (wholly owned and operated by the King of France) vs. Virginia (a private enterprise) and Pennsylvania (another private enterprise). There were NO British-crown assets involved in any way UNTIL King George decided to stick his nose into it. Then, he decided that his meddling justified "repayment" for services which were never requested in the first place.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 05, 2018 1:13 PM  

Here's the lead-up to the start of the Seven Years' War.

The diplomatic revolution and the prelude to the French and Indian War
The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), which concluded the War of the Austrian Succession, left wide grounds for discontent among the powers. It did nothing to allay the colonial rivalry between Great Britain and France, and it virtually guaranteed a subsequent conflict between Austria and Prussia by confirming the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great. The aggrandizement of Prussia was seen by Russia as a challenge to its designs on Poland and the Baltic, but it had no voice in the negotiations. Under the Treaty of St. Petersburg of December 9, 1747, Russia had supplied mercenary troops to the British for use against the French in the last stage of the war, and the French, in reprisal, had vetoed any representation of Russia at the peace congress.

The War of the Austrian Succession had seen the belligerents aligned on a time-honoured basis. France’s traditional enemies, Great Britain and Austria, had coalesced just as they had done against Louis XIV. Prussia, the leading anti-Austrian state in Germany, had been supported by France. Neither group, however, found much reason to be satisfied with its partnership: British subsidies to Austria had produced nothing of much help to the British, while the British military effort had not saved Silesia for Austria. Prussia, having secured Silesia, had come to terms with Austria in disregard of French interests. Even so, France had concluded a defensive alliance with Prussia in 1747, and the maintenance of the Anglo-Austrian alignment after 1748 was deemed essential by the duke of Newcastle, British secretary of state in the ministry of his brother Henry Pelham. The collapse of that system and the aligning of France with Austria and of Great Britain with Prussia constituted what is known as the “diplomatic revolution” or the “reversal of alliances.”

...

Preliminary negotiations and hostilities in the colonies
Maria Theresa.Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
In 1750 Kaunitz went to France to urge French participation in Austro-Russian plans against Prussia. France, however, was neither ready to resume diplomatic relations with Russia (severed in 1748) nor willing to connive in the destruction of Prussia, a development that would have restored Austria to incontestable hegemony in Germany. By 1753, when Maria Theresa recalled him to Vienna to serve as chancellor, Kaunitz had achieved only a vague atmosphere of Franco-Austrian goodwill.

Kaunitz, Wedgwood medallion portrait; in Gripsholm Castle, Sweden
Kaunitz, Wedgwood medallion portrait; in Gripsholm Castle, SwedenCourtesy of the Svenska Portrattarkivet, Stockholm
Meanwhile, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle had done nothing to ease tensions between the French and British East India companies, and in North America relations between the colonists had deteriorated steadily from 1752. By1754 French aggression in North America had reached a level that the British could no longer ignore. London’s policy, which had been to “let Americans fight Americans,” had resulted in a series of French military victories. British Admiral Edward Boscawen attacked French ships in the Strait of Belle Isle in June 1755, beginning an undeclared naval war between the two countries. Before the British government could declare open hostilities against France, it had to safeguard Hanover. British naval superiority could then be brought to bear while France’s superior land forces in Europe were held in check by some Continental ally of the British.

(Among these allies would be Portugal, Russia, some German states.)


By the way, as for Washington's unit killing Jumonville... Jumonville never should have been marching French troops in the area around modern-day Pittsburgh in the first place. This was well within what was already understood by everybody in the area to be well within Pennsylvania's charter.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 05, 2018 1:58 PM  

Ukraine Trump wrote:So I suppose we need to scrap the Constitution and write a new one.

The current constitution either permitted the existing disaster, or was powerless to prevent it.

1 – 200 of 210 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