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

Friday, July 06, 2018

Words mean things


It's really rather remarkable to see all the self-styled "conservatives" who suddenly develop a new predilection for creative linguistic interpretations worthy of a postmodernist disciple of Foucault and concocting ex post facto legal contortions to put the Warren Court's "emanations and penumbras" to shame when the clear meaning of "Posterity" is pointed out to them.<

Let reason be silent when the dictionary and a comprehensive set of historical examples conclusively gainsay its conclusions.

The undeniable historical fact is that the U.S. Constitution was no more written to protect the interests of 19th century Irish immigrants and their US-citizen descendants than it was to protect the rights of people living in Iran, Libya, or Mexico today. The reason this fact still matters today is that to cede one claim is to automatically cede the other.

Labels: ,

103 Comments:

Blogger Azimus July 06, 2018 11:03 AM  

Would this mean, then, that the Germans of Pennsylvania, the Dutch of New York, the scattered French communities, and even the tiny pocket of Swedes in New Jersey I believe it was, would be included in that 1787 snapshot?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 06, 2018 11:11 AM  

The states formed the Constitution and the Federal Government through their delegates to the CC. So "Our posterity" is the posterity of the founders, and the citizens of the states who sent them.

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim July 06, 2018 11:17 AM  

The Scots-Irish wouldn’t even pass this purity test, correct? It could be that I’m just not familiar enough with the genealogy of each signer of the constitution, but the level of purity here seems inapplicable.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 06, 2018 11:22 AM  


The states formed the Constitution and the Federal Government through their delegates to the CC. So "Our posterity" is the posterity of the founders, and the citizens of the states who sent them.


Rhode Island is screwed

Blogger John July 06, 2018 11:26 AM  

Either you believe in a strict construction...or you don't.

Blogger Blume July 06, 2018 11:28 AM  

Sterling, y'all purity spiraling concern trolls ate getting annoying. At this point, yes if you say what about me, then you have to go back.

Blogger pyrrhus July 06, 2018 11:29 AM  

@3 Wrong. The Scots-Irish were settled in America, and did a lot of fighting in the Revolutionary War...British commander Tarelton said they were "more terrible than any savage." Of course they part of our "posterity." They were also not to be confused with the bog Irish, and were predominantly of English and Scots ethnicity.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 06, 2018 11:31 AM  

Before we get all hung up on who is posterity, let's focus on the invaders who obviously aren't. How about the Somalis? How about every single mohammedan? How about the hyphenated-Americans? There are a great many cases about which there is no doubt, so let's not obsess over the doubtful cases.

Let's deal with the obvious outsiders, then we can discuss who is posterity, and who is a welcome guest. That can be a much more pleasant discussion if we have it after the immi-vaders are gone.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother July 06, 2018 11:33 AM  

Rhode Islanders are faggots anyway.

Blogger insight July 06, 2018 11:34 AM  

So immivasion has been going on a long time and the results are inevitable...balkanization

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 06, 2018 11:37 AM  

Blume wrote:Sterling, y'all purity spiraling concern trolls ate getting annoying. At this point, yes if you say what about me, then you have to go back.

If you think we're saying you have to go, you're probably right. Hyphenated Americans aren't American at all.

Civ Nat sets the bar too low, but practically, Civ Nat with some serious loyalty tests may be the best we can do in our lifetimes. It certainly would beat allowing hyphenated ``Americans'' from Somalia and Squatemala to over run us.

Supporting repatriation for the Third World, citizenship or not, would be a decent loyalty test.

Blogger SirHamster July 06, 2018 11:39 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Let's deal with the obvious outsiders, then we can discuss who is posterity, and who is a welcome guest. That can be a much more pleasant discussion if we have it after the immi-vaders are gone.

That is the practical application, but the longterm outcome is going to depend on restoring the right concept of nation.

The wrong model will create space for new, terrible mistakes like the 1965 act.

Blogger Cecil Henry July 06, 2018 11:43 AM  

'Diversity' is the process whereby White nations are sought to be handed away to people who don't want it to be what it once was, by people who didn't help to make it what it is.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 06, 2018 11:45 AM  

A while back, BGKB posted something like this:

First they came for the Blacks, and I didn't speak up ...
Then the came for the Hispanics, and I didn't speak up ...
Then they came for the mohammedans, and I didn't speak up ...
Then everything was so peaceful that nobody came for anybody, and we all lived happily ever after.

If we take care of the immi-vader problem, you-all non-posterity who remain will feel a lot more secure.

Blogger Anno Ruse July 06, 2018 11:46 AM  

But call him a Fake American and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

I never thought I was posterity, but I did some digging and it turns out I'm posterity. Don't worry, when the mandatory tests reveal my purity of blood and I'm given a cozy position in the new government, I'll do my best to look after the little people.

Blogger RobertT July 06, 2018 11:50 AM  

This may be the most significant thing you've ever pointed out. People should read this stuff more often and not just assume they already know it all. Thanks.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 06, 2018 11:52 AM  

https://infogalactic.com/info/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

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

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 06, 2018 11:55 AM  

If 16% of the delegates to the CC were foreigners, are they included in "we the people" and "our posterity?"

Blogger RobertT July 06, 2018 11:56 AM  

"Rhode Island is screwed"

Funny, but I think bloodlines is a more accurate way of looking at it.

Right now it's a moot point anyway. We have a long way to go before we can build consensus around that. Given their predilection for reinventing everything, we certainly don't that to go before the SC before we have a solid consensus.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore July 06, 2018 11:56 AM  

Inappropriate thought: I think most of us can agree that slavery is bad, and I get the whole "pick your own cotton" thingy. At the same time, I'm kinda happy that my family got in under the line before 1808.

All jokes aside though, I do understand what is meant by "posterity". Englishmen who seceded from the mother country were created a nation for themselves and those who descended from them. I believe Federalist #11 (John Jay) makes an allusion to this. I'll need to read more Anti-Federalist stuff too. I'm sure those dudes were of the same sentiment.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore July 06, 2018 11:57 AM  

Errata: created = creating

Blogger wreckage July 06, 2018 12:00 PM  

Broadly speaking the posterity would derive from the UK. That means the Welsh, Scottish, and Cornish Celts, and the Anglo-Saxons, in most States. A couple of States would add some French, but a lot less than you might expect; then a couple more would add the Germanic Celts and the Germanic Saxons. There's a spread of somewhere in the vicinity of two to three thousand years between the different Celtic groups, so they're genetically quite distinct from one another.

That's roughly my understanding of US genetics, anyway. There's really only about six tribal groups, which is pretty homogeneous for such a large land-mass, and they all share genetic and cultural overlap at multiple points in their history.

Blogger Unknown July 06, 2018 12:01 PM  

What if someone is partly descended from Germans who immigrated in the 1850s, and partly from people who were here in the 1600s, including several who fought in the American Revolution?

Blogger tz July 06, 2018 12:07 PM  

The problem is the Civic Nationalists seem to still want to adapt it instead of adopt it.

Even our constitution was a synthesis of the Bible, Roman and Greece law, the Enlightenment view on rights, and much theory of how to create a government - the idea of the three branches was not new, but how to balance them as well as Federalism - the individual DIFFERENT states retained their sovereignty

The Constitution is an implementation document, not theory.

KrisAnne Hall noted it was the STATES, not the Federal Government that decided whom to admit (noncitizens) to their territory, and nowhere in the constitution is the Federal Government given that power.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 06, 2018 12:10 PM  

Yeah, I think Vox is right on this, but it's largely irrelevant, as the whole thing was doomed from the beginning.

It was a multi-national mess from the get go. A lot less bad than where we are now, but muddled enough to go off the rails in a hurry.

That said, I don't know that it could have been done in a really sustainable fashion at all. The settling of this continent by Europeans was going to be a long term mess no matter what. How many hundred years will it take to settle into something stable? (for longer than small periods like the 50-60s, say)

If ever.

Blogger Matthew July 06, 2018 12:13 PM  

The Constitution is useless today. The only people who pretend it isn't are the ones who are dedicated to losing.

Blogger Duke Norfolk July 06, 2018 12:14 PM  

Mister Excitement wrote:about Trump nominating a guy named Amul Thapar to the Supreme Court

Man, I surely do hope that this is just Trump including this guy to assuage the multi-culti gods before nominating a WASP.

Can you imagine a friggin' dot-Indian on the SCOTUS? Who knows where that would go. Although we do know the the SCOTUS offices would likely be teeming with Pajeets on the staff.

Blogger Matthew July 06, 2018 12:15 PM  

"Democracy of the Dead" fails, decisively, when the living have no familial connection to the dead.

Blogger VFM #4388 July 06, 2018 12:19 PM  

It's not a purity test, it's an observation:
What the founders intended is "A".
What actually exists is "Y", and the globalists are making a hard drive for "Z".
Conservatives claim that the founders intended "W", and that if we only go back to "W", which is composed of a large number of people who are heading toward "Z", we shall have all the magical blessings of the founders.
Whether we should go back to A, or even can go back to A, is a separate question. A question we cannot even address if we stand around yelling "They founders can't have meant 'A' because I'm 'B', and therefore it excludes meeee!" until we are purple in the face.
Let's turn this around.
I'm a big fan of the Constitution. My preferred culture and society is that of the posterity. Until very recently, though, I didn't think I was one of them. Turns out there is some mixed in there, but it's pretty thoroughly diluted.
If I want to live in my preferred world, their world, I need to do whatever I can to achieve the following goals:
1) The Posterity survives.
2) The Posterity retain their heritage
3) The Posterity have dominion over one or more political states.
4) The Posterity are kindly disposed towards me and my family.
Fortunately for me, if I have demonstrably fought for 1, 2, and 3, I stand the best chance to get 4 thrown in.
But the situation is dire. They make up less than 50% of the population and have had their heritage ripped away. I will only get 1, 2, and 3 if the Posterity take drastic action perhaps up to the level of even sending me back to Scotland.
Since any state governed by those not the posterity is liable to be less free than Scotland, even if I have to go back, it is still better from a purely selfish point of view for the posterity to reclaim whatever portion of their heritage they may.
And setting aside my selfish desires, sure, it is not my fault that I am of mixed blood. Sure, it is an evil thing to deprive me of that which was contractually mine. But the question is: is it more evil than killing the American nation?
No.
No it is not.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 06, 2018 12:21 PM  

So, the 7 dudes and their families left of "the posterity" are gonna' run the show after the revolution?

Fine with me, they can't do much worse those the 5 bald old Belgian Jews in Amsterdam.

Blogger Taignobias July 06, 2018 12:25 PM  

I recall the Japanese concept of "wa", which derives from both the words for "peace" and "Japan".

The Japanese say only those of their blood and culture are Japanese, because they have the "wa". One can move to Japan, but without "wa" they are not Japanese. Their children can have "wa" if raised by their "wa" having ancestors, though.

Apply the same to America. To lack the culture of the founding is to lack Americanism, by its nature. You can trace your lineage to Washington, but if you lack our culture you are not American.

And to lack the blood of those who founded the nation is to not be part of the posterity. That is beyond dispute.

Now, if we are a Christian nation, we might not bind so much value to blood as to the culture (as, in Christ, there is no more Jew nor Gentile - to become truly Christian is to be part of a distinct culture). But that still means that those who are culturally other remain non-American, even born here.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 06, 2018 12:25 PM  

"What if someone is partly descended from Germans who immigrated in the 1850s, and partly from people who were here in the 1600s, including several who fought in the American Revolution?"

Nobody reading or posting on this blog will ever decide this.

If you do, look me up, I'll buy you a bottle of whiskey, whether I get to stay or not. Of course if I get to stay I'll be able to afford a better bottle for you.

Blogger R Webfoot July 06, 2018 12:30 PM  

Cuckservative: "We need to stay true to the values this great nation was founded on."
Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whites Only"
Cuckservative: "NOT THAT ONE"

Blogger Anno Ruse July 06, 2018 12:31 PM  

"What if someone is partly descended from Germans who immigrated in the 1850s, and partly from people who were here in the 1600s, including several who fought in the American Revolution?"

Part of you has to go back. You get to choose which parts love liberty the most.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 06, 2018 12:33 PM  

@30

"Can you imagine a friggin' dot-Indian on the SCOTUS? Who knows where that would go. Although we do know the the SCOTUS offices would likely be teeming with Pajeets on the staff."

And soon, throwing out every case filing they don't like before it even gets to the judges.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 06, 2018 12:33 PM  

If Pajeet doesn't understand Freedom of Speech, he sure as hell is going to hold the Right to Due Process in utter contempt.

Blogger Jack Ward July 06, 2018 12:38 PM  

@14 Cowherd

I like that, whoever said it. May have to add it to my vocab. Who said plagiarism can't be condoned?

Blogger The Gray Man July 06, 2018 12:39 PM  

I've never been more proud of my English ancestry than since Vox started to make this point.

Blogger pyrrhus July 06, 2018 12:39 PM  

From a practical standpoint, excluding those who arrived under the 1965 Act would probably be the solution...But the reality is that if the US balkanizes, every State or subdivision thereof will make its own rules.

Blogger Ledford Ledford July 06, 2018 12:39 PM  

For about 96% of USA-ers:
"Unconstitutional!" = "Unfair!"

Keep this in mind. At this point the Constitution is just a thesaurus where you find words to justify whatever you want. "Equal protection" can mean a man's right to marry an entire chain gang.

What we're discussing is who are the Americans. The Constitution is in this light an interesting historical record.

Blogger The Gray Man July 06, 2018 12:41 PM  

I do have French Huguenot ancestors (assimilated and have records of milutary positions in the Revolutionary War militias) I guess that's my non English heritage.

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 12:45 PM  

The Scots-Irish wouldn’t even pass this purity test, correct? It could be that I’m just not familiar enough with the genealogy of each signer of the constitution, but the level of purity here seems inapplicable.

How can the very definition of the purpose of the U.S. Constitution "seem inapplicable"? If that is the case, there is no nation left to defend or even discuss?

Enjoy your new Somali neighbors.

Blogger freddie_mac July 06, 2018 12:46 PM  

@28 Duke Norfolk
Although we do know the the SCOTUS offices would likely be teeming with Pajeets on the staff.

The Awan Bros would do all of his IT services.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora July 06, 2018 12:50 PM  

I think you could argue the difficulties with defining what is American started with the Louisiana Purchase. The very people who wrote the Constitution (I know Jefferson was in Europe at the time) were involved in trying to assimilate the French and Spanish populations that they outright admitted were foreign. They considered measures like diluting them with Americans and so forth but they were intent on giving the assimilated populations the full rights of citizens. What makes this so hard is that I'm certain if you could go back in time and tell them about what is happening today they'd have done a lot of things differently but the fact that their actions can be used to argue the opposite of their intent really doesn't help.

Blogger Crew July 06, 2018 1:01 PM  

Hmmm, perhaps the 3rd can be used against all these immivaders!

Blogger Austin Ballast July 06, 2018 1:07 PM  

So we get lectured once again on who is a true American by someone who wouldn't qualify and who fled the country.

As I noted before, they would not have allowed for naturalization of others if it was only to cover the ones who were already there.

They left that open with the full knowledge that people would come in. Taking one statement out of context does not prove the point.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore July 06, 2018 1:25 PM  

@46 What statement is being taken out of context?

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 1:41 PM  

So we get lectured once again on who is a true American by someone who wouldn't qualify and who fled the country.

Genetic fallacy.

Taking one statement out of context does not prove the point.

The context is the Preamble to the freaking Constitution. It not only proves the point, it proves it conclusively.

Also, you have to go back.

Blogger Crew July 06, 2018 1:49 PM  

They left that open with the full knowledge that people would come in. Taking one statement out of context does not prove the point.

Perhaps there is evidence that they expected to only have to naturalize people of British descent ...

Blogger Chris Mallory July 06, 2018 1:55 PM  

Solaire Of Astora wrote:I think you could argue the difficulties with defining what is American started with the Louisiana Purchase. The very people who wrote the Constitution (I know Jefferson was in Europe at the time) were involved in trying to assimilate the French and Spanish populations that they outright admitted were foreign.

You do realize that the combined population of both Florida and Louisiana was less than 100,000 people. The US had a population of 12 million.
The French Cajun population of Louisiana hasn't assimilated all that much.

Blogger Chris Mallory July 06, 2018 2:01 PM  

Austin Ballast wrote:As I noted before, they would not have allowed for naturalization of others if it was only to cover the ones who were already there.

During the first years of the Republic immigration was a non issue, often less than 1% of the population per year.
In 1830, we were 98% natural born native American.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 06, 2018 2:02 PM  

Duke Norfolk wrote:Yeah, I think Vox is right on this, but it's largely irrelevant, as the whole thing was doomed from the beginning.

Vox is almost always right, which is why he's such a lovable pain in the ass, though doom has yet to fully descend.

Remember, the alt right IS inevitable!!

However, seeing as how I am 1/4 Irish, and 3/4 German, and just 4 generations removed from those respective old countries, but born in these here United States, you will have to pry my United States Passport out of my cold dead hands.

Blogger CoolHand July 06, 2018 2:10 PM  

Is there not a chance of this line of argument blowing up in our faces, rather like the current conservative civnat arguments have for modern conservatives?

What I mean, is that if the Constitution only applies to genetic descendants of the original colonists, then you're going to find the current country to be far more "invader" than "American" (which I think is VD's point, I could be wrong, happens regularly).

That being the case (invaders in the majority by a huge margin), isn't arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to a huge majority of the population the same as arguing that the Constitution is void (or maybe just a hop skip and a jump from the former to the latter)?

Doesn't that pretty much grant the leftist position that the Constitution is an outdated document that should be cast aside entirely? Maybe not in theory, but certainly in practice.

To me at least, that looks like a recipe for a civil war PDQ, because once you've convinced the people who currently fight to uphold Muh Constitution that it's pointless and doesn't apply to them anyway, who's going to be left to oppose the leftists as they set about Venezuelaing the US?

First step, of course, is to round up all the guns, which is when the fighting starts in earnest.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just too short to see the brilliance of this line of argument, but I just don't.

Yes, it destroys the civnat sacred cow, and "wins" that argument, but for the life of me I can't see how it helps in any other way.

Blogger kapy53 July 06, 2018 2:10 PM  

I'm PA German and had ancestors fight in the revolution, so yes.

Blogger kapy53 July 06, 2018 2:12 PM  

Does Trump count in this? If I'm not mistaken he's 3rd gen German and 2nd gen Scottish.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 06, 2018 2:15 PM  

Does the GE have to go back?

https://infogalactic.com/info/Family_of_Donald_Trump

Grandparents
Frederick Trump

In 1885, Donald Trump's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, emigrated from Kallstadt (then part of the Kingdom of Bavaria) to the United States at age 16. He anglicized his name to Frederick in 1892 when he became a U.S. citizen.[27] During the Klondike Gold Rush, he amassed a fortune by opening restaurants and hotels for gold seekers on their way to the region. After his death, his fortune was passed on to his wife and son. Frederick Trump was a second cousin of Henry J. Heinz, founder of H. J. Heinz Company.
Elizabeth Christ Trump
Further information: Christ (surname) and Hartung

Donald Trump's grandmother, Elizabeth Christ Trump, née Christ, was born in 1880 and died on June 6, 1966. She was the matriarch of the Trump family. Born Elisabeth Christ, she married Frederick Trump in 1902 and moved to the United States with him. Like her husband, she was a native of Kallstadt, born as the daughter of Philipp and Marie Christ. Philipp Christ was descended from Johannes Christ (1626–1688/9) of Flörsheim, Hesse.[32] Elizabeth Christ Trump was a descendant of organ builder Johann Michael Hartung (1708–1763) through her paternal grandmother Sabina Christ.[32]

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 06, 2018 2:27 PM  

"To me at least, that looks like a recipe for a civil war..."

Ain't from around here, are ya?

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 2:27 PM  

I dunno. Maybe I'm just too short to see the brilliance of this line of argument, but I just don't.

It's not an argument. It's a fact. Do you think it is better to build an argument on a foundation of lies?

Does Trump count in this? If I'm not mistaken he's 3rd gen German and 2nd gen Scottish.

Of course. Why do you think he's so firmly civic nationalist?

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 2:29 PM  

Doesn't that pretty much grant the leftist position that the Constitution is an outdated document that should be cast aside entirely? Maybe not in theory, but certainly in practice.

Leftists aren't always wrong. Regardless, the point that it makes is that the Constitution is a failure by its own lights. So, you probably shouldn't count on it to save your society.

Blogger CoolHand July 06, 2018 2:36 PM  

OK then. It IS as bad as I thought on first blush.

That's a real bummer.

Back to making money to convert into ammo and storage food it is then.

Thanks for the instruction VD, it does help clear up my thinking.

Blogger OGRE July 06, 2018 2:40 PM  

@55 kapy53

If using a purity test of only people who are completely descended from the "people" at the time of ratification of the Constitution, then there would be very few people who could prove that with any degree of reasonable certainty. Millenials are the 14th generation from the founding, so they would have over 8,000 potential ancestors at that time. How many if any can prove their ancestry back that far? Conversely, using a test of any ancestor considered "of the people" at ratification would result in a large percentage of current US residents qualifying.

A quibble with the meme depicted: the preamble was never discussed or debated by the full convention or voted on separately. It was drafted in committee and presented as part of the entire document approved by the Convention.

The primary debate in committee was concerned with using the phrase "We the People of the United States" as opposed to naming just the several States. This was due to how the ratification process was to differ from that used for the Articles. The Articles were ratified by the various State legislatures directly and seen as an agreement between the States themselves. For the Constitution this was changed to ratification by the 'people' themselves, as the people were considered the proper source of government power, and with the intent to grant the new federal government a stronger basis of authority; the new government was to be seen as deriving its power directly from the general public and not solely delegated from the power of the States themselves. Thus while the Articles were ratified directly by the State legislatures, the Constitution was ratified by state ratification conventions pursuant to Article 7.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 06, 2018 2:47 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Robert July 06, 2018 2:48 PM  

Let's be clear on one point. Does anyone claim that those who were slaves in 1789 were included in those who would furnish our posterity?

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 06, 2018 2:48 PM  

Definition 2 from the OED; emphasis mine.
2.

a. As a mass noun: all future generations of people collectively, esp. regarded as the beneficiaries of a particular inheritance, tradition, culture, etc. for (also †in) posterity: for (the sake or good of) future generations; for the future.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 06, 2018 2:51 PM  

I take the preamble as a restatement of what a government, through this Constitution in this case, is supposed to be for.
That the meaning of progeny is even questioned is proof that the purpose of assembling a government needed put down in paper.
I would have sided with Patrick Henry and argued against seceding from the Articles.

Blogger Mr Darcy July 06, 2018 2:52 PM  

But ... but ... what about the Epistle of St Emma Lazarus and the huddled masses yearning to get free stuff? What about them?

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 06, 2018 2:53 PM  

Let's be clear on one point. Does anyone claim that those who were slaves in 1789 were included in those who would furnish our posterity?

Roger Sherman, for one.

Blogger HoosierHillbilly July 06, 2018 3:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger HoosierHillbilly July 06, 2018 3:10 PM  

@61 and if that is your "quibble" about rhetorical transmittal, please stay away from the meme's.

We have a nice fingerpaint gallery right over here you can play in...

Blogger Robert July 06, 2018 3:16 PM  

67: Might you have a quote to prove that, or just a conclusion from general tendencies?

Blogger OGRE July 06, 2018 3:57 PM  

@69 No thanks, I'll just stay right here on the lands of my ancestors, which we owned well before there was a United States of America. Where are your folks from again?

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) July 06, 2018 4:10 PM  

67: Might you have a quote to prove that, or just a conclusion from general tendencies?

For Sherman? General tendencies.

Here's a quote from Gouverneur Morris during the constitutional convention regarding slaves and voting:

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included?

Also keep in mind that freed slaves in some states could vote.

From a dissent on Dredd Scott:

Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New [p573] York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

Also from the north Carolina supreme court:


all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to our institutions. Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects -- those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did in the British colonies. Slaves were not, in legal parlance persons, but property. The moment the incapacity, the disqualification of slavery, was removed, they became persons, and were then either British subjects or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British King. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the laws of North Carolina than was consequent on the transition from a colony dependent on a European King to a free and sovereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the State, remained aliens. Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.

Blogger TM Lutas July 06, 2018 4:28 PM  

@59 VD - "So, you probably shouldn't count on it to save your society." Taleb nods.

Blogger PVB July 06, 2018 4:43 PM  

What is an American

What attachment can a poor European emigrant have for a country where he had nothing? The knowledge of the language, the love of a few kindred as poor as himself, were the only cords that tied him: his country is now that which gives him land, bread, protection, and consequence: Ubi panis ibi patria, is the motto of all emigrants. What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

Blogger HoosierHillbilly July 06, 2018 5:00 PM  

@71. Not a comment on ancestry. Comment on fretting about the "presentation of the preamble" vs "being debated" blah blah blah. It's a meme, cuz.

As to your question, it's "kin".

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 06, 2018 5:06 PM  

Again, until we have done what is obviously needed by removing the Third World from our midst, it's silly to worry about corner cases, about exactly who is posterity. After all, it's easy to see who definitely isn't.

Blogger SirHamster July 06, 2018 7:14 PM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia wrote:Definition 2 from the OED; emphasis mine.

2.



a. As a mass noun: all future generations of people collectively, esp. regarded as the beneficiaries of a particular inheritance, tradition, culture, etc. for (also †in) posterity: for (the sake or good of) future generations; for the future.


You are not following the whole discussion. Previous posts referenced a much older VP post on the various definitions of posterity.

The main thing to note is that the phrase used is "our posterity", not "all posterity". The use of "our" excludes "their posterity".

Which makes complete sense. America's government does not exist for the sake of bettering Africans, Europeans, or Asians. It exists to serve Americans, first. Americans are those who are descended from the Founding Fathers. America is their inheritance and no one else's.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey July 06, 2018 7:16 PM  

1.The Founding Fathers were evil rayciss patriarchal sexist homophobic slaveholders.

2.America has always been a "proposition nation."

Pick one.

Blogger Statureman July 06, 2018 7:32 PM  

So, where does that leave 4th/5th generation muts like myself? I have Irish, bohemian, and Norwegian grands who were the children of imigrants? I can't go "home"... not sarcasm. ..

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 8:23 PM  

Again, until we have done what is obviously needed by removing the Third World from our midst, it's silly to worry about corner cases, about exactly who is posterity. After all, it's easy to see who definitely isn't.

Again, you have no reason or excuse to remove the Third World from your midst if you reject the concept of Posterity or the purpose of the Constitution. The matter is not silly, it is integral to understanding the situation and being able to take the moral high ground.

Blogger VD July 06, 2018 8:25 PM  

Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.

Exactly. Welcome your new friends from Somalia, Libya, and Iran, American.

This is what I have been telling you all along. It's for Posterity or it's for everyone. There is no in-between.

Blogger CoolHand July 06, 2018 8:38 PM  

Thanks for not tearing me a new one before VD, I really should have watched the DarkStream before I commented.

Your presentation as a whole was much more clear and understandable than the excerpt that was posted.

The implications still suck, but the conclusion is both inescapable and follows naturally from the facts as presented.

Should have watched it before I wasted your time, for that I apologize. I appreciate you still taking time to drive the point home.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia July 06, 2018 8:49 PM  

SirHamster wrote:KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia wrote:Definition 2 from the OED; emphasis mine.

2.

a. As a mass noun: all future generations of people collectively, esp. regarded as the beneficiaries of a particular inheritance, tradition, culture, etc. for (also †in) posterity: for (the sake or good of) future generations; for the future.


You are not following the whole discussion. Previous posts referenced a much older VP post on the various definitions of posterity.

The main thing to note is that the phrase used is "our posterity", not "all posterity". The use of "our" excludes "their posterity".

Which makes complete sense. America's government does not exist for the sake of bettering Africans, Europeans, or Asians. It exists to serve Americans, first. Americans are those who are descended from the Founding Fathers. America is their inheritance and no one else's.


Thanks for that -- I missed that reference.

I do think Vox's argument is correct by the way.

This is a pretty intersting article on preambles.

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/4/714/667109

All in all, the 14th Amendment effectively ended the very very slim possibility of this narrow definition of "posterity" having any real policy effect.

We can still keep the Somalis and Beaners out, IF we have the will to do so, no matter how we define "posterity."

Blogger Thumos July 06, 2018 8:59 PM  

The constitution is not divine doctrine. The past 50 years of legislation makes that abundantly clear. The WN thing and the talking points "free white men of good character" is our rhetoric. And white nationalism just works, as pre-65 America shows. It works in a way that rainbow nationalism doesn't and simply cannot.

Blogger Robert Pinkerton July 06, 2018 9:05 PM  

Without the 1965 act and without illegal immigration, with the proliferation of "Only in America" intermarriage between American citizen Whites of different ethnic extraction (e.g #79 supra and my own equally mixed-White ancestry), we would eventually have coalesced into a White ethny of our own. However, illegal immigration and the 1965 act spoiled the process.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 06, 2018 10:37 PM  

@52

"However, seeing as how I am 1/4 Irish, and 3/4 German, and just 4 generations removed from those respective old countries, but born in these here United States, you will have to pry my United States Passport out of my cold dead hands."

The real question is this:

When push comes to shove, will you fight, to the point of going into the line of fire (actual, supersonic, people-killing projectiles, mind you) to help restore the values which were ubiquitous 150 years ago?

Blogger Dirk Manly July 06, 2018 10:46 PM  

@66

"But ... but ... what about the Epistle of St Emma Lazarus and the huddled masses yearning to get free stuff? What about them?"

Fuck them. They've had 250 years to observe how our country works, and duplicate it themselves if they want, and by force of arms if need be.

They're lazy. They just want bennies without putting in the work.

Blogger Lazarus July 07, 2018 12:05 AM  

Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.

The Utopians are the most annoying of all the processed philosophers.

Blogger CitizenOutkast July 07, 2018 12:56 AM  

R Webfoot wrote:Cuckservative: "We need to stay true to the values this great nation was founded on."

This ok?

Blogger cyrus83 July 07, 2018 1:53 AM  

It's clear the meaning is the posterity of "We the People" of the United States in 1787. The problem is that many politicians over time, even in the founding era, were eager to expand who "We the People" included by extending citizenship rather easily. It's only 3 years later that the First Congress, including a number of the men who signed the Constitution, gave us the Naturalization Act of 1790, opening the door to citizenship to any free white of good character who had been here just 2 years - and they even made it where a local court could handle the whole process start to finish and administer an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. This would get the Irish, Italians, and any native European in, although not the Africans and Asians. The Founders were apparently believers in magic dirt too, or at least magic parchment, when it came to whites.

I get the argument, but I think the First Congress itself eviscerated the clause in 1790, and Jefferson definitively killed it in 1802-1803 with even more lax citizenship standards and buying Louisiana. For practical purposes, the people who run the country have not held to this notion of posterity in over 2 centuries. Which makes it just one more dead clause among so many in the Constitution of 1787 and one more bill coming due.

Blogger Gospace July 07, 2018 1:56 AM  

@61 I have to go back to my 4g-grandparents, 6 generations, to find ancestors here at the founding. 7 generations for some. Most of my female ancestors had their first child in their mid 20s. The idea that colonials were married and reproducing in the teens is just plain wrong. I doubt there are very many, if any, people in the US 14 generations removed from the founding.

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim July 07, 2018 2:47 AM  

pyrrhus wrote:@3 Wrong. The Scots-Irish were settled in America, and did a lot of fighting in the Revolutionary War...British commander Tarelton said they were "more terrible than any savage." Of course they part of our "posterity." They were also not to be confused with the bog Irish, and were predominantly of English and Scots ethnicity.

Thanks, good to know.

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim July 07, 2018 2:51 AM  

Josh (the sexiest thing here) wrote:https://infogalactic.com/info/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

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


Even more great news!

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim July 07, 2018 2:54 AM  

VD wrote:The Scots-Irish wouldn’t even pass this purity test, correct? It could be that I’m just not familiar enough with the genealogy of each signer of the constitution, but the level of purity here seems inapplicable.

How can the very definition of the purpose of the U.S. Constitution "seem inapplicable"? If that is the case, there is no nation left to defend or even discuss?

Enjoy your new Somali neighbors.


I'll not tolerate Somali neighbors anywhere near my family, and I've got a lot more room to roam that that boot you're in.

Blogger Lobert E. Ree July 07, 2018 2:58 AM  

Statureman wrote:So, where does that leave 4th/5th generation muts like myself? I have Irish, bohemian, and Norwegian grands who were the children of imigrants? I can't go "home"... not sarcasm. ..

Maybe that means you have more options. Lucky you that Czechia has good gun laws.

Blogger yoghi.llama July 07, 2018 3:40 AM  

Posterity testing is a good thing in times of peace.

In times of struggle, a nation is made up of (a) the men who use weapons to defend the borders, plus (b) the women who bear their children.

Everybody else is a gypsy or a helot.

Blogger Paul M July 07, 2018 9:18 AM  

'Posterity' means what it does, but then again, so to does 'Naturalization'. If the posterity in question covers more than just the two dozen guys in the room at the time the constitution was signed, if it means all US citizens, then it includes naturalized citizens.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 07, 2018 10:50 AM  

yoghi.llama wrote:Posterity testing is a good thing in times of peace.

In times of struggle, a nation is made up of (a) the men who use weapons to defend the borders, plus (b) the women who bear their children.


Agreed. This is a time of struggle. This is not the time to worry over fine points of posterity doctrine. This is the time to repel and expel Turd World immi-vaders, the ones who obviously aren't, and can't, and don't really want to be posterity.

Once we have done that, then we can indulge ourselves in endless debates about how many ancestors can miscegenate on the head of a pin, and who is posteritier than whom. But then we really won't care so much.

``Slam the door behind you'' is the American value that will stop our nation from sinking.

Ten generations without the swarthy races and without any immigration would go a long way toward developing an American nation. It's time we begin that experiment.

Blogger Sam July 07, 2018 1:00 PM  

@84
If we hadn't imported 3rd worlders, we would have followed the exact same trajectory as Europe did- below replacement TFR and gradual downward spiral. The United States made a hard turn left in the 1960s and like all bouts of leftism it will eventually kill the host.

White nationalism doesn't work because it is not an ethnic identity. It is a reaction to the importation of hostile foreigners by unmoored whites, but you cannot build a society upon it.

@90
Extension of the franchise and importing immigrants are inevitable in a democracy.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 07, 2018 1:51 PM  

@99:
No God, no children.
Know God, know children.

Leftism separates us from God and makes a society barren.

Blogger Dirk Manly July 07, 2018 3:32 PM  

@90

" This would get the Irish, Italians, and any native European in, although not the Africans and Asians."

At that time, the Italians were not considered "white". Although those from the northern, mountainous regions could probably get by if they wanted to (and they have the same, industrious and inventive character of the colonists, so they wouldn't draw attention to themselves in a negative way... other than their names).

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants July 07, 2018 4:48 PM  

Correct. The Scots-Irish weren't in the country until later.
There were plain ol' Potato Ni&&ers here from the founding. Some were brought to America as "indentured servitude," AKA, white slaves.
I have some Irish ancestry,(not Scots-Irish), that came here in the mid 1600s-early 1700s, & fought in the American Revolution.
That said, this whole line of inquiry just goes down the "Special Snowflake," "what about me?" "purity spiraling," navel-gazing slope, pretty quickly. It's not about you, or me, for that matter.

Blogger Michael July 08, 2018 7:37 PM  

The title of this post made me think of John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts