ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

The Noble Lie of the Proposition Nation

Conservative civnattery can never save the USA because civic nationalism was always a banner waved by those who sought to destroy the American nation and replace the republic of the sovereign States with an empire. Brion McClanahan demonstrates that both the 1619 Project of the SJWs and the 1776 Commission of the conservatives are designed to push an entirely false and ahistoric revision of the founding of the United States of America on the maleducated children of the empire:

Hannah-Jones considers the United States to be a “nation founded on both an ideal and a lie.” The ideal is that “all mean are created equal” with “certain unalienable rights,” i.e., the “proposition nation.” But, unlike the Straussians, Hannah-Jones does not let Northern white men off the hook, for she sees them as as complicit as Southerners in betraying that ideal. She summarizes the core position of “The 1619 Project” as follows:

 Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves—black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.

 To the Straussians who crafted “The 1776 Report” and their conservative pundit allies like Dinesh D’Souza, Glenn Beck, and the late Rush Limbaugh, not all white Americans should be blamed for the sins of the South. In their view, there were “good” white Americans—abolitionists, Northern members of the founding generation, and Lincoln—who recognized the inhumanity of slavery and tried to end it. Even Southern members of the founding generation, including Jefferson himself, but also Washington, Madison, Mason, and a host of other Virginians, thought enough of humanity to pave the way for Lincoln to revolutionize the Revolution in the Gettysburg Address.

 “The 1776 Report” suggests that the founders (not excluding those who hailed from Southern states) created the mechanism to end slavery through the Constitution and cannot be blamed for the evil deeds of later pro-slavery Southerners who ignored the true founding of America. More importantly, the report’s authors believe they are free from the stain of racism because they adhere to the “correct” view of American history. In other words, “Don’t blame us. We voted for Lincoln.”

 Hannah-Jones, on the other hand, does not make this distinction, nor does she differentiate between Lincoln and Calhoun. Both were guilty of America’s “original sin” of racism. Neither man held views on race that are acceptable to modern Americans, let alone “woke” social justice warriors. Hannah-Jones is as critical of Lincoln’s colonization plans as of Calhoun’s “positive good” speech. Frankly, she is at least being more consistent than the self-righteous conservatives on the 1776 Commission.

 The attempt by the authors of “The 1776 Report” to beg absolution from the political left for the sin of slavery is a fatal miscalculation. The left’s game is cancel culture, and it’s a game in which conservatives will always be playing defense. You cannot play the left’s game on their field and by their rules and hope for success. Charges of racism are emotional, not intellectual, and are used—successfully—to change the narrative. Instead of focusing on the contributions antebellum Americans made to Western civilization, we are instead debating who was the least racist and bigoted among them. This is unproductive.

Conservatives cannot appease the left by regurgitating its distorted vision of the founding. Placing the lofty ideals of the Declaration at the center of the founding is a distortion of history.

Consider that Jefferson himself downplayed the importance of the Declaration’s phrase “all men are created equal,” and that, for much of the period leading up to the Civil War, Jeffersonians in both the North and South championed the principles of state sovereignty, rather than those of an egalitarian, propositional nation. To Jefferson, the last paragraph, not the second, provided the most important language of the Declaration. Most of the founding generation agreed.

The story written during the debates over the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 provides a more robust and authentic American vision of the founding. The principles that predominated in those debates unified most Americans for decades and created a populist national base.

The founders drafted two constitutions for the central government and a host of state constitutions that reaffirmed their commitment to a union of states and the principles of federalism. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1788 had the founding generation believed that the states would be consolidated into one national government.

That argument took center stage in every state ratifying convention in 1787 and 1788. Rarely was the Declaration mentioned, even in passing, and none of the founders ever referred to the line “all men are created equal” with religious reverence, contrary to what the Straussians and their leftist allies would have you believe.

For example, James Wilson of Pennsylvania made federalism a central theme of his State House Yard Speech in October 1787, just a few weeks after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia. Wilson mentioned the Declaration in one of his speeches before the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in December 1787, but only to show that the people had a right to “alter or abolish” either a state government or a central government. That was the American tradition.

Delegates to the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in January 1788 were told that the powers of the central government would be limited to those “expressly delegated” and that the language of what would become the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution imported the same meaning as the second article of the Articles of Confederation, namely that each state retained its “sovereignty and independence.” No one mentioned Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” phrase.

Even in Virginia, the state that gave the United States the Declaration, the delegates never mentioned that document when debating the Constitution. And it was only mentioned twice during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, in both instances by nationalists for the purpose of  arguing that the Union predated the states—a position flatly rejected by most of the men in attendance.

Despite these historical facts, the authors of “The 1776 Report” insist that “The meaning and purpose of the Constitution of 1787…cannot be understood without recourse to the principles of the Declaration of Independence….” If that’s true, then the founding generation should have made that meaning explicit during the ratification debates, or at the very least in Philadelphia. But they didn’t. “States’ rights,” not the phantasm of a proposition nation, dominated the debates between the Founding Fathers. 

Race, equality, and history make liars of every conservative. The undeniable fact that they are not dedicated to the truth, but are rather committed to the Noble Lie in the interests of a false and wordly ideal, is why they have relentlessly failed to conserve so much as the women's bathroom, and why no honest person should consider himself a conservative.

Labels: , , ,

88 Comments:

Blogger basementhomebrewer April 27, 2021 6:55 AM  

Hannah-Jones is condemning Americans for a concept that does not carry any moral negativity in her native land. Its fitting that conservatives are forced to suffer under their own moral concepts.

If Hannah-Jones was transported 500 years into the future, where Europeans have been an enslaved minority for 400 years she would still be justifying it and saying its right they should suffer. That's how little she actually understands or believes the conservatives principals, yet she understands how to use them to castrate the conservatives.

Unfortunately, even at the ridiculous levels we are reaching around "Racism", I don't see it losing its power till the last baby boomer gets his just reward from God, and Gen Z is able to assert its political power.

Blogger Gettimothy April 27, 2021 7:08 AM  

Neither man held views on race that are acceptable to modern Americans,


This is false.

Blogger Jamie-R April 27, 2021 7:16 AM  

States' rights were utmost in the mind of the Jeffersonians, because why fight a war to have Federalists impose their will, you had to keep the people's voice in power as much as possible and the states gave it the best opportunity to shoot down unconstitutional federal laws. New England was rife with Monarchists, the conservatives of that time were Monarchist Sympathisers, they didn't even understand the Thomas Hobbes arguments won out in England. You had an Absolute Sovereign with a Social Contract Theory (today's SJW'isms), and 'the war of all against all'.

The worst people in the United States at that time (and still now) were in the North East, Bostonians and New Yorkers, who were basically loyal to the Crown. George Washington ceded a lot of ground to them, he took on Hamilton's Jay Treaty and helped the British, he may have been sick of the fighting and their wartime sense of urgency against any enemy, but it was good that Adams was the middle man before Jefferson and Madison got the Presidency. A Republic always represents an existential threat to Monarchy, especially one comprised mostly of people from that royal nation.

Think of the North East and their shitty Brit-centric traditional political views as the cause of the civil war too, the South had every right to resist their overbearing impositions, Jefferson himself tried to cripple them with his 1807 embargo of British trade that hit the merchants of Boston/NY the most. A cynic like me would even argue that the British, not losing much on their home turf (mostly domestic servants) and not having overt control over their privateers, used the Slave Trade Act of 1807 as a future weapon to hit the American Colonies and get it back in their control. Ulysses S. Grant oversaw the transition of Washington DC into a municipal corporation, the Federalists finally got a point man to construct their heritage values on the rebellious Revolutionaries. It's my belief that's why you saw Milley at the Army/Navy football game holding the #17 flag, sharing symbolism like Trump that you only had 17 Presidents before the British got you back.

I'm going through the Hobbesian nightmare work right now, this is an Anglo-Saxon enemy, modern law on jurisdiction has settled on the Responsibility to Protect, largely, the League of Nations and the United Nations were both post-war projects of the London-based globalist intellectuals, and the alliance of London/Washington/Vatican city-states still give some imperial projection like the Holy Roman Empire and they've tried to impose the responsibility to protect on some nations, trying it on the United States is under way, abolishing police, stoking political/racial divisions and creating anarchy. Both sides are being riled up.

The time to deal with the British system is now. The people are always sheep in some form, we have to shepherd them in the right direction. American values work, you just haven't had enough men forcefully protect them. Thomas Hobbes is a vile man, he denies good and evil and his system is a despicable form of tyranny, one so lukewarm everyone defends it or doesn't even know it exists.

Blogger Doktor Jeep April 27, 2021 7:17 AM  

These people wont change.

So I guess all this is going to have to collapse.


Oh well. I'll be sure to snatch up that big book of analog IC datasheets from the 1980s before the I-beams start falling.

Blogger Blunt Force April 27, 2021 7:26 AM  

“Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns and battles and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle for those principles. ”
Robert E. Lee

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.


“Nothing fills me with deeper sadness than to see a Southern man apologizing for the defense we made of our inheritance. Our cause was so just, so sacred, that had I known all that has come to pass, had I known what was to be inflicted upon me, all that my country was to suffer, all that our posterity was to endure, I would do it all over again.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

Blogger Paulito April 27, 2021 7:27 AM  

"Lincoln—who recognized the inhumanity of slavery and tried to end it"

That's revisionist itself. Lincoln wanted to keep the South under control, he didn't care a whit for slaves. But don't take my word for it, take Abraham Lincoln's: "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Blogger Skyler the Weird April 27, 2021 7:34 AM  

The Abolition of slavery is an eighteenth century English idea. It's a fad that will fade away soon. With the commies in charge in Washington it will disappear as quickly as the Second Amendment is gutted. Without the Second Amendment there is no Thirteenth. We're all slaves to the Party.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge April 27, 2021 7:51 AM  

Amazing how the narrative has shifted to where the negro is not only the assumed equal in every case and way, but better in every case and way. In this case, he's not just pushing for his own self interests of gaining equal footing, he is helping America live up to her ideals.

How generous of him!

And anyone who praises Lincoln is either utterly ignorant of who he was and what he did or an apologist for something nefarious.

Blogger Darwin is a Harsh Mistress April 27, 2021 7:59 AM  

Johnny Reb, how do you make it through the day??? It must be a terrible life you live, hating the very people that made your life possible. There would be no "america" (high concept not geography) without those "damn" Yankees. No one -- literally no one -- gave to figs what was going on in Ol' Virginny and the rest of the exploitative slave-economy South with its penniless LARPing pseudo gentry, penniless but ambitious, possibly criminal indentured servants, and of course the Darkies who really are the only innocent parties in the drama playing in your head.

Frankly the only mistake made by Mr Lincoln was desiring Union with southron rabble. HE should have defeated you and sent you all to exile and the world -- and New England -- would be a better place without your relentless hate and bitterness over a war your fathers stupidly began.


Jamie-R wrote:States' rights were utmost in the mind of the Jeffersonians, because why fight a war to have Federalists impose their will, you had to keep the people's voice in power as much as possible and the states gave it the best opportunity to shoot down unconstitutional federal laws. New England was rife with Monarchists, the conservatives of that time were Monarchist Sympathisers, they didn't even understand the Thomas Hobbes arguments won out in England. You had an Absolute Sovereign with a Social Contract Theory (today's SJW'isms), and 'the war of all against all'.

The worst people in the United States at that time (and still now) were in the North East, Bostonians and New Yorkers, who were basically loyal to the Crown. George Washington ceded a lot of ground to them, he took on Hamilton's Jay Treaty and helped the British, he may have been sick of the fighting and their wartime sense of urgency against any enemy, but it was good that Adams was the middle man before Jefferson and Madison got the Presidency. A Republic always represents an existential threat to Monarchy, especially one comprised mostly of people from that royal nation.

Think of the North East and their shitty Brit-centric traditional political views as the cause of the civil war too, the South had every right to resist their overbearing impositions,

<>

Blogger AJ April 27, 2021 8:03 AM  

Even the abolitionists were racists. They didn’t believe in the brotherhood of man they just didn’t want blacks around.

Blogger rumpole5 April 27, 2021 8:05 AM  

The real lie is the false notion that equality (other than equality of human dignity alone) is possible. Each of us is a unique creation. Formed from our family, clan, and culture. We each have a place within that setting that works out the best for all concerned, and the failure to recognize that fact leads only to tears, tumult, turmoil, and tragedy.

Blogger Unknown April 27, 2021 8:22 AM  

7. Skyler the Weird April 27, 2021 7:34 AM
Without the Second Amendment there is no Thirteenth.


a - the 13th Amendment directly violates Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3

b - the 13th was the first of the so called Reconstruction Amendments ... which each of the Southern States was forced to ratify before they could regain their federal representation. ie - these are Duress Contracts and the Reconstruction Amendments have never been validly ratified

c - the 13th Amendment STILL ALLOWS SLAVERY

d - and, most importantly, the Federal government has used the 14th Amendment ( another of the Reconstruction Amendments ) against We The People to make slaves of every American citizen. this is the origin of the legal fiction by which the federal government pretends that they have the right to tell a baker to make cakes for faggots

we now live in a nation in which a Right enshrined in the 1st Amendment ( Freedom of Religion ) is constantly violated in favor of a "right" not mentioned in the Constitution at all ( sexual orientation ).

Blogger Vince April 27, 2021 8:24 AM  

I’ve never been a racist my entire long life, but the race hucksters’ relentless drum beating and guilt by association narrative has me seriously considering the possibility now.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz April 27, 2021 8:41 AM  

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-105/pdf/STATUTE-105-Pg44.pdf

FYI Naohites do not exit in Wiki or Infogalactic.
They were not-Jews allowed to stay alive inside Erec Izrael.
Infamous Maimonides created for them special text in his Torah.
Their sight was ... a rainbow

Blogger Damelon Brinn April 27, 2021 8:46 AM  

I think part of it, for people who are honestly drawn to things like the 1776 project (probably not so much the organizers), is that they look back to the 80s or 50s, to times when America seemed to "work," and want to bring that back. And faith in the proposition nation was part of that time (or at least their memories of it), with school children saying the Pledge every morning, stadium audiences standing as one for the anthem, and people seeming to get along better than they do today. Blacks in their memories of those days were funny and talented, not feral and angry. So if they can just roll culture back to that time, and keep the SJWs from fouling it again with degeneracy and race-baiting, they can make it work again.

But that requires a rose-colored view of those eras, when what racial harmony there was was based more on segregation than any real interracial understanding. And it ignores the fact that it was the optimism of those times and a belief in American superiority that helped convince Americans to sit by and allow any sort of social experimentation, assuming our "one nation under God" could overcome anything. The proposition nation was already a mirage by then, and its breakdown was built in.

Blogger pyrrhus April 27, 2021 8:52 AM  

All men "created equal" meant equal in the eyes of God, but many of the Founders felt that misinterpretations of it would create trouble in the future, and they were right...

Blogger Jacksonian Grouch April 27, 2021 8:53 AM  

@ #6, Paulito -

I disagree, sir, please read below my reasons why:

"...That's revisionist itself. Lincoln wanted to keep the South under control, he didn't care a whit for slaves..."

Revision upon revision. See Lincoln's earlier stump speeches, and numerous contemporaries witnessing his opposition to slavery in both public and private settings. Furthermore, the question of what to do with the approximate 4 million slaves (assuming slavery could be abolished) offered no easy solutions. Lincoln honestly struggled with how best to treat such freedmen in as morale and humane a manner as possible - and one must remember Lincoln was a Man of his Time. I think your reading his earlier comments would put paid to your cursory "... cared not a whit for the slaves...".

And I hold the strongest opposition to your out-of-context twisting of Lincoln's comments about freeing some, none or all the slaves. Specifically you use this to support your charge that he cared nothing for the slaves.

In fact, the proper and truthful context of his comments were not about caring naught for the freedom of slaves - but in caring everything for the preservation of the Union! This was the most important and critical thing Lincoln needed to preserve, his mission from God. And yes, Southerners will counter-claim States Rights, the southern states had a right to secede (more on that a bit later below...) - but all one has to do is read Dred Scott. Or what about the Missouri Compromise? Or the fighting in Bloody Kansas? Or, as Lincoln feared, the prospects of a North American continent, post-secession and now divided; Balkanized; into competitive and likely warring nation-states, weakened amongst themselves, thus vulnerable to outside interference from European powers.

So, no sir - Lincoln's comments on freeing some or none of the slaves had nothing to do with your inferring he disregarded the slaves status - and everything to do with conserving and protecting the Union.

Different tack now: regarding Southerners claims of secession being a states rights issue. I agree. The Declaration of Independence clearly states it so, and the DoI also clearly stated the compact to be between sovereign states. No argument from me there. Yet, in many conversations I've had with Southerners about this very topic, I come back that slavery was the underlying cause of the war... and so far, I've had most disagree and deny it, or at best, after I make my supporting points, agree albeit reluctantly.

These are my points that show Slavery was the cause of the war:
* The Confederate Constitution mentioned slavery and that subsequent territories acquired would allow slavery.
* State Confederate Constitutions also mentioned it; South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida come to mind, particularly in defending it against the North.
* Or what of the peculiarly, almost feudal-like economy of the South, where (re: David Hackett Fishers Albions Seed...) the Southern political leadership believed in "Hegemonic Liberty" and saw the owning of slaves as their right and their mission?

Perhaps the best way to describe the ACW, it was a war of States Rights, where Slavery was the Prime Concern.

thank you, that is all

the JG

Blogger pyrrhus April 27, 2021 9:00 AM  

Despite all of these lying pompous SJW declarations about Lincoln and slavery, slavery remains rampant in the world, primarily in Asia, but also the worldwide sex trade...And guess who controlled the white slave trade for the last 800 years? The chosen ones....

Blogger Troy Lee Messer April 27, 2021 9:04 AM  

...Think of the North East and their shitty Brit-centric traditional political views as the cause of the civil war too, the South had every right to resist their overbearing impositions,...

Ther is no noisy faggot like a Yankee noisy faggot. See Darwin.
Those Yankees invented everything dont you know. Yankees give a lot of weak sociopathic faggot like the Cuomos.

PS. Please Yankee faggots stay pit of Idaho.

Blogger Darren April 27, 2021 9:08 AM  

...so for those of us who out of habit saved a local copy of that 1776 Report is there any point to ever sharing it with anybody? It "felt" like bannable #WrongThink inconvenient truth that anti-history Year Zero commies hated but of course that was just relative to the obvious lies and nonsense being shouted everywhere during January of 2021...

Blogger π = 4 April 27, 2021 9:10 AM  

Con-servatives like Mark Levin, Dinesh D'Souza, Glenn Beck and other Straussians have made a fatal mistake embracing Lincoln's legacy as he will soon be cancelled by the woke mob.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer April 27, 2021 9:22 AM  


Frankly the only mistake made by Mr Lincoln was desiring Union with southron rabble. HE should have defeated you and sent you all to exile and the world -- and New England -- would be a better place without your relentless hate and bitterness over a war your fathers stupidly b....


Yankee faggots are a lot like Hollywood fags., Yankees like to brag aboit their shitty accomplishments. They pat themselves on the back like the Oscars no one watched.

BTW, Please New England fags, since you are so awesome, you dont need to come to the inter mountain west and share how to bend over with flair.

Fuck Yankees.

Blogger RC April 27, 2021 9:24 AM  

@Darwin wrote, "Johnny Reb, how do you make it through the day???"

That Jamie-R, the deepest of the Deep Southron for sure.

Blogger SecondComingOfBast April 27, 2021 9:27 AM  

I consider myself a federalist, though that doesn't amount to squat these days, either. I always considered "conservative" and "liberal" as issue bells to rally party adherents. I don't believe in political parties and think they should be banned. They are organized crime syndicates and should be prosecuted as such.

Blogger Johnny April 27, 2021 9:31 AM  

People are so seriously full of it that it is always hard to sort out reality. Essentially, all cultural doctrines are at least a semi fiction and some are total rubbish. Now a little real history.

Way back when, England was not all that powerful a country. What caused the Brits to dominate the east coast of North America was at first, religious minorities who wanted to escape the oppressive religious environment in England.

These religious minorities (often fanatics), were fairly quickly followed by land speculators. Wealth in Europe was tied to land ownership. Owning an estate, along with wealth, produce high status. Even merchants who had earned wealth through commerce wanted to be land owners. As land could be had at little cost in America, men who could get a land charter from the king would attempt to set up a European style estate. The estate was worked at first by men brought over in indentured servitude, and they were eventually replaced by the importation of blacks in the south. The blacks were actually a replacement for the subevent white class that became less available.

To the above list of motives for moving to America, there were also tenant farmers in Europe who wanted to be land owners. Commonly they went into New England. And also, a few "over mountain boys," the Scotch-Irish who were escaping control from the British crown.

It is easy to feel sympathy for the black slave population because they were disadvantaged, but they were at least as was racist as their white overlords. Kept in a state of deliberate ignorance, they had no sophisticated opinions. On the very rare occasion they revolted, it was either to flee the area or to go on the warpath and kill every white person they came across.

At the time of the formation of the United States, there were three predatory European powers in North America. Still powerful but receding were the Spanish. The French dominated in the north but lacked the numbers to sustain their power. And of course their was Britain.

A big chunk of the motive for forming the Untied States was to fend off these European powers. The colonies, as individual political entities, lacked the resources need to deal with any of them.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 9:34 AM  

>> And anyone who praises Lincoln is either utterly ignorant of who he was and what he did or an apologist for something nefarious.

Lincoln was a disaster as President, because he set absolutely terrible precedents, but I admire the man's clever wit and his insight into how he could see 2 or 3 moves ahead of his opponents (even before becoming president, for example, HOW he got the Republican nomination).

To be sure, by the 1840s, it was inevitable that there would be a civil war/attempt at secession. And as utterly terrible as Lincoln's judgement on some things was, I do believe that he was correct in his view that if the southern secession was successful, Britain, France and Spain would slowly retake the entirety in piecemeal fashion. Most likely by invading the South, and negotiating non-interference from the north, and once that foothold had been secured, expanding it until the north could be conquered. Taking the rest of the country would then be just a mopping up operation.

Lincoln's GOAL of preserving the Union was most
likely the correct one, but how he went about it was worse than abysmal.

Blogger Paulito April 27, 2021 9:36 AM  

@17 He didn't like the institution of slavery, perhaps. But he cared for the slaves themselves? The man represented a slave owner seeking the return of his property! Just because he didn't care for the institution of slavery doesn't mean he did care about the slaves themselves. As an example, I am not partial to the CCP, but I don't give a single rat's ass about any Chinese national. I would abolish the CCP if I could do it, but not for love for the Chinese people. I assert Lincoln's behavior and quotes support this view as well.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 9:42 AM  

@Jamie-R

Both the northern and southern philosophies during the American Civil War were British. It was really just the 3rd or 4th round of the British Civil Wars (The 2nd being the Cavaliers vs the Roundheads, arguably the 3rd being the American war for Independence), and the me ACW being the Roundheads vs Cavaliers again.)

The Northeast U.S. was settled primarily by people from Southeast England, The Southeast U.S. was primarily settled by people from Southwest England. The Appalachians mostly by Scots-Irish (Scottish stock who had moved to Ireland). Actual Irish didn't appear in large numbers until the potato famine.

Blogger Teleport me off this rock April 27, 2021 9:45 AM  

The Declaration of Independence has the same legal and moral authority as Emma Lazarus' defection on the Statue of Liberty, and much like the Second Amendment was written in such a way as to confound a posterity of a such breathtaking stupidity and/or evil that the founders could never have anticipated it.

Blogger dow_jones April 27, 2021 9:46 AM  

"There would be no "america" (high concept not geography) without those "damn" Yankees."

As a Southern son who has family roots stretching back to before the War of Northern Aggression I can see no nobler cause than to move to predominately white areas of the Northeast and start up an NGO importing as many Africans I as can before I leave this Earth. They'll fold with glee judging by the stories like the one below.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/06/new-hampshire-businesses-fight-bill-banning-critical-race-theory/

Blogger Gettimothy April 27, 2021 9:47 AM  

@jg in your studies of Lincoln, do you have examples of where he espoused civic nationalism?

Specifically the commingling of the white and negro races?


If thete are such examples, was Lincoln's civic nationalism correct?

Or, was it as ridiculous then as it is now?

Blogger Teleport me off this rock April 27, 2021 9:49 AM  

16 - It would take Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses to see the 80s as a time America "worked", since any astute observe would have seen it as the decade in which the financialization of everything really took off, as did the demographic disasters of mass immigration, amnesties and the complete disintegration of the social structure of the black community.

Blogger LES April 27, 2021 9:55 AM  

There were 34 states at that time, 15 were slave states. When the South seceded from the Union only 7 slave states left, leaving 8 slave states in the North. Only after Lincoln declared war on the South did 4 of the 8 slave states join the South rather than take up arms against their brethren. It was not a Civil War. The North invaded and attacked the South. The South had no intention or ambition to overthrow and take over the North.
The War of Aggression Against the South was not about slavery but about the states' rights to secede from the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the slaves of the Confederacy who Lincoln had no control over but did not free the slaves in the 4 slave states that remained in the Union.

The South did not secede over slavery but over tariffs, specifically the Morrill Tariff. There was no income tax at that time. The government was funded by tariffs which fell hardest on the agricultural South while protecting manufacturers in the industrial North. The tariff money from the South was being used to fund public works projects in the North. The Force Act of 1833 gave the president the power to use military force against any state that resisted the tariff acts. Since the South was out-numbered and out-voted in Congress, they had no way of preventing the North from economically oppressing the South.
They saw no other option than to leave the Union.

Blogger Silly but True April 27, 2021 10:16 AM  

Hannah-Jones is a racist carrot-top and its husband Faraji Jones, took her name.

Blogger Daniel April 27, 2021 10:24 AM  

"Preserving the Union" is wizard rhetoric for "Subjugating sovereign states."

You cannot preserve a unity among diversifies, without first denying sovereign statehood.

That such a deceptive euphemism is taken for granted is not surprising. This is the same President who publicly, famously and emphatically sided with the House of Satan, and an allegedly Christian America to this day repeats the scripture "a house divided cannot stand" as if the one thing a Christian ought to do is unify and preserve the agents of Satan.

Blogger Haus frau April 27, 2021 10:25 AM  

Civ-nattery is multiculturalism for the right. Many people who love, love, love the proposition nation myth decry the evils of multiculturalism.

Blogger lowercaseb April 27, 2021 10:47 AM  

Darwin is a Harsh Mistress wrote:Johnny Reb, how do you make it through the day???

I'm a lifelong San Franciscan...and through all the pride marches and Folsom street fairs I have yet to see something as gay as this comment.

Chuck Tingle would tell you to butch up and quit being such a fag.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 10:58 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger OneWingedShark April 27, 2021 11:04 AM  

Akulkis wrote:Lincoln's GOAL of preserving the Union was most
likely the correct one, but how he went about it was worse than abysmal.

This.
Remember that none of the leadership of the Confederacy was charged with Treason; why was this?
I believe it was because the simple fact that the justification the Union gave for the War was self-defeating: if the States had the to secede, then it was a war of aggression; however if, as the Union asserted, the States had no right to secession then obviously the waging of war upon the States was Treason.

It could be argued that Lincoln was a tyrant, and DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln gives some pretty good arguments for considering this the case: "He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners…." — you could therefore argue that the Civil War was actually The War for Federal Supremacy, and along with The New Deal/The Great Society one of the most destructive things to happen to the US.

Gettimothy wrote:@jg in your studies of Lincoln, do you have examples of where he espoused civic nationalism?
Specifically the commingling of the white and negro races?

Why would this necessarily be civic nationalism?
It would be far more analogous to war-brides of a conquered people than mere civic nationalism. And let's not forget that the USSC of the day refused to take a moral stand with Dred Scott, talking from both sides of their mouth, and forcing the questions from the legal sphere into the social/political and arguably forcing the Civil War. (The refusal of the USSC to render justice in Dred Scott made him a man without a nation-state [he was obviously not a member of any African state], and necessitated the 14th Amendment, which was written in the inclusive manner [as is now abused] precisely because of the ambiguous state the USSC thrust him and all freed slaves into.)

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 11:05 AM  

>> I don't believe in political parties and think they should be banned. They are organized crime syndicates and should be prosecuted as such.

TRVTH!

Blogger Newscaper312 April 27, 2021 11:08 AM  

@Haus Frau

Why not? Most on the right have a deeply programmed Jew fetish same way the Left fetishizes Blacks: reflexive avoidance of any critical thought, and props for virtue signaling.

Blogger tublecane April 27, 2021 11:08 AM  

This is something else than mere conservatism/civnattery. Because Straussians are not representative of conservatism, let alone rightism in general. They’re baaarely an alternative to the ruling order.

Lord knows why they get so much attention. Besides the fact that defending the “Noble Lie” naturally makes you sound like a liar. And you can’t admit you’re a liar unless you’re a postmodernist or whatever.

I must stress that “Straussians” are an extreme minority. Both in academia/government and on the American right. Even if I define the American right as everything to the right of international communism.

Whoever’s in charge of “History Is Black Folk” and Straussians are not Mighty Opposites. One of them is merely another mask of the ruling intellectual order, whereas Straussians are a few (and I stress few) stray men and women who babble about esoteric readings as they scurry around picking up scraps of tenure, publishing deals, and media attention.

I call blatant false dichotomy.

Blogger tublecane April 27, 2021 11:15 AM  

@Paulito-

“recognized the inhumanity of slavery”

I don’t remember if that’s true of Lincoln or not. However, I am sure Lincoln believed in a great many things all the good people are supposed to despise today. Like forced migration and apartheidism. To the point where also seeing humanity in slavery wouldn’t be much of a leap.

“and tried to end it”

Eventually, okay. But this is misleading given the fact that he didn’t give a fig about ending it when he became president. He proposed strengthening slavery, in fact.

Blogger Stilicho April 27, 2021 11:16 AM  

Well aren't you a special little faggot, Darwin.

Blogger Newscaper312 April 27, 2021 11:21 AM  

Don't disregard slavery that much. Yes longstanding tensions existed over tariffs as well as slavery, but the immediate trigger for initial secession was in fact the elite's fears about growing influence of the abolitionists with Lincoln's victory. Which were in fact exaggerated.
OTOH absolutely right about slavery having nothing to do with why Lincoln went to war to stop it.
And absolutely right that slavery had nothing to do with why the majority of Southerners, who did not own slaves, were eager to fight in defense.

Re North going to a war of invasion and conquest, citing Ft Sumter as cause, always strikes me as stupid. That arguable miscalculation by the South is precisely the kind of thing commonly resolved w negotiations and reparations, or you accept some face saving limited retaliation and leave it there. Sumter did not have to result in full war. It happened because actions in the North wanted it.

FWIW I'm from and in Alabama, bit if a history buff, and am old enough to be lucky enough to get some pre-PC history courses.

Blogger Unknown April 27, 2021 11:21 AM  

I consider myself an exiled Loyalist. Some of my ancestors were British subjects in Massachusetts for over 150 years before the 18th century antifa mob ( Sons of "Liberty") took over.

Not every loyalist could afford to go to Canada. There might have been a lot less grief now if such literature like the Declaration of Independence weren't around to be weaponized by the NeoCons and the left.

Blogger Stilicho April 27, 2021 11:21 AM  

Ah yes, the 80's, when America was still coating on the fumes of the 50's and Boomers thought it was solely due to their innate specialness.

Blogger Stilicho April 27, 2021 11:23 AM  

Ok Boomer

Blogger Stilicho April 27, 2021 11:26 AM  

Yankees hate America so much that their entire identity is built upon a desire to keep it enslaved.

Blogger Jamie-R April 27, 2021 11:48 AM  

Wildly miss the point of the big picture.

Power structure. Who has control of it. Not the USA.

The British Crown knew it had a loyal bunch of followers in the North East. Hardly any desired a Revolution. Some taxes, big deal. This is why Washington retired from the stress and Jefferson and Madison were hammered and the War of 1812 was called "Madison's War." And why Andrew Jackson was called crazy.

The Monarchy either seeks control or destruction of the United States of America.

Once you figure out that was essential to their system and survival, work your way back through history and try figure out how the Empire achieved its goals, because it had a lot more power and assets at its disposal.

Then look at philosophy of government and see that the Hobbesian system was what they deployed.
Face it, the British had time on their side and could create events to suck you in and had plenty of sell outs to work with. Many Americans were content to be Canadians.

Blogger IreneAthena April 27, 2021 11:57 AM  

What if the American-Northern-Civil-War-of-Aggression had never happened? What if the Southerners had been able to open the eyes of Northerners to the truth that the only Constitutional tariffs are the ones placed on foreign nations? What if the peaceful abolitionists (not all abolitionists were peaceful) had been able to convince the most influential Southern leaders that it was wrong to remove the agency of talented Blacks like George Washington Carver (or his ancestors?)

Slavery in the US might have been eliminated without a war, as it was in so many other Western countries.

Even with that scenario, there would still be the problem, which we have today, of knowing what to do with Blacks who have had ambition bred out of them (or social-engineered out of them by the "War on Poverty.") There are Blacks in the US today who have the vision that George Washington Carver had for his people. They'll need allies.

Blogger DonReynolds April 27, 2021 11:57 AM  

Many generations later and it is still difficult to find a group of Americans who can smile and be civil when discussing these issues and events. Passions still run deep and they still threaten to divide the country yet again. It is not that there is too much history to distill or too much water under the bridge. THAT could be resolved by enough reading and studying. But what aggravates and inflames the discussion much more is when people become too selective or too focused on matters that barely existed at the time, or were not important, or ignore what was important to men at the time. WE add more gas to the fire when thoroughly modern standards, mores, and viewpoints are the colored lenses used to view historic events.

Those who were the Founders of this nation were not egalitarian, they were not Leftists, nor were they enamored with popular notions of majority rule or even democracy itself. They did not advance any idea of universal equality, or popular vote, or human dignity. The Continental Congress was not elected by the public. Each of the 13 colonies had a single vote. Only four of the 13 colonies were later part of the Confederacy and they adopted the Articles of Confederation as the first constitution.

Soon after Independence was achieved, work began on the present Constitution. Language and provisions in the Articles that proved unworkable or impractical, were DELIBERATELY left out of the new Constitution. After all, this was supposed to be an improvement. One of the provisions that were dropped was the clause in the Articles that declared the Union to be perpetual. New England states would not adopt the new Constitution unless it was dropped. Soon after the new Constitution was implemented, the idea of secession was seriously discussed by the New England states at the Hartford Convention. Their idea of secession was kicking out the states in the West, because they were eroding the traditional dominance of the Northeast in the Federal government.

"All Men Are Created Equal" was nothing more than a deliberate poke in King George's eye over his belief in the Divine Right of Kings and everyone at the time knew it, as such. Jefferson wrote a draft of the Declaration and it was edited by his fellow committee members, including Ben Franklin. Then it was submitted to the Continental Congress, where it was cussed and discussed, in the end adopting 115 separate changes to the committee draft! There was no oversight on the phrase and it was not an error. It meant exactly what they said and thought it meant. They were not egalitarians.

Blogger Unknown April 27, 2021 11:58 AM  

Royal family can't even prevent Meghan Markle from interloping, but they supposedly control the strings of history...eyeroll

Blogger Gingas April 27, 2021 12:05 PM  

Do I consider myself a conservative? No, that term has been corrupted. I prefer the terms rightist or traditionalist.

Do I consider myself a racist? No, that's a loaded, weaponized buzzword popularized by the mass murderer (((Leon Trotsky.))) I prefer the term nationalist. What's wrong with a nation being left alone with its own state?

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 27, 2021 12:09 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:Neither man held views on race that are acceptable to modern Americans,

This is false.


Yeah, you're just flat out wrong here. By today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would be held, even by conservatives, to be a crazed white supremacist. If they were honest with themselves, they'd join in tearing the statues down. After all, racism is the worst thing ever, they tell us, and Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, were all clearly racists by their standards.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 12:37 PM  

> The Declaration of Independence has the same legal and moral authority as Emma Lazarus' defection on the Statue of Liberty,

Wrong. The DoI is a legal document, with the force of law.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge April 27, 2021 12:40 PM  

"It is easy to feel sympathy for the black slave population because they were disadvantaged, but they were at least as was racist as their white overlords. Kept in a state of deliberate ignorance, they had no sophisticated opinions. On the very rare occasion they revolted, it was either to flee the area or to go on the warpath and kill every white person they came across."

They were largely the slowest and dumbest of their people. That is how they became slaves in the first place. Their bretheren would not have been able to enslave them and then sell them to whitey (and Tanny, the Arab) were it otherwise.

The exceptional blacks who were free in the colonies knew this and that is why they had not problem with owning slaves themselves.

But in both cases slavery was not an issue of race per se. It was an issue of superiority. It just so happened that the lines aligneed with racial ones.

The Confederates defended slavery, to the degree they did, largely because they were being told to "set free" people who couldn't manage themselves and were also being told that they were forced to keep them as free men as well because many of the Union States (including IL thanks directly to legistlation Lincoln passed at the state level) forbade them entry.

So...lose any labor provided, but remain stuck taking care of your slaves too.

"Preserving the Union" is wizard rhetoric for "Subjugating sovereign states."

Not to mention that he did not preserve a previously existing union, but instead created an almost entirely different one.

Blogger Jack Amok April 27, 2021 12:46 PM  

I don't believe in political parties and think they should be banned. They are organized crime syndicates and should be prosecuted as such.

It's funny you should write that because a great deal of blame for the mess California has become can be placed on "Good Government" reforms in the early part of the twentieth century that were meant to limit the influence of political parties. The result was a real crime mob from Chicago taking over a great deal of political power in CA.

It's not political parties that are evil, it's wide-spread voting. As soon as you open up the vote to the majority of people, you will have organizations capturing those ignorant votes, and the majority of people are indeed ignorant when they vote.

Blogger tublecane April 27, 2021 1:45 PM  

@Jack Amok-

There’s the Progressive way to fix machine politics, but that’s only one way. It is essentially anti-democratic, and not in a good way.

I say “machine” to distinguish it from partisanship as such. Because partisanship is natural even without democracy. The thing most people object to is the oligarchy that inevitably takes hold of a party.

Is there a reliable way to root out party politics without restricting the franchise? Probably not. That should happen, anyway. Restriction of the franchise. Because you better believe a freight train is pushing it in the other direction.

One way to go after party oligarchs is the same way you crack down on any private entity, be it union, corporation, movement, foundation, or whatever. That is, deprive it of privilege. Also, prosecute it for racketeering when applicable.

Failing that, keep it local whenever possible, and restrict the scope of government open for exploitation.

Of course, most of that relies on party politics to get through.

Blogger Imwill April 27, 2021 1:46 PM  

For real, I could hear His bootie spinning from here

Blogger Imwill April 27, 2021 1:47 PM  

Why would you spread deception?

Blogger Imwill April 27, 2021 1:48 PM  

Nobody cares

Blogger Imwill April 27, 2021 1:52 PM  

Nobody cares

Blogger tublecane April 27, 2021 2:01 PM  

@Akulkis-

I don’t see why peace couldn’t have been negotiated on the basis of external threat. Which is what at least one Southern delegation actually proposed. But no. It had to be “unconditional surrender” or nothing else.

I am constantly surprised by the popularity of war now in order to avoid future potential war in this case. When we know what happened, which was over half a million dead and billions in destruction. I couldn’t say whether recolonization is better or worse in hindsight. Because actual events were horrible, and frankly I don’t care for the U.S. as it is. Nor it’s empire.

This is all to ignore all the time European powers had to conquer us when we were weaker, as well as the obvious fact that separate American countries could team up against a common foe. That wouldn’t be illegal or anything. Athens and Sparta fought together.

I wonder why it’s taken for granted the South would be easy pickings. Probably because we look at it from a postbellum vantage point. They in fact outfought the Yankee for a while.

There’s a common refrain amongst Lincolnites, Straussians included, which goes something like: “No Union means no World Wars!” Uh...good! Seriously, who wants to have fought WWI, let alone WWII?

Blogger MichaelJMaier April 27, 2021 3:14 PM  

Hitler and Stalin LOVED Lincoln. Tells you all you need to know. Murderous bastard birds of a feather....

Blogger Newscaper312 April 27, 2021 3:55 PM  

@theartistformerlyknownasgeorge

I like to point out that there is not the slightest evidence for, nor any other reason to give credence to, the notion that any slaves brought from Africa evervthought that slavery itself was morally wrong.

Sure, none of them wanted their terrible fate as slaves, to BE slaves, but that is not all the same thing.

It took Christianity and it's view of all as children of God, even if not yet believers, to question it.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 4:02 PM  

@33 LES is correct about the Morrill Tarriff being the most significant cause of the failed war for Southern independence.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 4:03 PM  

>> The real lie is the false notion that equality (other than equality of human dignity alone).

All that the phrase "All men are created equal" meant was that the U.S. was abolishing any concept of a royalty/nobility/serf system, in which some people could commit crimes against others, and others who were so low on the legal totem pole that defending themselves against physical attack, even defending against the use of lethal force was a crime, including anyone else intervening on behalf of the victim.

That's ALL it meant.

In a way, it was foolish, because it also eliminated the rather good concept of "outlaw" ... Someone who, as punishment for heinous crimes, were sentenced to be outside the protection of the law.

However, in Roe v. wade, the Supreme Court ruled that unborn babies are outlaws.

Blogger Frozen Territory April 27, 2021 4:25 PM  

The best to start was twenty years ago, the next best time is now. Or to put it differently, (((everyone else))) is doing it, so why aren't you?

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 4:31 PM  

>> Not to mention that he did not preserve a previously existing union, but instead created an almost entirely different one.

The original union of 1775 (Articles of Confederation} was a military pact. The union of 1787 (present Constitution) was primarily a means for solving the problem of the handling outstanding war debt, which was dragging down the economy like a battleship's anchor on a dinghy. People were losing fortunes because the war bonds weren't fungible, and to raise cash for businesses, many were trading it to, *ahem*, financiers, at anywhere from 10% to as low as 1% of face value, because the prospects of repayment from the state governments were looking terrible at the time. Also, the so-called "Intolerable Acts" had drained most of the silver and gold coin out of the colonies, as the Acts demanded that the taxes be paid in specie, not paper currency (British or otherwise).

The current federal Leviathan State grew once it became apparent that the federal government can AND WILL stomp on the 9th and 10th Amendments whenever Congress and/or the executive branch feels like it. Unionization of the civilian side of the federal bureaucracy turned things higher, and Congress passing a law allowing the executive branch to write regulations with no interference from the legislative branch is how we got to where we are today.

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 4:34 PM  

>> They were largely the slowest and dumbest of their people. That is how they became slaves in the first place. Their bretheren would not have been able to enslave them and then sell them to whitey (and Tanny, the Arab) were it otherwise.

I made the same observation in a USENET group about 30 years ago. Oh, the fireworks from a frequently-posting black woman were absolutely maniacal. Oddly, a black man who also posted frequently didn't challenge the argument at all (of course, he was also much smarter than her).

Blogger Akulkis April 27, 2021 4:39 PM  

>> I don’t see why peace couldn’t have been negotiated on the basis of external threat. Which is what at least one Southern delegation actually proposed. But no. It had to be “unconditional surrender” or nothing else.

The bombardment of Fort Sumpter killed that, even though the bombardment proved to be generally ineffective against the garrison, it was an incredibly vicious, and therefore really DUMB move.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 27, 2021 4:47 PM  

tublecane wrote: Straussians included, which goes something like: “No Union means no World Wars!” Uh...good! Seriously, who wants to have fought WWI, let alone WWII?
Once your realize what the (((Straussians))) have in common, you have your answer.

Blogger Jack Amok April 27, 2021 5:59 PM  

This is all to ignore all the time European powers had to conquer us when we were weaker, as well as the obvious fact that separate American countries could team up against a common foe. That wouldn’t be illegal or anything. Athens and Sparta fought together.

You are ignoring the fact that the united (lowercase) states had proven ungovernable by the ascendant empire at the time. The Americans were plenty strong enough to defeat a European occupation that had logistical problems.

As long as they fought together.

Which they did, despite their differences. Right up until they had grown strong enough, and Europe distracted enough by riches elsewhere, that the other Americans on the same continent were a bigger threat/impediment than any European power. So the two Americas went to war with each other.

Which is why I don't think a peaceful separation will actually work for the US. If we have one, it'll be temporary at best, because bluntly this continent isn't big enough for both of us, unless we're each small enough to be threatened by an overseas power, in which case we'll be inclined to unite against the outside threat.

It's not like it's anything new. Look at the Franks in Europe. They tried a split over a thousand years ago, and the French and Germans have been going at it off and on ever since.

Blogger Jamie-R April 27, 2021 6:22 PM  

Breaking up the closest members of the Royal Family would be one of the multiple ways to fight back. Meghan's American, you recruit actors don't you, especially ones who have had their time and are going downhill, they take tickets don't they. What if the Royals had a weak link, someone pro-military who was given evidence of how his dad murdered his mother and was given an out? Why do you think Prince Charles is cutting him out of everything, the guy is Henry VIII all over again. But sure, the media baron heirs they control through the intel agencies tell you the family is just a bunch of lovely nobodies.

Blogger Didas Kalos April 27, 2021 9:46 PM  

Israel isn't playing the game.

https://flipboard.com/article/israel-orders-45-african-hebrew-israelites-to-leave-country-in-60-days/f-036f32c519%2Fhaaretz.com

Blogger Bezzle April 28, 2021 1:14 AM  

A Constitution authorizing a new federal government for them was the goal of the Masonic skinsuit cabal who wrote it, with the first ten words of Article 1, section 8 being the beating heart. Slavery? After A1s8, everybody was now a slave again, and it was a merely a matter of time and convenience as to when master would come to collect.

Deifying the US Constitution as a bulwark of liberty is arguably the greatest instance of gaslighting of all time. People worship the thing and swear oaths to defend and enforce...taxation.

Blogger Gettimothy April 28, 2021 4:16 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:Gettimothy wrote:Neither man held views on race that are acceptable to modern Americans,

This is false.


Yeah, you're just flat out wrong here. By today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would be held, even by conservatives, to be a crazed white supremacist. If they were honest with themselves, they'd join in tearing the statues down. After all, racism is the worst thing ever, they tell us, and Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, were all clearly racists by their standards.


Conservatives are not modern Americans.

(we have different definitions and perspectives on what constitutes main stream; two years ago, the possibility of an second civil war was defined as 'fringe'; now it is in everyday discourse. Ditto for race realism and TJQ)



Blogger Mamabear37 April 28, 2021 1:41 PM  

"And anyone who praises Lincoln is either utterly ignorant of who he was and what he did or an apologist for something nefarious"

Agreed. I finished reading, What Hath God Wrought, and Apostles of Disunion...and I think I came to the opposite conclusion of which the authors intended.

Blogger Mamabear37 April 28, 2021 1:44 PM  

When the north abolished slavery for "noble" causes, and then proceeded to sell (not free) their slaves to the slaveholding south for profit, I question the ethics of their push for abolition.

Blogger Mamabear37 April 28, 2021 1:49 PM  

Are you of European descent, unashamed and celebratory of your nationality, heritage and culture and not feeling needlessly guilty about your genes? Then you've been a racist your whole life. Because that's how ((they)) define the term.

Blogger Mamabear37 April 28, 2021 4:39 PM  

Innate specialness... And a whole lotta cocaine.

Blogger kerdasi amaq April 28, 2021 10:04 PM  

[i]When the North abolished slavery...[/i]

The Yankees who sold their slaves down South after the abolition of slavery in the North aren't necessarily the ones who instigated the War to Prevent Southern Independence.

I would assume that most of them were deceased when 1861 came around.

Blogger JamesB.BKK April 29, 2021 3:42 AM  

According to Gary North, the Declaration of Independence was a marketing document drafted up but signed by those people many weeks after the initial signing by two people. https://www.garynorth.com/public/15408.cfm

Blogger JamesB.BKK April 29, 2021 5:58 AM  

But, but, but: Tim Scott

Blogger JamesB.BKK April 29, 2021 6:00 AM  

"Not to mention that he did not preserve a previously existing union, but instead created an almost entirely different one."

Sort of like a husband that preserves his marriage by beating the crap out of his wife and locking her in the basement.

Blogger kerdasi amaq April 29, 2021 9:31 AM  

I always assumed that the phrase "all men are created equal" was a repudiation of aristocratic privilege and the divine right of kings. In other words, a slap in the face of King George III; saying to him, "you're no better than us".

Not an assertion that junglebunnies are the equal of an American colonist.

Blogger kerdasi amaq April 29, 2021 9:39 AM  

The elite don't seem to have an exit strategy for their continual pandering to the shiftless minorities. By always asserting the evil of "white supremacy"; they are discrediting their authority and setting themselves to be overthrown.

I'd suppose that Nancy Pelosi is too old to care what happens to her oligarchical successors, just as long as it doesn't happen on her watch as is well with the world.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts