The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy, and the End of America?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_239399731

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Re-reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835) can be a sobering experience. The first time I delved into it was back in 1971, when I was assistant to conservative writer and thinker, Dr. Russell Kirk. I had read bits of de Tocqueville as an undergraduate, but had not managed to read the entire Democracy in America until I had more leisure time working with Kirk. And now, refreshing my memory, so much of what the great French observer of American life wrote seems so current.

There are many insights and passages that deserve mention—Russell Kirk cites a number of them in his influential volume, The Conservative Mind. What Kirk attempted to do, in addition to reviving a keen interest in de Tocqueville, is point out that the great Frenchman’s observations about the then-fledgling American nation contained serious warnings about inherent dangers to our republican experiment. In particular, de Tocqueville signaled “red flags,” or what we might call “time bombs” embedded in a form of “democracy” that was uninformed by tradition and law, not grounded in a strong religious faith, and not settled on a shared and rooted faith in basic principles. In fact, pure “democracy” as a simple credo or as a posited goal of across-the-broad equality and one-man-one-vote was dangerous, potentially fatal to the republican idea. It lacked those necessary modifiers and historical limitations that enabled it to actually function organically within society. Thus, in every newly independent state of the American confederation there was a realization that such factors as property and education, age and race, as well as religious belief, must greatly influence how the commonwealth was governed. Above all, it was those citizens who truly had real interests and involvement in the states, and thus in the new confederation of states, who would naturally have a greater voice and more say. Only understanding and accepting that critically important condition enabled the states, as independent commonwealths, to come together freely to fulfill the Founders’ intentions.

Democracy would, of course, exist, but successfully mostly in local communities. But even there respect for tradition, the weight and insight of past generations and their transmitted wealth of experience, and the vital and indispensable role of religious faith would shape it and give it orderly contours. One of Tocqueville’s more notable observations is that: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” This, he noted, must be true absolutely for the new American republic.

The late author, Richard Weaver, identified this, specifically in his beloved Southland, in what he called “communitarian individualism.” And by that he meant that in thousands of communities across the old South (and also in much of the North), there was both a spirit and a reality of individual liberty, but always tempered and circumscribed by familial and community standards, the anchored religious beliefs and customs and mores of the citizens, and a kind of understood deference to those of more standing and experience in the community. Indeed, the success of this kind of democracy depended on what the later writer Paul Elmer More called “the democracy of the dead,” weighing not just the views of those present, but also incorporating the insights and lessons and judgment of past generations that have gone before.

A tension certainly would exist, and change did occur, but it was not apt to be radical or sudden or traumatic. And, notably, it was in communities where such contours existed that more actual and real “liberties” also existed. For, as Kirk once wrote, “pure democracy” is in reality a “democracy of the jungle,” without any amelioration or foundation, which, because of its inherent instability—and the absolute need for order—will lead eventually to tyranny of one sort of another.

De Tocqueville understood this. And he warned of the rise of a democracy of untempered majority rule and the resultant concentration of power, and the growth of an unelected bureaucracy. Thus, while he understood the importance of tradition, custom, strong religious belief, and the existence of a spirit of deference as foundations for the new commonwealths, he also comprehended that a perversion of these elements and the growth of an unfettered Federal power would threaten the very existence of the “American experiment.” Those carefully cultivated and inherited liberties, a legacy of old England that were won by the sacrifices of patriots, would perish if not jealously guarded anew by each generation.

Both James Burnham and Samuel Francis (especially in his final work, Leviathan) have written perceptively about this “managerial” tendency in modern democracy, which when loosened from its moorings and those limitations that make it workable within our republican system, is manipulated and but a short step to totalitarianism.

One of Tocqueville’s observations that has always been a favorite is this: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” The French nobleman could not see 180 years into the future, but his observation carries more meaning today than perhaps ever before!

In the name of “democracy” and “equality” we see today the imposition of a kind of “soft” statist totalitarianism: the abolition not only of the rights of the states but of individual liberties, the enforcement of a rigid and dogmatic political correctness, and worship at the altar of an ideology termed cultural Marxism which is, in fact, more ruthless and spiritually disemboweling than anything ever envisaged by the older, bureaucratic form of Communism.

In 1992, at the Republican National Convention, unsuccessful candidate Patrick Buchanan sketched a giant canvas of a raging “culture war” infecting the Christian West, in particular Europe and the United States. He was criticized not just by Democrats and the media, but by many establishment Republicans, for his “dark vision.” But Pat’s view has proven, tragically, to be the correct one.

Last November millions of Americans—most probably not fathoming the deepest reasons why—voted for someone to “take back” their country. In effect, to “make America great again” and “drain the swamp” were the same thing. They understood, if intuitively, that something—something drastic—had to be done if any of the America that they once had known or remembered were to be preserved. The verdict on that campaign promise is still out, and, no doubt, given the lateness of the hour and the hitherto largely successful advances of the “new barbarians”—those forces of the Deep State who wish to sever ties to our past, reject our traditions, and remake this country into a cog in a New World Order—such a task is both monumental and requiring a kind of assistance that only Our Creator can give.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alexis de Tocqueville, Government Spending 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Homomania hits nature too. Queertianity jumps the shark and turns into a river.

    Even Mother Nature is made to ‘celebrate’ the fecal penetration of homo me and genital mutilation of trannies.

    In Colombia, which goes to show that these third-world nations will do ANYTHING for a buck from Wall Street.

    https://www.facebook.com/UNILADAdventure/videos/1840778269584985/?hc_ref=ARRuEL_ODo9cDsrTcWBsNgAnJXnyUyNjg8BLL9mqRRCHiAogHpMpRzD2b1cSJgA0tYY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/alexis-de-tocqueville-democracy-and-the-end-of-america/#comment-1941419
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. JGarbo says:

    Since there is no Creator, the US is doomed. The populace has been cunningly manipulated for ages (even from the beginning?), fed delusional claptrap from all quarters without let up. The “deep state” has won. There will be no rebellion or revolution, just a muffled grumbling until the next distraction is on stage. Trump is latest distraction, a cheap, crude magician fumbling his tricks before a somnolent audience.
    What else could one expect, when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? Camelot?

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Troll: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @interesting
    "when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves"


    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It's not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100's and 100's of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    And one would think that a complete outsider would be the one person who could shake things up a bit. I've never liked Trump BUT seeing both sides of the isle having a complete meltdown over the guy gives me hope.

    scrapped the TPP = win for American workers, the TPP was/is corporate governance.
    scrapped the Paris accord = Win for American workers as it was useless and costly to America
    talking tough on illegals, reduced crossings by ~60% = win for American workers and immigrants already here.

    Health care = blame lies squarely on the republicans that had 7+ years to have a new plan ready to go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Miro23 says:

    The verdict on that campaign promise is still out, and, no doubt, given the lateness of the hour and the hitherto largely successful advances of the “new barbarians”—those forces of the Deep State who wish to sever ties to our past, reject our traditions, and remake this country into a cog in a New World Order—such a task is both monumental and requiring a kind of assistance that only Our Creator can give.

    This is an interesting and true reflection and it’s not just the US. Western Europe is the same, more in the North than the South.

    There’s an emerging inverse relationship between the level decline and the degree of acceptance of Christianity within different countries (and regions within them). For example PC has found it hard going in Eastern Europe, particularly in the more Christian societies, where “rights” culture fails when confronted by national unity and stronger Christian ethically based families.

    There’s also a very distant but intriguing echo from the last days of Imperial Rome, the place that came to define societal decline, corruption and decadence. Early Christian communities within the Empire were recognized and trusted for their high ethical standards, despite their targeted persecution by pagan Roman Emperors (pre-Constantine). Robin Lane Fox wrote a difficult but worthwhile book about it, “Pagans and Christians” https://www.amazon.com/Pagans-Christians-Robin-Lane-Fox/dp/0060628529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500513275&sr=8-1&keywords=pagans+and+christians . He shows that the early Christians were persecuted precisely because they rejected the “bread and circuses” sleaze, corruption and excess (i.e. society’s “Freedoms”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. When, at the end of the 19th century, the right to vote was given to nearly all men in GB, Disraeli wrote ‘that it was the end of democracy, and the beginning of populism’.
    The following book describes propaganda
    Philip M. Taylor, ‘Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day’, 1995, Manchester
    The propaganda of Ceasar was just exposed when archeology began, Ceasar’s barbarians were a fairy tale.
    At present we see in the USA a propaganda war, I cannot switch on CNN without within a few minutes hearing the word Russia.
    Alas here we do not have the possibility to unearth the truth by the spade.
    On the contrary, the USA now has a Cold Civil War.
    The war of words between Brussels and GB, and Brussels and Poland, also more and more resembles a Cold War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Unfortunately, Mr Dijkstra has fallen for propaganda himself. In 1914, adult male suffrage was a mere 60% of the total adult male British population in the UK. There had been no change in the previous 30 years, and both major parties were unwilling to expand the electorate.
    See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html
    The War was to change that. Registered male voters went up from 7.7 million in 1910 to 12.9 million in 1918. As with everything, WWI's effect was to be profound and harmful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Excellent article. Thank you.

    Quote, “…..such a task is both monumental and requiring a kind of assistance that only Our Creator can give.”

    Rarely said in this Godless age, but surely true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Ace says:

    The vote has been handed out like Tootsie Rolls at a Shriners parade and modest efforts to keep elections honest — and limited to just the ones so improvidently given the vote — are treated like open-heart surgery without anasthesia.

    Citizenship has been similarly debased and, of course, means foreigners by the millions participate in a great transformation according to their foreign values. Europe is even worse in this regard.

    One has to marvel at the stupidity of the 13th Amendment giving freed slaves the vote. Only Americans are capable of believing that masses of negroes could go straight from slavery to full citizenship. Over a 150 years later it’s clear that negroes do not aspire to full citizenship and are incapable of sustaining civilized communities. If anything, they are hostile to civilization.

    But they are just the worst case. Whites are in huge numbers interested only in a parasitic role v-a-v productive citizens and are clueless about what this country once was and could be again.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, Sowhat
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "One has to marvel at the stupidity of the 13th Amendment giving freed slaves the vote. Only Americans are capable of believing that masses of negroes could go straight from slavery to full citizenship."

    Your statements here are anti-white. White men set forth that Amendment in motion. Besides, I thought it was up to the citizens themselves on who to extend citizenship to, but apparently you are opposed to this fundamental freedom? Why?

    "Over a 150 years later it’s clear that negroes do not aspire to full citizenship and are incapable of sustaining civilized communities. If anything, they are hostile to civilization."

    Define "civilized communities". What criteria are you employing here? Be specific.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
    That’s correct…but let’s not forget the other side of the coin: the Republic’s in a bit of trouble when Congress discovers it can legally bribe itself by taking public money from a tiny minority of its ” citizens”
    ” Above all, it was those citizens who truly had real interests and involvement in the states, and thus in the new confederation of states, who would naturally have a greater voice and more say. Only understanding and accepting that critically important condition enabled the states, as independent commonwealths, to come together freely to fulfill the Founders’ intentions.”
    The above is also correct: the Founder’s “democracy” was essentially intended to be a “public persona” behind which Oligarchs could run the country for — sometimes more — sometimes less — their own interests.
    It’s been a massive success.
    As for “rigid and dogmatic political correctness” it IS quite useful for creating a docile citizenry; scared to death it might inadvertently utter some heterodox view about race, gender, whatever. No wonder there are very few of the political elite who genuinely oppose it….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. The Historic Native Born White American Working Class can’t vote themselves out of racial minority status.

    Electing POTUS Trump gave us only 4 more years where we can say to the Democratic Party Voting Bloc:”if you don’t like it….then go move to another nation”…In 4 years, the tables will be reversed when Hindu-Jamaican POTUS Kamala Harris is elected……….The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc will be able to say:”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT…GO MOVE TO ANOTHER NATION!!!”

    The demographic transformation of the US is occurring much faster than most of you realize. Trump won in 2016 because he got a slight majority in states that will be blue in 2020.

    Kamala Harris will be elected POTUS on November 3 2020….And we will openingly proclaim that we don’t consent to be governed by a Post-1965 Hindu-Jamaican POTUS….

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "……….The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc will be able to say:”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT…GO MOVE TO ANOTHER NATION!!!”

    Majority-minority (that's what the UK media libs call it) is now certain in US and UK - US has two thirds non-Euro-Am toddlers and UK has 50% births to non-native-born mothers.

    The one final peaceful hope is that one or two East European countries, preferably with a relatively large landmass, unilaterally adopt a European-descent-only immigration policy. It could happen.

    The point is that Euros need to be together to create their thing because their thing depends on everyone cooperating towards public goods; hence their thing breaks down when they are reduced to a minority amongst 'eye for an eye; cousin for a cousin' cultures.

    #commonweal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Pat Buchanan was our last hope for voting to reverse the demographic transformation of America via National Elections.

    But Pat fucked us over by picking a mentally retarded black granny as his VP….when he should have picked James Webb as his VP…Pat could have won POTUS, and he would have made us friends with Christian Russia and ended the H1B-L-1 B Asian scab labor program……I have never forgiven Pat for this great betrayal…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Corvinus says:
    @Ace
    The vote has been handed out like Tootsie Rolls at a Shriners parade and modest efforts to keep elections honest -- and limited to just the ones so improvidently given the vote -- are treated like open-heart surgery without anasthesia.

    Citizenship has been similarly debased and, of course, means foreigners by the millions participate in a great transformation according to their foreign values. Europe is even worse in this regard.

    One has to marvel at the stupidity of the 13th Amendment giving freed slaves the vote. Only Americans are capable of believing that masses of negroes could go straight from slavery to full citizenship. Over a 150 years later it's clear that negroes do not aspire to full citizenship and are incapable of sustaining civilized communities. If anything, they are hostile to civilization.

    But they are just the worst case. Whites are in huge numbers interested only in a parasitic role v-a-v productive citizens and are clueless about what this country once was and could be again.

    “One has to marvel at the stupidity of the 13th Amendment giving freed slaves the vote. Only Americans are capable of believing that masses of negroes could go straight from slavery to full citizenship.”

    Your statements here are anti-white. White men set forth that Amendment in motion. Besides, I thought it was up to the citizens themselves on who to extend citizenship to, but apparently you are opposed to this fundamental freedom? Why?

    “Over a 150 years later it’s clear that negroes do not aspire to full citizenship and are incapable of sustaining civilized communities. If anything, they are hostile to civilization.”

    Define “civilized communities”. What criteria are you employing here? Be specific.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Corvi, stop the concern trolling. Your game, as most are aware here, has worn thin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. helena says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The Historic Native Born White American Working Class can't vote themselves out of racial minority status.

    Electing POTUS Trump gave us only 4 more years where we can say to the Democratic Party Voting Bloc:"if you don't like it....then go move to another nation"...In 4 years, the tables will be reversed when Hindu-Jamaican POTUS Kamala Harris is elected..........The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc will be able to say:"IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT...GO MOVE TO ANOTHER NATION!!!"

    The demographic transformation of the US is occurring much faster than most of you realize. Trump won in 2016 because he got a slight majority in states that will be blue in 2020.


    Kamala Harris will be elected POTUS on November 3 2020....And we will openingly proclaim that we don't consent to be governed by a Post-1965 Hindu-Jamaican POTUS....

    “……….The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc will be able to say:”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT…GO MOVE TO ANOTHER NATION!!!”

    Majority-minority (that’s what the UK media libs call it) is now certain in US and UK – US has two thirds non-Euro-Am toddlers and UK has 50% births to non-native-born mothers.

    The one final peaceful hope is that one or two East European countries, preferably with a relatively large landmass, unilaterally adopt a European-descent-only immigration policy. It could happen.

    The point is that Euros need to be together to create their thing because their thing depends on everyone cooperating towards public goods; hence their thing breaks down when they are reduced to a minority amongst ‘eye for an eye; cousin for a cousin’ cultures.

    #commonweal

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    The solution is not to run away. The solution is to halt the invasion...and then reverse it via mass expulsions....and if this means a nuclear confrontation with China and India...so be it...

    Every Native Born White American Male must ask themselves the following question:Just what exactly are you willing to die for?...This question will be immediatley asked after they ask themselves the following question:JUST WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET "AMERICA?"......This is the question that Richard Spencer should be asking his Native Born White American Male Audiences during his College Rock Star Tour....

    No more of the Vdare.com Cuck policy wonkery....I don't give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies...and to his credit....George Borjas doesn't give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies anymore...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "One has to marvel at the stupidity of the 13th Amendment giving freed slaves the vote. Only Americans are capable of believing that masses of negroes could go straight from slavery to full citizenship."

    Your statements here are anti-white. White men set forth that Amendment in motion. Besides, I thought it was up to the citizens themselves on who to extend citizenship to, but apparently you are opposed to this fundamental freedom? Why?

    "Over a 150 years later it’s clear that negroes do not aspire to full citizenship and are incapable of sustaining civilized communities. If anything, they are hostile to civilization."

    Define "civilized communities". What criteria are you employing here? Be specific.

    Corvi, stop the concern trolling. Your game, as most are aware here, has worn thin.

    Read More
    • Agree: Delinquent Snail, res
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Corvi, stop the concern trolling. Your game, as most are aware here, has worn thin."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXCnsBo8Vs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Lily says:

    Democracy in America (1835) can be a sobering experience.
    Democracy in America (2017) can be a sobering experience.

    From what I gather ..every century is a sobering experience.
    One might question this in another 100 years, with the same opinion.

    Solution? There are many “sobering” ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Jason Liu says:

    Anything that isn’t “across-the-broad equality and one-man-one-vote” would be considered undemocratic by modern standards. Factoring in property, education, age, race, religion is going to result in only straight white landowning Christian family men voting. That’s system is not going to happen, even mentioning will send the public into a froth.

    What you want is a solution outside of democracy, but you don’t want to say what it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What about the principle of "no taxation without *proportionate* representatation"?
    , @Ace
    The problems created by liberalism will be solved by illiberal means.

    The West fell in love with the idea that we were on a 45-deg. trajectory ad astra but it is not proving to be what we're seeing on the ground. In fact, we are awash in lies and the most absurd ideas imaginable.

    So there will be a solution to this but not, as you say, within the context of the present insanity.
    , @AndrewR
    I'd like to see requiring citizens to pass a comprehensive exam covering pre-1776 English history, colonial history, US history, basic civics, basic economics, and basic statistics. Alas, this proposal is politically impossible due to the inevitable "disparate impact."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @helena
    "……….The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc will be able to say:”IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT…GO MOVE TO ANOTHER NATION!!!”

    Majority-minority (that's what the UK media libs call it) is now certain in US and UK - US has two thirds non-Euro-Am toddlers and UK has 50% births to non-native-born mothers.

    The one final peaceful hope is that one or two East European countries, preferably with a relatively large landmass, unilaterally adopt a European-descent-only immigration policy. It could happen.

    The point is that Euros need to be together to create their thing because their thing depends on everyone cooperating towards public goods; hence their thing breaks down when they are reduced to a minority amongst 'eye for an eye; cousin for a cousin' cultures.

    #commonweal

    The solution is not to run away. The solution is to halt the invasion…and then reverse it via mass expulsions….and if this means a nuclear confrontation with China and India…so be it…

    Every Native Born White American Male must ask themselves the following question:Just what exactly are you willing to die for?…This question will be immediatley asked after they ask themselves the following question:JUST WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET “AMERICA?”……This is the question that Richard Spencer should be asking his Native Born White American Male Audiences during his College Rock Star Tour….

    No more of the Vdare.com Cuck policy wonkery….I don’t give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies…and to his credit….George Borjas doesn’t give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies anymore…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The solution is to halt the invasion…and then reverse it via mass expulsions….and if this means a nuclear confrontation with China and India…so be it…"

    You are insane.

    "Every Native Born White American Male must ask themselves the following question:Just what exactly are you willing to die for?"

    Their family.

    "…This question will be immediatley asked after they ask themselves the following question:JUST WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET “AMERICA?”"

    False premise, You assume white people are going to be giving up everything and you assume that America will "go down the drain".

    "……This is the question that Richard Spencer should be asking his Native Born White American Male Audiences during his College Rock Star Tour…."

    No, YOU should be asking that question yourself on your own tour. OR, you should ask him to join his cause and serve as a consultant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous
    Corvi, stop the concern trolling. Your game, as most are aware here, has worn thin.

    “Corvi, stop the concern trolling. Your game, as most are aware here, has worn thin.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXCnsBo8Vs

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Corvinus says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The solution is not to run away. The solution is to halt the invasion...and then reverse it via mass expulsions....and if this means a nuclear confrontation with China and India...so be it...

    Every Native Born White American Male must ask themselves the following question:Just what exactly are you willing to die for?...This question will be immediatley asked after they ask themselves the following question:JUST WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET "AMERICA?"......This is the question that Richard Spencer should be asking his Native Born White American Male Audiences during his College Rock Star Tour....

    No more of the Vdare.com Cuck policy wonkery....I don't give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies...and to his credit....George Borjas doesn't give a fuck about George Borjas econometric studies anymore...

    “The solution is to halt the invasion…and then reverse it via mass expulsions….and if this means a nuclear confrontation with China and India…so be it…”

    You are insane.

    “Every Native Born White American Male must ask themselves the following question:Just what exactly are you willing to die for?”

    Their family.

    “…This question will be immediatley asked after they ask themselves the following question:JUST WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET “AMERICA?””

    False premise, You assume white people are going to be giving up everything and you assume that America will “go down the drain”.

    “……This is the question that Richard Spencer should be asking his Native Born White American Male Audiences during his College Rock Star Tour….”

    No, YOU should be asking that question yourself on your own tour. OR, you should ask him to join his cause and serve as a consultant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. The problem Americans have is that they don’t understand the ebb and flow of history. For Americans, history is manifest destiny and once the destiny has been manifested, there is an “end of history”. The world suddenly stops changing and remains stock still until the sun implodes in 10 million years’ time and roasts us all. The US became the most powerful country in the world somewhere around 1890. Therefore, it must remain such until the end of time! And if it shows signs of falling from its pedestal, that has to be due to some dark and dastardly forces: cultural Marxists, the deep state or some such. The idea that the US can go back to what it was in 1835, or at any other point in the past, is quite simply pipedreaming. Can Mr Cathey name any country in the history of the world that has ever gone back to something it was before? Revisionists and reactionaries are part of the human family. They’ve always existed but they’ve also always failed. Wherever America is going, it hasn’t been there before! That’s the way “Our Creator” made the world!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Right, because "history" is just some cosmic force of nature to which we are all slaves. It's not as if what ails the West has any discernible, concrete causes, effects and remedies. It's just "history", so we just have to get on the right side of it, lie back and think of "the Economy".
    , @jacques sheete

    Revisionists and reactionaries are part of the human family. They’ve always existed but they’ve also always failed.
     
    Amazing stuff there.

    Revisionists have always failed? In what way?

    Reactionaries have always failed? I'd say it's more likely that revolutionaries that fail unless they're backed by the rich and powerful. It's the moneyed reactionaries who seem to consistently wind up winning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side. As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people.

    The only protection against such a move is the nation-state. Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people; American and European politicians can because the term “American” or “German” no longer refer to a people, just an address. (And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)

    Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren’t too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW); being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed.

    Governments look a proposition nation where the government reigns supreme in terms of loyalty while tribes and religions are looked down upon.

    The problem is such situations can’t last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people. You’ve seen that for decades with the Jews in the U.S., but now other groups, such as Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, etc., are joining in the fun while silly whites keep praising diversity. You can’t have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we’re headed.

    Perhaps this is all for the best. Globalism tears at the fiber of society, and what seems to keep it at bay, makes life more than just pointless pursuit of material goods is having a family, tribe and religion to be a part of. Whites have lost much of that – and are feeling the effects of that disconnection. Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it’s best that those white don’t cherish these things step aside for those that can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side."

    The game of politics is to win. And "importing" voters has long been a staple for ALL political parties involved.

    "As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people."

    The government is made up of the people, so there is no replacing anything here.

    "Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people"

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.

    "American and European politicians can because the term “American” or “German” no longer refer to a people, just an address."

    "American" refers to a people consisting of a wide range of people--white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, European/non-European.

    "(And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)"

    The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a nation of people from diverse backgrounds.

    "Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren’t too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW);"

    What you are saying is that the people who make up the government, elected by their fellow citizens, hate a coherent people. Man, that is incoherent on your part.

    Furthermore, the current pope is NOT an "social justice warrior". He is a Christian.

    "being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed."

    You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a tribe may include different groups of people based on political ideology or religious affiliation.

    "The problem is such situations can’t last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people."

    So is the Alt-Right a "tribe"?

    "You can’t have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we’re headed."

    Your buddy Vox Day talks about this concept--“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People...Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant. The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

    So, CitizenOfASillyCountry, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

    "Whites have lost much of that – and are feeling the effects of that disconnection."

    "Bad whites" have "lost" it, not "good whites", right?

    "Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it’s best that those white don’t cherish these things step aside for those that can."

    In the end, whites will make their own decisions regarding race. Thank you for your virtue signaling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @jilles dykstra
    When, at the end of the 19th century, the right to vote was given to nearly all men in GB, Disraeli wrote 'that it was the end of democracy, and the beginning of populism'.
    The following book describes propaganda
    Philip M. Taylor, 'Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day', 1995, Manchester
    The propaganda of Ceasar was just exposed when archeology began, Ceasar's barbarians were a fairy tale.
    At present we see in the USA a propaganda war, I cannot switch on CNN without within a few minutes hearing the word Russia.
    Alas here we do not have the possibility to unearth the truth by the spade.
    On the contrary, the USA now has a Cold Civil War.
    The war of words between Brussels and GB, and Brussels and Poland, also more and more resembles a Cold War.

    Unfortunately, Mr Dijkstra has fallen for propaganda himself. In 1914, adult male suffrage was a mere 60% of the total adult male British population in the UK. There had been no change in the previous 30 years, and both major parties were unwilling to expand the electorate.
    See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html
    The War was to change that. Registered male voters went up from 7.7 million in 1910 to 12.9 million in 1918. As with everything, WWI’s effect was to be profound and harmful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
     
    Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side. As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people.

    The only protection against such a move is the nation-state. Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people; American and European politicians can because the term "American" or "German" no longer refer to a people, just an address. (And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)

    Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren't too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW); being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed.

    Governments look a proposition nation where the government reigns supreme in terms of loyalty while tribes and religions are looked down upon.

    The problem is such situations can't last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people. You've seen that for decades with the Jews in the U.S., but now other groups, such as Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, etc., are joining in the fun while silly whites keep praising diversity. You can't have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we're headed.

    Perhaps this is all for the best. Globalism tears at the fiber of society, and what seems to keep it at bay, makes life more than just pointless pursuit of material goods is having a family, tribe and religion to be a part of. Whites have lost much of that - and are feeling the effects of that disconnection. Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it's best that those white don't cherish these things step aside for those that can.

    “Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side.”

    The game of politics is to win. And “importing” voters has long been a staple for ALL political parties involved.

    “As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people.”

    The government is made up of the people, so there is no replacing anything here.

    “Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people”

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.

    “American and European politicians can because the term “American” or “German” no longer refer to a people, just an address.”

    “American” refers to a people consisting of a wide range of people–white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, European/non-European.

    “(And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)”

    The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a nation of people from diverse backgrounds.

    “Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren’t too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW);”

    What you are saying is that the people who make up the government, elected by their fellow citizens, hate a coherent people. Man, that is incoherent on your part.

    Furthermore, the current pope is NOT an “social justice warrior”. He is a Christian.

    “being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed.”

    You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a tribe may include different groups of people based on political ideology or religious affiliation.

    “The problem is such situations can’t last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people.”

    So is the Alt-Right a “tribe”?

    “You can’t have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we’re headed.”

    Your buddy Vox Day talks about this concept–“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People…Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant. The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

    So, CitizenOfASillyCountry, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

    “Whites have lost much of that – and are feeling the effects of that disconnection.”

    “Bad whites” have “lost” it, not “good whites”, right?

    “Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it’s best that those white don’t cherish these things step aside for those that can.”

    In the end, whites will make their own decisions regarding race. Thank you for your virtue signaling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Corvinus,

    I tire of your Coke commercial ideology; however, you have peaked my interest with a particular comment regarding the Japanese.

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.
     
    A couple of quick questions to understand the consistency of your philosophy.

    1. How do you feel about American Jews? I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century. Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?


    2. What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state? Naturally, no nation state can be completely "pure" but certainly the Japanese, South Koreans and Israelis control immigration to promote that idea. And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest, what about the original Europeans. Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow? If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?

    3. Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond "humanity." Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally? If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?

    4. You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now. Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We'll mix and become one.

    5. Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one? What's your number per year for immigration? If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from? You already acknowledge that races are different. Shouldn't we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?

    You write like the old priests arguing about angels on the head of a pin. Please give me more specifics about how your world would work. To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.
    , @Excal
    You quote Vox Day (much of whose work I admire) -- "As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States." Like you, I am not sure I agree with him.

    There were multiple parties involved in the framing of that Constitution, and it could be that two opposing visions were represented among them. One would have been that proposed by Vox Day, which restricts "posterity" to familial descendants, like the tribes of Israel. The other could well have considered "posterity" to include, in the end, perhaps the entire race of Man.

    Obviously, it is the latter vision -- held, I would imagine, by the true-believing Masons who made up the majority of those who founded the United States -- which has won the day.

    And how could it not? Those who seek power would always favor it; and the United States Government was -- despite its ideals -- founded not by the people, but by an elite consisting of talented, ambitious experts who appointed themselves the saviors of the people. Why would such men content themselves with saving one people only? Why not save the whole world?

    American conservatives may think that their task is to return American government and society to the ideals envisioned by its founders. I wonder whether American society might not already, today, be much closer to those ideals than they realize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. “It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.2

    A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.”
    de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    As a nation and a civilization we have fallen for a romantic view of man as a noble savage. Rather than accepting that civilization is a difficult unnatural state that must be maintained with labor and pain the mass of men point fingers at the “bad men” who are responsible for the ills of the world and stand between them and utopia.

    Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @JGarbo
    Since there is no Creator, the US is doomed. The populace has been cunningly manipulated for ages (even from the beginning?), fed delusional claptrap from all quarters without let up. The "deep state" has won. There will be no rebellion or revolution, just a muffled grumbling until the next distraction is on stage. Trump is latest distraction, a cheap, crude magician fumbling his tricks before a somnolent audience.
    What else could one expect, when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? Camelot?

    “when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves”

    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It’s not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100′s and 100′s of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    And one would think that a complete outsider would be the one person who could shake things up a bit. I’ve never liked Trump BUT seeing both sides of the isle having a complete meltdown over the guy gives me hope.

    scrapped the TPP = win for American workers, the TPP was/is corporate governance.
    scrapped the Paris accord = Win for American workers as it was useless and costly to America
    talking tough on illegals, reduced crossings by ~60% = win for American workers and immigrants already here.

    Health care = blame lies squarely on the republicans that had 7+ years to have a new plan ready to go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "...both sides of the isle..." means Wales and East Anglia.

    "Both sides of the aisle" means both factions or parties in a parliament; in our case, Republicans and Democrats.

    I grow weary of repeating my mantra: Just ignore your SpelChek software! It gives you a false sense of mastery.

    , @jacques sheete

    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It’s not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100′s and 100′s of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.
     
    Most of your comment is spot on, except for the part about guilt trips.

    It really isn't about guilt trips, but about consistency and facing the fact that we, as a country, are no delivering angels.

    Another point is exactly as you say, "And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? " Since most Americans seem to think that our country and system are something special, they pretty broadly give license to politicians and they should really know better.

    WTF do we want? We want to counter the lies and hope that armed with the truth, people can recognize what's being done to them and begin to refuse to support politicians and policies that harm them. It has nothing at all to do with whining and guilt tripping.
    , @Anonymous

    So I say 40,000 BCE.
     
    POS zio-cuck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Michael Kenny
    The problem Americans have is that they don’t understand the ebb and flow of history. For Americans, history is manifest destiny and once the destiny has been manifested, there is an “end of history”. The world suddenly stops changing and remains stock still until the sun implodes in 10 million years’ time and roasts us all. The US became the most powerful country in the world somewhere around 1890. Therefore, it must remain such until the end of time! And if it shows signs of falling from its pedestal, that has to be due to some dark and dastardly forces: cultural Marxists, the deep state or some such. The idea that the US can go back to what it was in 1835, or at any other point in the past, is quite simply pipedreaming. Can Mr Cathey name any country in the history of the world that has ever gone back to something it was before? Revisionists and reactionaries are part of the human family. They’ve always existed but they’ve also always failed. Wherever America is going, it hasn’t been there before! That’s the way “Our Creator” made the world!

    Right, because “history” is just some cosmic force of nature to which we are all slaves. It’s not as if what ails the West has any discernible, concrete causes, effects and remedies. It’s just “history”, so we just have to get on the right side of it, lie back and think of “the Economy”.

    Read More
    • LOL: Ace
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Democracy ended in America in 1913 when the Zionists installed the IRS and the FEDERAL RESERVE thereby laying the foundation to allow for the financing the planned wars that were to come via the Zionists agenda. Since that time we have been reduced to slaves on the Zionist plantation aka otherwise known as America.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Democracy ended in America in 1913
     
    It never was a democracy. It was always an oligarchic plutocracy, and 1913 was the inevitable result.

    The system stinks and always has. The longer it slithers along the more fetid it becomes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. “When I stepped ashore in the United States, I discovered with amazement to what extent merit was common among the government but rare among the rulers. Men of moderate desire commit themselves to the twists and turns of politics…it often comes about that only those who feel inadequate in the conduct of their own business undertake to direct the fortunes of the state. It is not always the ability to choose men of merit which democracy lacks but the desire and inclination to do so.

    I have made the distinction between two types of centralization; the one called governmental, the other administrative. The first exists solely in America; the second is almost unknown there. Administrative centralization only serves to weaken those nations who submit to it, because it has the constant effect of diminishing their sense of civic pride.In the United States, the majority, which often has despotic tastes and instincts, still lacks the most developed tools of tyranny. If the direction American societies took…combined the right of total command with the capacity of total execution…freedom would soon be obliterated in the New World.

    Within the sphere of office drawn for them, the law generally leaves American officials a freer rein than ours. Sometimes the majority even allows them to stray from those rules. Thus habits are forming at the heart of freedom which one day could be fatal to its liberties.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. J1234 says:

    ….in thousands of communities across the old South (and also in much of the North), there was both a spirit and a reality of individual liberty, but always tempered and circumscribed by familial and community standards, the anchored religious beliefs and customs and mores of the citizens, and a kind of understood deference to those of more standing and experience in the community.

    This is a profoundly relevant point. An essential tactic of the left in the US has been to take national traits and ideas like “individualism” or “equality” or “freedom” or “diversity” or “nation of immigrants” and turn them into simplistic caricatures of themselves, all in an attempt to convince Americans that the agenda of the left isn’t contrary to American culture or traditional values.

    The traits and ideas I’ve listed above, however, have a very complex relationship with the culture they reside in. The prominence of these traits or ideas in the US is assessed relative to other populations. Americans are more individualistic than, say, Germans, but that doesn’t mean individualism supersedes all other values in the US. Not even close.

    In reality, of course, the agenda of the left isn’t just contrary to American culture, but to the very concept of culture itself. Generally speaking, for most of the ordinary people who make the world go round on a day to day basis – laborers, small business owners, families, the middle class, etc. – culture is a fortress.

    For elites and outsiders, however, culture is a prison. It’s an obstacle that keeps them from achieving their goals, from realizing their visions…all of which involve transforming human beings into brand new creatures with brand new values. For them, the social evolution of culture is too slow. By contrast, the social engineering of Marxism or critical theory allows elites to do an end run around culture, in large part, by destroying or denigrating culture.

    Keep in mind, though, that some on right are enemies of culture, too. They see markets and affluence and standard of living as the only meaningful ties that bind or connect people to each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @interesting
    "when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves"


    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It's not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100's and 100's of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    And one would think that a complete outsider would be the one person who could shake things up a bit. I've never liked Trump BUT seeing both sides of the isle having a complete meltdown over the guy gives me hope.

    scrapped the TPP = win for American workers, the TPP was/is corporate governance.
    scrapped the Paris accord = Win for American workers as it was useless and costly to America
    talking tough on illegals, reduced crossings by ~60% = win for American workers and immigrants already here.

    Health care = blame lies squarely on the republicans that had 7+ years to have a new plan ready to go.

    “…both sides of the isle…” means Wales and East Anglia.

    “Both sides of the aisle” means both factions or parties in a parliament; in our case, Republicans and Democrats.

    I grow weary of repeating my mantra: Just ignore your SpelChek software! It gives you a false sense of mastery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Jason Liu
    Anything that isn't "across-the-broad equality and one-man-one-vote" would be considered undemocratic by modern standards. Factoring in property, education, age, race, religion is going to result in only straight white landowning Christian family men voting. That's system is not going to happen, even mentioning will send the public into a froth.

    What you want is a solution outside of democracy, but you don't want to say what it is.

    What about the principle of “no taxation without *proportionate* representatation”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Michael Kenny
    The problem Americans have is that they don’t understand the ebb and flow of history. For Americans, history is manifest destiny and once the destiny has been manifested, there is an “end of history”. The world suddenly stops changing and remains stock still until the sun implodes in 10 million years’ time and roasts us all. The US became the most powerful country in the world somewhere around 1890. Therefore, it must remain such until the end of time! And if it shows signs of falling from its pedestal, that has to be due to some dark and dastardly forces: cultural Marxists, the deep state or some such. The idea that the US can go back to what it was in 1835, or at any other point in the past, is quite simply pipedreaming. Can Mr Cathey name any country in the history of the world that has ever gone back to something it was before? Revisionists and reactionaries are part of the human family. They’ve always existed but they’ve also always failed. Wherever America is going, it hasn’t been there before! That’s the way “Our Creator” made the world!

    Revisionists and reactionaries are part of the human family. They’ve always existed but they’ve also always failed.

    Amazing stuff there.

    Revisionists have always failed? In what way?

    Reactionaries have always failed? I’d say it’s more likely that revolutionaries that fail unless they’re backed by the rich and powerful. It’s the moneyed reactionaries who seem to consistently wind up winning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Ace says:
    @Jason Liu
    Anything that isn't "across-the-broad equality and one-man-one-vote" would be considered undemocratic by modern standards. Factoring in property, education, age, race, religion is going to result in only straight white landowning Christian family men voting. That's system is not going to happen, even mentioning will send the public into a froth.

    What you want is a solution outside of democracy, but you don't want to say what it is.

    The problems created by liberalism will be solved by illiberal means.

    The West fell in love with the idea that we were on a 45-deg. trajectory ad astra but it is not proving to be what we’re seeing on the ground. In fact, we are awash in lies and the most absurd ideas imaginable.

    So there will be a solution to this but not, as you say, within the context of the present insanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Corvinus
    "Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side."

    The game of politics is to win. And "importing" voters has long been a staple for ALL political parties involved.

    "As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people."

    The government is made up of the people, so there is no replacing anything here.

    "Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people"

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.

    "American and European politicians can because the term “American” or “German” no longer refer to a people, just an address."

    "American" refers to a people consisting of a wide range of people--white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, European/non-European.

    "(And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)"

    The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a nation of people from diverse backgrounds.

    "Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren’t too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW);"

    What you are saying is that the people who make up the government, elected by their fellow citizens, hate a coherent people. Man, that is incoherent on your part.

    Furthermore, the current pope is NOT an "social justice warrior". He is a Christian.

    "being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed."

    You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a tribe may include different groups of people based on political ideology or religious affiliation.

    "The problem is such situations can’t last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people."

    So is the Alt-Right a "tribe"?

    "You can’t have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we’re headed."

    Your buddy Vox Day talks about this concept--“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People...Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant. The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

    So, CitizenOfASillyCountry, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

    "Whites have lost much of that – and are feeling the effects of that disconnection."

    "Bad whites" have "lost" it, not "good whites", right?

    "Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it’s best that those white don’t cherish these things step aside for those that can."

    In the end, whites will make their own decisions regarding race. Thank you for your virtue signaling.

    Corvinus,

    I tire of your Coke commercial ideology; however, you have peaked my interest with a particular comment regarding the Japanese.

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.

    A couple of quick questions to understand the consistency of your philosophy.

    1. How do you feel about American Jews? I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century. Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?

    2. What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state? Naturally, no nation state can be completely “pure” but certainly the Japanese, South Koreans and Israelis control immigration to promote that idea. And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest, what about the original Europeans. Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow? If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?

    3. Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond “humanity.” Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally? If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?

    4. You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now. Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We’ll mix and become one.

    5. Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one? What’s your number per year for immigration? If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from? You already acknowledge that races are different. Shouldn’t we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?

    You write like the old priests arguing about angels on the head of a pin. Please give me more specifics about how your world would work. To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I tire of your Coke commercial ideology..."

    [Polite golf clap]

    “How do you feel about American Jews?”

    American Jews run the gamut politically and culturally. Some are Zionists, others are opposed to Zionism. Some adhere to their faith strictly, others are non-practicing. You also have Jews from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Some are do-gooders, others are no good.

    “I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century.”

    European Americans are one large group from geographical standpoint, but they also consist of distinct groups who have different ways of looking at things. French Americans and Italian Americans may not view themselves as being European, but as an American who came from those European nations.

    “Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?”

    Some European Americans and American Jews will claim that they have been persecuted, will claim that they must look out for their own interests, and will claim that the media and popular culture have been impacted negatively by their actions and associations. As a result, leaders emerge with preferred courses of action. So. if Americans who desire to label themselves as “European Americans” and who desire to form groups to protect their ways of life as a "tribe", and Americans who desire to label themselves as “Jewish Americans” and who desiree to form groups to protect their ways of a life as "tribe", BOTH are afforded that liberty in our nation.

    However, there are positive and negative consequences that arise. They must be prepared for the potential windfall or fallout by the general populace.

    The objection I have is when those on the Alt Right claim that there is genocide taking place of European Americans and who demand European Americans collectively look out for their racial and cultural interests, with those people being labeled “cucks” and “race traitors” when they make their own racial and ethnic decisions.

    Americans who have a European background may not necessarily view themselves as a “European American”; rather, they may look at themselves as simply an American with European blood. And that is their individual liberty. They need not be bloodied by the cudgel of “bad whitism” for not aligning themselves by the Alt-Right and their acolytes as a “European American” who seek to preserve their customs. Likewise, Jews should also be taken to task in a similar manner for demanding all Jews adhere to one mindset.

    “What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state?”

    Not a “true” nation-state, but a nation-state. The formation of the United States is completely different than Japan and Israel, and their policies for citizenship and immigration are not my concern.

    “And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest...”

    I never made that claim or took that stance. There always has been division and divisiveness when newcomers arrive and threaten groups who have been established.

    ”Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow?”

    I have said this before and I will say it again. If a group of people want to legally restrict or stop immigration, they have that liberty to inform Congress of their position and seek legislation in that manner. What I oppose is assuming that one group of people, say Muslims, are dyscivic and dysgenic to, say American culture, and thus ought to be banned outright and/or removed by force. That thought process was reflected by the prohibition of the Chinese and Japanese by nativists, who today hold the same views then as in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s regarding “alien customs infiltrating and debasing American society”.

    “If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?”

    Again, the people there make their own decisions for their own nation and what people individually and collectively believe is in their best interest. I generally concern myself with America immigration policy.

    “Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond “humanity.” Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally?

    I have loyalty to my family, my community, and my nation. I try to live by “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    “If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?”

    Of course I will chose my child. I see where you are going here. You assume I ought to chose my fellow Europeans over other groups of people in a similar situation, and if I refuse to, I am willfully killing my own kind. Give me a break.

    “You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now.”

    I stated IQ is due to genetics and environment, that is how the “races are different”. Which one is more influential depends on your point of view. As human beings, the citizens of any given location in the world, say England and Kenya, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer.

    “Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We’ll mix and become one.”

    America has shown we mix and become one, as Americans--it may be a difficult process--yet maintain our distinct heritages, should each individual and family chose to do so (regarding speaking their native tongue or maintaining holiday traditions from the “old country”).

    You assume that Nigerians and Iranians, for example, are other than capable of embracing representative democracy concepts and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    “Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one?”

    Of course we should limit immigration to our nation. Again, I have been consistent in this response in previous threads”.

    ”What’s your number per year for immigration?”

    I really do not know. Let’s say 200,000 to 400,000.

    “If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from?”

    Everywhere in the world who meets the criteria set forth by our laws. Should that criteria be tightened, say, when it comes to H1B visas? Yes.

    ”You already acknowledge that races are different.”

    Please refresh my memory where I exactly made that point for the sake of context.

    ”Shouldn’t we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?”

    Assuming that non-whites and non-Europeans we “import” will cause conflict.

    “To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.”

    I advocate for America, thank you very little. America is not Brazil, nor Japan, nor Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Even Onion would be embarrassed to print this.

    Everyone feeling Dissed all the time. The Age of Dissease. “He dissed me, she dissed me..”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/21/ny-times-reporter-white-women-walk-racist-manner/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Excal says:
    @Corvinus
    "Or until the day that one party discovers that it can import voters for its side."

    The game of politics is to win. And "importing" voters has long been a staple for ALL political parties involved.

    "As Sailer jokes, instead of the people replacing the government, the government replaces the people."

    The government is made up of the people, so there is no replacing anything here.

    "Japanese politicians cannot import voters to ensure victory because the Japanese people remain, well, a people"

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.

    "American and European politicians can because the term “American” or “German” no longer refer to a people, just an address."

    "American" refers to a people consisting of a wide range of people--white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, European/non-European.

    "(And, yes, up until about 1965, American immigration was very much geared toward European immigrants as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other measures showed. The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a white, Christian country.)"

    The U.S. was considered by its leaders to be a nation of people from diverse backgrounds.

    "Governments hate a coherent people (a tribe) for much the same reason governments aren’t too fond of serious religions (and, no, Christianity no longer qualifies, e.g. the current pope is an SJW);"

    What you are saying is that the people who make up the government, elected by their fellow citizens, hate a coherent people. Man, that is incoherent on your part.

    Furthermore, the current pope is NOT an "social justice warrior". He is a Christian.

    "being part of a tribe or a religion means that you have a higher power/allegiance than the government. You belong first and foremost to your tribe or religion. If the government runs afoul of your tribe or religion, you side with the tribe, even going to war if needed."

    You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a tribe may include different groups of people based on political ideology or religious affiliation.

    "The problem is such situations can’t last forever. Those who continue to feel loyalty to tribe or religion are able to work for their own benefit by using the proposition nation government to favor their people."

    So is the Alt-Right a "tribe"?

    "You can’t have a proposition nation populated by tribal people, which is where we’re headed."

    Your buddy Vox Day talks about this concept--“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People...Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant. The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

    So, CitizenOfASillyCountry, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

    "Whites have lost much of that – and are feeling the effects of that disconnection."

    "Bad whites" have "lost" it, not "good whites", right?

    "Hopefully, we can reclaim them, but if not, maybe it’s best that those white don’t cherish these things step aside for those that can."

    In the end, whites will make their own decisions regarding race. Thank you for your virtue signaling.

    You quote Vox Day (much of whose work I admire) — “As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States.” Like you, I am not sure I agree with him.

    There were multiple parties involved in the framing of that Constitution, and it could be that two opposing visions were represented among them. One would have been that proposed by Vox Day, which restricts “posterity” to familial descendants, like the tribes of Israel. The other could well have considered “posterity” to include, in the end, perhaps the entire race of Man.

    Obviously, it is the latter vision — held, I would imagine, by the true-believing Masons who made up the majority of those who founded the United States — which has won the day.

    And how could it not? Those who seek power would always favor it; and the United States Government was — despite its ideals — founded not by the people, but by an elite consisting of talented, ambitious experts who appointed themselves the saviors of the people. Why would such men content themselves with saving one people only? Why not save the whole world?

    American conservatives may think that their task is to return American government and society to the ideals envisioned by its founders. I wonder whether American society might not already, today, be much closer to those ideals than they realize.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @interesting
    "when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves"


    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It's not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100's and 100's of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    And one would think that a complete outsider would be the one person who could shake things up a bit. I've never liked Trump BUT seeing both sides of the isle having a complete meltdown over the guy gives me hope.

    scrapped the TPP = win for American workers, the TPP was/is corporate governance.
    scrapped the Paris accord = Win for American workers as it was useless and costly to America
    talking tough on illegals, reduced crossings by ~60% = win for American workers and immigrants already here.

    Health care = blame lies squarely on the republicans that had 7+ years to have a new plan ready to go.

    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It’s not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100′s and 100′s of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    Most of your comment is spot on, except for the part about guilt trips.

    It really isn’t about guilt trips, but about consistency and facing the fact that we, as a country, are no delivering angels.

    Another point is exactly as you say, “And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? ” Since most Americans seem to think that our country and system are something special, they pretty broadly give license to politicians and they should really know better.

    WTF do we want? We want to counter the lies and hope that armed with the truth, people can recognize what’s being done to them and begin to refuse to support politicians and policies that harm them. It has nothing at all to do with whining and guilt tripping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @DESERT FOX
    Democracy ended in America in 1913 when the Zionists installed the IRS and the FEDERAL RESERVE thereby laying the foundation to allow for the financing the planned wars that were to come via the Zionists agenda. Since that time we have been reduced to slaves on the Zionist plantation aka otherwise known as America.

    Democracy ended in America in 1913

    It never was a democracy. It was always an oligarchic plutocracy, and 1913 was the inevitable result.

    The system stinks and always has. The longer it slithers along the more fetid it becomes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. “But Pat’s view has proven, tragically, to be the correct one.”

    Only to those willing to open their eyes … there is no shortage of those in denial, which is why there is no rush to change things that are clearly going off the rails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Corvinus,

    I tire of your Coke commercial ideology; however, you have peaked my interest with a particular comment regarding the Japanese.

    Who observably have a completely different outlook on matters given they have been around far longer than the American nation-state.
     
    A couple of quick questions to understand the consistency of your philosophy.

    1. How do you feel about American Jews? I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century. Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?


    2. What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state? Naturally, no nation state can be completely "pure" but certainly the Japanese, South Koreans and Israelis control immigration to promote that idea. And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest, what about the original Europeans. Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow? If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?

    3. Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond "humanity." Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally? If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?

    4. You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now. Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We'll mix and become one.

    5. Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one? What's your number per year for immigration? If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from? You already acknowledge that races are different. Shouldn't we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?

    You write like the old priests arguing about angels on the head of a pin. Please give me more specifics about how your world would work. To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.

    “I tire of your Coke commercial ideology…”

    [Polite golf clap]

    “How do you feel about American Jews?”

    American Jews run the gamut politically and culturally. Some are Zionists, others are opposed to Zionism. Some adhere to their faith strictly, others are non-practicing. You also have Jews from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Some are do-gooders, others are no good.

    “I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century.”

    European Americans are one large group from geographical standpoint, but they also consist of distinct groups who have different ways of looking at things. French Americans and Italian Americans may not view themselves as being European, but as an American who came from those European nations.

    “Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?”

    Some European Americans and American Jews will claim that they have been persecuted, will claim that they must look out for their own interests, and will claim that the media and popular culture have been impacted negatively by their actions and associations. As a result, leaders emerge with preferred courses of action. So. if Americans who desire to label themselves as “European Americans” and who desire to form groups to protect their ways of life as a “tribe”, and Americans who desire to label themselves as “Jewish Americans” and who desiree to form groups to protect their ways of a life as “tribe”, BOTH are afforded that liberty in our nation.

    However, there are positive and negative consequences that arise. They must be prepared for the potential windfall or fallout by the general populace.

    The objection I have is when those on the Alt Right claim that there is genocide taking place of European Americans and who demand European Americans collectively look out for their racial and cultural interests, with those people being labeled “cucks” and “race traitors” when they make their own racial and ethnic decisions.

    Americans who have a European background may not necessarily view themselves as a “European American”; rather, they may look at themselves as simply an American with European blood. And that is their individual liberty. They need not be bloodied by the cudgel of “bad whitism” for not aligning themselves by the Alt-Right and their acolytes as a “European American” who seek to preserve their customs. Likewise, Jews should also be taken to task in a similar manner for demanding all Jews adhere to one mindset.

    “What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state?”

    Not a “true” nation-state, but a nation-state. The formation of the United States is completely different than Japan and Israel, and their policies for citizenship and immigration are not my concern.

    “And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest…”

    I never made that claim or took that stance. There always has been division and divisiveness when newcomers arrive and threaten groups who have been established.

    ”Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow?”

    I have said this before and I will say it again. If a group of people want to legally restrict or stop immigration, they have that liberty to inform Congress of their position and seek legislation in that manner. What I oppose is assuming that one group of people, say Muslims, are dyscivic and dysgenic to, say American culture, and thus ought to be banned outright and/or removed by force. That thought process was reflected by the prohibition of the Chinese and Japanese by nativists, who today hold the same views then as in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s regarding “alien customs infiltrating and debasing American society”.

    “If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?”

    Again, the people there make their own decisions for their own nation and what people individually and collectively believe is in their best interest. I generally concern myself with America immigration policy.

    “Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond “humanity.” Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally?

    I have loyalty to my family, my community, and my nation. I try to live by “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    “If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?”

    Of course I will chose my child. I see where you are going here. You assume I ought to chose my fellow Europeans over other groups of people in a similar situation, and if I refuse to, I am willfully killing my own kind. Give me a break.

    “You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now.”

    I stated IQ is due to genetics and environment, that is how the “races are different”. Which one is more influential depends on your point of view. As human beings, the citizens of any given location in the world, say England and Kenya, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer.

    “Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We’ll mix and become one.”

    America has shown we mix and become one, as Americans–it may be a difficult process–yet maintain our distinct heritages, should each individual and family chose to do so (regarding speaking their native tongue or maintaining holiday traditions from the “old country”).

    You assume that Nigerians and Iranians, for example, are other than capable of embracing representative democracy concepts and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    “Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one?”

    Of course we should limit immigration to our nation. Again, I have been consistent in this response in previous threads”.

    ”What’s your number per year for immigration?”

    I really do not know. Let’s say 200,000 to 400,000.

    “If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from?”

    Everywhere in the world who meets the criteria set forth by our laws. Should that criteria be tightened, say, when it comes to H1B visas? Yes.

    ”You already acknowledge that races are different.”

    Please refresh my memory where I exactly made that point for the sake of context.

    ”Shouldn’t we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?”

    Assuming that non-whites and non-Europeans we “import” will cause conflict.

    “To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.”

    I advocate for America, thank you very little. America is not Brazil, nor Japan, nor Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The True and Original David
    Shorter Corvinus: I'm against government-mandated racial and ethnic segregation as well as private peer pressure for racial and ethnic segregation.

    It's a coherent position.

    Would be nice to see more Jews holding that position, though.

    Open borders for Israel now!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Corvinus
    "I tire of your Coke commercial ideology..."

    [Polite golf clap]

    “How do you feel about American Jews?”

    American Jews run the gamut politically and culturally. Some are Zionists, others are opposed to Zionism. Some adhere to their faith strictly, others are non-practicing. You also have Jews from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Some are do-gooders, others are no good.

    “I simply advocate for European Americans what Jewish Americans have been doing for more than a century.”

    European Americans are one large group from geographical standpoint, but they also consist of distinct groups who have different ways of looking at things. French Americans and Italian Americans may not view themselves as being European, but as an American who came from those European nations.

    “Do you believe that American Jews should stop attempting to preserve their people (and, yes, they are a people) and culture? I have and have had many Jewish friends. They openly desire for their children to marry other Jews. Is that wrong? And if it is not, why do you have a problem with European American wanting exactly the same thing?”

    Some European Americans and American Jews will claim that they have been persecuted, will claim that they must look out for their own interests, and will claim that the media and popular culture have been impacted negatively by their actions and associations. As a result, leaders emerge with preferred courses of action. So. if Americans who desire to label themselves as “European Americans” and who desire to form groups to protect their ways of life as a "tribe", and Americans who desire to label themselves as “Jewish Americans” and who desiree to form groups to protect their ways of a life as "tribe", BOTH are afforded that liberty in our nation.

    However, there are positive and negative consequences that arise. They must be prepared for the potential windfall or fallout by the general populace.

    The objection I have is when those on the Alt Right claim that there is genocide taking place of European Americans and who demand European Americans collectively look out for their racial and cultural interests, with those people being labeled “cucks” and “race traitors” when they make their own racial and ethnic decisions.

    Americans who have a European background may not necessarily view themselves as a “European American”; rather, they may look at themselves as simply an American with European blood. And that is their individual liberty. They need not be bloodied by the cudgel of “bad whitism” for not aligning themselves by the Alt-Right and their acolytes as a “European American” who seek to preserve their customs. Likewise, Jews should also be taken to task in a similar manner for demanding all Jews adhere to one mindset.

    “What are your thoughts on peoples/races such as the Japanese or the Israelis (Jews) who push for or wish to maintain a true nation state?”

    Not a “true” nation-state, but a nation-state. The formation of the United States is completely different than Japan and Israel, and their policies for citizenship and immigration are not my concern.

    “And since you seem to think of the United States as some utopian immigration love fest...”

    I never made that claim or took that stance. There always has been division and divisiveness when newcomers arrive and threaten groups who have been established.

    ”Would it be wrong for the ethnic Germans to want to maintain their control over Germany but stopping immigration tomorrow?”

    I have said this before and I will say it again. If a group of people want to legally restrict or stop immigration, they have that liberty to inform Congress of their position and seek legislation in that manner. What I oppose is assuming that one group of people, say Muslims, are dyscivic and dysgenic to, say American culture, and thus ought to be banned outright and/or removed by force. That thought process was reflected by the prohibition of the Chinese and Japanese by nativists, who today hold the same views then as in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s regarding “alien customs infiltrating and debasing American society”.

    “If so, how is that different from the Jews in Israel or the Japanese in Japan?”

    Again, the people there make their own decisions for their own nation and what people individually and collectively believe is in their best interest. I generally concern myself with America immigration policy.

    “Please explain to me what loyalty you show beyond “humanity.” Do you care about your family more than mine or do you love everyone equally?

    I have loyalty to my family, my community, and my nation. I try to live by “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    “If a car is flying down the street about to hit your child and another person and you can only save one, do you not choose your child?”

    Of course I will chose my child. I see where you are going here. You assume I ought to chose my fellow Europeans over other groups of people in a similar situation, and if I refuse to, I am willfully killing my own kind. Give me a break.

    “You mention that different races are, in fact, different, at least partially through genetics, which, of course, is what the evidence shows at least for now.”

    I stated IQ is due to genetics and environment, that is how the “races are different”. Which one is more influential depends on your point of view. As human beings, the citizens of any given location in the world, say England and Kenya, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer.

    “Do you not think that bringing different groups together who are genetically different might cause some problems or do you fall back on your go-to answer: We’ll mix and become one.”

    America has shown we mix and become one, as Americans--it may be a difficult process--yet maintain our distinct heritages, should each individual and family chose to do so (regarding speaking their native tongue or maintaining holiday traditions from the “old country”).

    You assume that Nigerians and Iranians, for example, are other than capable of embracing representative democracy concepts and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

    “Where do you draw the line at immigration or do you have one?”

    Of course we should limit immigration to our nation. Again, I have been consistent in this response in previous threads”.

    ”What’s your number per year for immigration?”

    I really do not know. Let’s say 200,000 to 400,000.

    “If you do have a number, where do we draw these people from?”

    Everywhere in the world who meets the criteria set forth by our laws. Should that criteria be tightened, say, when it comes to H1B visas? Yes.

    ”You already acknowledge that races are different.”

    Please refresh my memory where I exactly made that point for the sake of context.

    ”Shouldn’t we draw immigrants from people most like us to avoid conflict?”

    Assuming that non-whites and non-Europeans we “import” will cause conflict.

    “To me, it seems that you advocate for Brazil while I lean toward Japan or Israel.”

    I advocate for America, thank you very little. America is not Brazil, nor Japan, nor Israel.

    Shorter Corvinus: I’m against government-mandated racial and ethnic segregation as well as private peer pressure for racial and ethnic segregation.

    It’s a coherent position.

    Would be nice to see more Jews holding that position, though.

    Open borders for Israel now!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. chris says:

    Sorry to nitpick but regarding the attribution Paul More which you quoted above:

    Indeed, the success of this kind of democracy depended on what the later writer Paul Elmer More called “the democracy of the dead,” weighing not just the views of those present, but also incorporating the insights and lessons and judgment of past generations that have gone before.

    If the quote is from his book: “Aristocracy and Justice,” published in 1915, then he must surely have gotten the concept from G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy,” published in 1909:

    Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. bjondo says:

    American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money

    .

    The day Israel/Jewry discovers that it can bribe/control the Congress with US taxpayer’s tax dollars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. AndrewR says:
    @Jason Liu
    Anything that isn't "across-the-broad equality and one-man-one-vote" would be considered undemocratic by modern standards. Factoring in property, education, age, race, religion is going to result in only straight white landowning Christian family men voting. That's system is not going to happen, even mentioning will send the public into a froth.

    What you want is a solution outside of democracy, but you don't want to say what it is.

    I’d like to see requiring citizens to pass a comprehensive exam covering pre-1776 English history, colonial history, US history, basic civics, basic economics, and basic statistics. Alas, this proposal is politically impossible due to the inevitable “disparate impact.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @interesting
    "when a country is conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves"


    This is why Trump won. This stolen land and slavery guilt trip has gotten really old. It's not my fault or the fault of anyone alive today. I wonder if you do this at cocktail parties, whine and cry and complain about stolen lands and white men slave holders from 100's and 100's of years ago.

    So WTF do you want?

    And which countries were not conceived by a gang of genocidal slavers & land thieves? I want a detailed list. And I get to decided what date we start from. So I say 40,000 BCE.

    I await the list of those perfect virtuous countries.

    And one would think that a complete outsider would be the one person who could shake things up a bit. I've never liked Trump BUT seeing both sides of the isle having a complete meltdown over the guy gives me hope.

    scrapped the TPP = win for American workers, the TPP was/is corporate governance.
    scrapped the Paris accord = Win for American workers as it was useless and costly to America
    talking tough on illegals, reduced crossings by ~60% = win for American workers and immigrants already here.

    Health care = blame lies squarely on the republicans that had 7+ years to have a new plan ready to go.

    So I say 40,000 BCE.

    POS zio-cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Antiwar7 says:

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” 

    That’s a notorious fake quote. Did you really read it?

    http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/01/14/other/misquoting-tocqueville-disdaining-democracy/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right. Earliest known citation is from the 50s. 1950s.

    Doesn't mean it isn't true, of course, simply that Alexis never said it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. TG says:

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    With respect, this is completely wrong.

    I would go more with Oswald Spengler here. The American Republic will endure until the oligarchy discovers that it can bribe the Congress with the public’s money.

    We do not have a ‘tyranny of the majority’ with the masses voting themselves great benefits. We have a tyranny of the minority, using their wealth to take over the government and feed at the public trough.

    Did the public vote to spend trillions in pointless winless foreign wars whose only apparent purpose is to enrich politically connected defense contractors?
    Did the public vote to spend trillions of dollars bailing out wealthy bankers, starving the real economy of capital and, among other things, destroying even their ability to earn interest on their savings?
    Did the public vote to open up the borders to unlimited third-world immigration, flooding the labor market and driving wages down and profits up? While shifting the burden of medical care etc. of all this cheap labor to the public treasury?

    You get the idea. No, the general public is not voting itself benefits. We don’t have a democracy, not for the important decisions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Ben Frank says:

    We need a constitutional amendment outlawing federal transfer payments.
    They were always unconstitutional, but something more is needed to stop them.
    The states must take over welfare; the states are the laboratory of democracy, and they will demonstrate which policies work and which don’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Logan says:
    @Antiwar7
    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” 

    That's a notorious fake quote. Did you really read it?

    http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/01/14/other/misquoting-tocqueville-disdaining-democracy/

    Quite right. Earliest known citation is from the 50s. 1950s.

    Doesn’t mean it isn’t true, of course, simply that Alexis never said it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?