The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Alexander Hamilton, Immigration Skeptic

Last night VP-Elect Mike Pence and family took an evening off from the Trump Transition to attend the hottest Broadway musical of the era, Hamilton. The rich people in attendance relentlessly booed Pence for profaning their SWPL Holy-of-Holies with his presence, and the cast lectured Pence from the stage after the final curtain (except that Pence had already slipped out).

Commenter Hereward points out Alexander Hamilton’s views on immigration, diversity, and assimilation from January 1802:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] The Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

Has anybody noticed that Hamilton’s program was rather Trumpish: protectionism, immigration restriction, infrastructure, and the Electoral College?

By the way, as the strong man of the first cabinet, Hamilton was a big league supporter of the 1790 immigration act that restricted immigration to whites only.

For more on this hilariously revealing cultural phenomenon, see my Taki’s Magazine essay, “Alexander Hamilton: Honorary Nonwhite.”

The message of Hamilton: If it’s good for Goldman Sachs, it’s good for the Diverse.

Hillary has seen Hamilton three times.

Hamilton

The funny thing is that Hamilton was the whitest man imaginable, with a nose sharp enough to carve roast beef. Commenter syonredux points out:

Here’s Joseph Ellis on the physical contrast between Burr and Hamilton:

“Burr had the dark and severe coloring of his Edwards ancestry, with black hair receding from the forehead and dark brown, almost black, eyes …

Burr

Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair, all of which came together to suggest an animated beam of light to Burr’s somewhat stationary shadow.”

Burr kind of looked like David Cross from Mr. Show.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Have a happy thanksgiving, sir. Your hard work, podcasts, etc are most appreciated, especially during the 2016 election.
    , @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.
    , @Realist
    If we had continued with the Naturalization Act of 1790 and had earlier forgone slavery we would be trillions ahead and be a much better country.
    , @Ron Mexico
    Hamilton surely would have objected to Obama's eligibility for C-in-C, as well, considering Obama's father was a British citizen at birth.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/alexander-hamilton-immigration-skeptic/#comment-1657551
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “Has anybody noticed that Hamilton’s program was rather Trumpish: protectionism, immigration restriction, infrastructure, and the Electoral College?”

    Suppose some SJWs were to come across these quotes from Hamilton. Would Mr. Lin suddenly catch flack for promoting a “racist” and/or “bigot”?

    Read More
  3. My god, quoting Hamilton at the people who have tried to ‘take over’ Hamilton. Are there no depths of rationality to which you will not sink, Sailer? :)

    Read More
  4. The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/15/student-group-at-cal-state-northridge-boasts-of-shutting-down-speech-by-award-winning-scholar/

    Read More
  5. Hamilton himself was a British citizen born in the British West Indies to a British father and French mother. On moving to New York, another British colony, in 1772, he retained his British citizenship (until July 4, 1776). So he was no more an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a "mixed" child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.
    , @Shine a Light
    I think it's wrong to call Hamilton, or other Founding Fathers, immigrants. They moved from one British territory (England) to others (Crown colonies). That is not immigration as they stayed subjects to the same sovereign.

    Once they overthrew British rule in America they did not suddenly become immigrants either since they conjured the United States out of thin air. Traitors or revolutionaries, depending on your point of view: Yes. Immigrants? No.
  6. O.T.:I don’t understand why you don’t hear much anything from the right regarding the public schools excusing students en masse to protest an election. Would the school authorities have sanctioned protests against a Clinton victory? I don’t think students generally get to decide when to skip class.

    I’m a far leftist, and even I’m disgusted. I certainly don’t mind students protesting, but wouldn’t anyone prefer to march than attend class?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Stephen, The Left is currently driving a wedge between them and everyone who does not agree with them in all matters. In two years we vote the House again and I don't think it will go well for the Dems. The people who were already sick of their shit will be more organized and people like you, who are just starting to see the light will come on board.
    , @Forbes
    Perhaps it's just now dawning on you that schools haven't been in the knowledge transmission business for some time. It's mission is propaganda indoctrination--what to think, not how to think. Another part of its mission is socialization--how to get along with others. This is where politically correct bromides come in to play, e.g. checking your privilege, committing no micro-aggressions, celebrating diversity, etc.

    School authorities sanction Trump protests because school authorities voted for Clinton--so of course they wouldn't sanction protests against Clinton, had she won.

    Will anyone on the right speak up about this? There's a chance the right has finally learned not to interrupt the opposition while they are knee-deep digging a hole.
    , @Jingo Starr
    The education system has 3.2 million students enrolled in post-secondary education today. The stats are very clear on how people with a post-secondary education vote. The Title IX system has been organized into a progressive ideological boot camp and the drill sergeants are the faculty and administrators.

    I don't know how schools dismissing students to protest the Constitutional outcome surprises anyone. The schools are waging a war for their future and we haven't seen anything yet. The student loan crisis needs to be carefully examined for how these institutions can be reined in. Financial aid is not the lifeblood of students, but the lifeblood of the progressive ideology indoctrination system. The universities depend upon adjunct faculty and student indebtedness. These are solvable problems for a Trump administration.

    , @Jason Liu
    They have. It's just that schools are run by the far left so nothing happens.
  7. Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It follows Ron Chernow's highbrow biography of Hamilton leading up to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Jasper, Advice to Pence and Trump, stay away from the theatre..........remember this saying, "So, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
    , @Olorin
    It's globo-diversitopian politics posing as Judaeo-Broadway mass entertainment by a mixed-race second-generation propagandist.

    It's the equivalent on the Live Infotainment front of that other half-Puerto-Rican/dad-was-a-NYC City Hall-racial-mahoff mass culture soopergenius beloved of SWPLs, Neil de Grasse Tyson, aka Black Science Man.

    Hey, if they can Appropriate white science, why not white history?

    , @James Kabala
    If you listen to the recorded version (and the number of people who have experienced it that way far exceeds those who have seen it in the theater), it is easy to forget/ignore the historically inaccurate races of the actors.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Of course it is overhyped, but it is fairly well-constructed as a play (with recurring motifs such as the line "not throwing away my shot" and the act of simply counting from one to ten taking on different meanings in different contexts).

    P.S. There are probably different clips filmed by different people, but at least in the one that I saw, it seemed that as many people cheered Pence as booed him. It was definitely a battle between two factions rather than a unanimous boo.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/andyswan/status/799852951955193856
    , @Jokah Macpherson
    I saw it before it was a huge deal and went in not really knowing much about it other than it was the story of Alexander Hamilton set to hip hop. I thought it was pretty decent - similar to 1776 in artistic license but it's catchy with a strong dramatic arc and hey if it at least teaches the kids who Alexander Hamilton is that's not the worst thing. I noticed the rah-rah-immigration overtones at the time and thought, well, maybe people won't take that away as the main point. But I guess it wound up being the main point.
    , @keypusher
    I've shilled for Hamilton enough here, and Steve does it better anyway. But speaking as someone who sees a lot of musicals, there's more brains in Hamilton than in all the shows in a normal Broadway season put together. Just because it's propaganda for the multicult and a lot of hateful people like it doesn't mean it's not great.
    , @ScarletNumber
    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show.

    Maybe his wife made him.
  8. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    It follows Ron Chernow’s highbrow biography of Hamilton leading up to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The author/composer is a smart, sophisticated student of politics. His dad is a political consultant in NYC and was Mayor Ed Koch's head Puerto Rican vote wrangler in the 1980s.
    , @Desiderius

    highbrow
     
    It's a good read, but still very much middlebrow, not that there's anything wrong with that.
  9. @Steve Sailer
    It follows Ron Chernow's highbrow biography of Hamilton leading up to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr.

    The author/composer is a smart, sophisticated student of politics. His dad is a political consultant in NYC and was Mayor Ed Koch’s head Puerto Rican vote wrangler in the 1980s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The author/composer is pretty charismatic, too. I'd lik to dislike him, but I find him pretty entertaining to watch.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    His dad is a political consultant in NYC and was Mayor Ed Koch’s head Puerto Rican vote wrangler in the 1980s.
     
    As in, "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo"?
  10. This picture portrays Alexander Hamilton as having blue eyes, which is most likely accurate because he was of English & Scottish descent and most British people have blue eyes. The United Kingdom is one of the most blue eyed places on the planet. Look at the British actors in Hollywood for example, most of them have blue eyes.

    https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/62/150962-004-BC7298DB.jpg

    Is the pro-open borders cast of Hamilton saying we should import more immigrants with blue eyes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In the portrait of Hamilton on the sawbuck, he could slice roast beef with that razor sharp nose.
  11. Who cares what he said. Hamilton was a beautiful and glorious black man. That’s what’s important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Who cares what he said. Hamilton was a beautiful and glorious black man. That’s what’s important."

    A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture.
  12. @Jefferson
    This picture portrays Alexander Hamilton as having blue eyes, which is most likely accurate because he was of English & Scottish descent and most British people have blue eyes. The United Kingdom is one of the most blue eyed places on the planet. Look at the British actors in Hollywood for example, most of them have blue eyes.
    https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/62/150962-004-BC7298DB.jpg

    Is the pro-open borders cast of Hamilton saying we should import more immigrants with blue eyes?

    In the portrait of Hamilton on the sawbuck, he could slice roast beef with that razor sharp nose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Here’s Joseph Ellis on the physical contrast between Burr and Hamilton:

    Burr had the dark and severe coloring of his Edwards ancestry, with black hair receding from the forehead and dark brown, almost black, eyes _ Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair, all of which came together to suggest an animated beam of light to Burr’s somewhat stationary shadow. Whereas Burr’s overall demeanor seemed subdued, as if the compressed energies of New England Puritanism were coiled up inside him, waiting for the opportunity to explode, Hamilton conveyed kinetic energy incessantly ex- pressing itself in bursts of conspicuous brilliance.
     
    Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair. But, it’s Hamilton who receives the ultimate honor of being an honorary non-White….
  13. I always assumed the Broadway show Hamilton was a retconning, or a historical re-write of the actual Alexander Hamilton to suit the purposes of the PC left. Hamilton was just the device or vessel for the political agenda–in other words, a fictional portrayal.

    It’s artistically clever to do an all-black cast (and interpretation) for The Wizard of Oz, and call it The Wiz. Romeo & Juliet as West Side Story was a smash success. Hamilton strikes me as a political vehicle, not an artistic one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But Chernow's book plays up the politically correct side of Hamilton (against slavery!) and plays down the politically incorrect side (against democracy). Together, the message is: What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the vibrant diversity, too.
    , @a Newsreader
    Blogger Ryan Landry's theory is that Hamilton is a CIA PsyOp designed to make wealthy white liberals more comfortable living as a minority. The images are designed to make it look like the race of the founders was accidental, and that progressive liberalism will survive without a white majority.
    , @Kyle
    It would have been artistically clever 2 decades ago. In 2016 it's jumping the shark.
  14. @Stephen R. Diamond
    O.T.:I don't understand why you don't hear much anything from the right regarding the public schools excusing students en masse to protest an election. Would the school authorities have sanctioned protests against a Clinton victory? I don't think students generally get to decide when to skip class.

    I'm a far leftist, and even I'm disgusted. I certainly don't mind students protesting, but wouldn't anyone prefer to march than attend class?

    Stephen, The Left is currently driving a wedge between them and everyone who does not agree with them in all matters. In two years we vote the House again and I don’t think it will go well for the Dems. The people who were already sick of their shit will be more organized and people like you, who are just starting to see the light will come on board.

    Read More
  15. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    Jasper, Advice to Pence and Trump, stay away from the theatre……….remember this saying, “So, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

    Read More
  16. @Forbes
    I always assumed the Broadway show Hamilton was a retconning, or a historical re-write of the actual Alexander Hamilton to suit the purposes of the PC left. Hamilton was just the device or vessel for the political agenda--in other words, a fictional portrayal.

    It's artistically clever to do an all-black cast (and interpretation) for The Wizard of Oz, and call it The Wiz. Romeo & Juliet as West Side Story was a smash success. Hamilton strikes me as a political vehicle, not an artistic one.

    But Chernow’s book plays up the politically correct side of Hamilton (against slavery!) and plays down the politically incorrect side (against democracy). Together, the message is: What’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for the vibrant diversity, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    You made the case better than I have for the sort of cherry-picking I imagined. Though, we should be grateful for the crumbs as most of the founders are trashed for any number of (alleged and imagined) sins.
    , @Greasy William
    Against Democracy is hardly politically incorrect. The Left has really turned on Democracy in the last several years.
    , @guest
    I don't know about his Hamilton book, but as I've said before Chernow's books on the Rockefeller and Morgan cabals are a treasure trove for revisionists and conspiracy theorists, and not the kind the Establishment likes. I don't presume this was on purpose, but he is at least a moderately honest court historian.
  17. Not being an American, I know little and care little about “Hamilton”.

    I have even less interest in watching a “hip hop” musical with a cast full of “people of color” and I don’t really understand why this is such a success, particularly among the elite.

    I mean, I suppose the French aristocracy in the 18th century was also decadent and corrupt, but they would listen to good music and appreciate good art, at least.

    Read More
  18. Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).
     
    Sound policy. Revolutionary France was a menace.
    , @guest
    Regarding Trump:

    "loved plutocracy"

    That's more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump's trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.

    "the untrammeled rule of finance capital"

    Not in evidence.

    "regressive taxation"

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others. The most regressive tax of all, inflation, is beloved by both parties.

    "contempt for international law"

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He's against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.
  19. @WorkingClass
    Who cares what he said. Hamilton was a beautiful and glorious black man. That's what's important.

    “Who cares what he said. Hamilton was a beautiful and glorious black man. That’s what’s important.”

    A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paco Wové
    "A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture."

    But surely he would have identified as a Black Man had he been fortunate enough to live in Current Year.
  20. @Stephen R. Diamond
    O.T.:I don't understand why you don't hear much anything from the right regarding the public schools excusing students en masse to protest an election. Would the school authorities have sanctioned protests against a Clinton victory? I don't think students generally get to decide when to skip class.

    I'm a far leftist, and even I'm disgusted. I certainly don't mind students protesting, but wouldn't anyone prefer to march than attend class?

    Perhaps it’s just now dawning on you that schools haven’t been in the knowledge transmission business for some time. It’s mission is propaganda indoctrination–what to think, not how to think. Another part of its mission is socialization–how to get along with others. This is where politically correct bromides come in to play, e.g. checking your privilege, committing no micro-aggressions, celebrating diversity, etc.

    School authorities sanction Trump protests because school authorities voted for Clinton–so of course they wouldn’t sanction protests against Clinton, had she won.

    Will anyone on the right speak up about this? There’s a chance the right has finally learned not to interrupt the opposition while they are knee-deep digging a hole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Perhaps it’s just now dawning on you that schools haven’t been in the knowledge transmission business for some time. It’s mission is propaganda indoctrination–what to think, not how to think. Another part of its mission is socialization–how to get along with others. This is where politically correct bromides come in to play, e.g. checking your privilege, committing no micro-aggressions, celebrating diversity, etc.

    School authorities sanction Trump protests because school authorities voted for Clinton–so of course they wouldn’t sanction protests against Clinton, had she won.

    Will anyone on the right speak up about this? There’s a chance the right has finally learned not to interrupt the opposition while they are knee-deep digging a hole."

    I graduated from high school in 2003. Back than the Left Wing brainwashing of America's public schools was not as bad as it is today. What a difference 13 years makes.
  21. This is fucking stupid. This isn’t what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    “Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical,’ ” Dixon said onstage.
    “We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us.”

    This is what Trump tweeted ‘HARASSMENT’ about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You don't elect the world's greatest shitposter and then not expect him to shitpost
    , @JimboHarambe
    "Kaz", They attacked the VP elect from the stage while the crowd jeered Pence. watch it, it was NOT polite it was a nasty bullying attack. Imagine if some conservatives had done the same to Obama. The media and left would have blood pouring out of their...whatevers. You are either stupid or a Hillary shill, so go away.
    , @randomname
    The cast statement would have been OK standing alone. But it wasn't standing alone: What I think Trump and many others find offensive is that the statement was implicitly siding with the gutter nonsense from the mostly-rich audience audience members.
    , @Henry's Cat
    I took Trump's tweets as pure trollery. He even threw in something about how the theatre should be a 'safe space'. I doubt it was even Trump; it's probably Bannon.
    , @Judah Benjamin Hur
    You expect Trump to change? :D

    He didn't change after winning the nomination and managed to win so I doubt he'll be any more "Presidential" in the future. Trump is Trump: the Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.


    That said, I can see why he was offended. Pence attends a performance and really shouldn't be lectured. The message was respectful in tone but patronizing in content.
    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/800041205354663936
    , @anonymous
    Uh, Abe Lincoln got harassed by an actor at the theater so the precautionary principle applies.
    And KAZ, substitute "white" for "diverse" in Dixon's hectoring prepared statement and you'll see how a winning proportion of the electorate felt this election about the candidate who went down and her predecessor(s).
    , @Jack Hanson
    You must be a Jeb! voter with that "Ill just lay here and bleed quietly" mentality.
    , @The most deplorable one
    I can see you were not a Trumpp supporter.

    If you don't like it there's always Canada or Mexico for you to relocate to.
    , @guest
    You are floundering in the deep end.

    Admittedly, Trump is conflating the actions of the crowd with that of the show. However, that little lecture was a tacit approval of the audience's rudeness. They could have at least chastised the booers before addressing Pence.

    That being said, the how presumptuous. Your just an actor. I wouldn't lecture you on how to suck a dick if you showed up where I work.
    , @Jack D
    Kaz, you obviously missed on this one. Elections have consequences and this is one of them. Until 2 weeks ago, white people were supposed to submit meekly when a non-white wanted to have a "conversation" with them (i.e. lecture them). We saw this with Sanders, with Christakis at Yale, etc. That era is now officially over.

    If the white cast of a Broadway show had stood before Obama and said, "Mr. President, we're concerned that you are stuffing the Federal bureaucracy with talented tenth blacks who have a chip on their shoulder against white people, that you are undermining our immigration laws with executive orders, that your anti-coal policies are putting white people out of work and we want you to be the President of ALL the people," then the show would have closed the next day and whoever read the speech would never work again.
  22. @Steve Sailer
    In the portrait of Hamilton on the sawbuck, he could slice roast beef with that razor sharp nose.

    Here’s Joseph Ellis on the physical contrast between Burr and Hamilton:

    Burr had the dark and severe coloring of his Edwards ancestry, with black hair receding from the forehead and dark brown, almost black, eyes _ Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair, all of which came together to suggest an animated beam of light to Burr’s somewhat stationary shadow. Whereas Burr’s overall demeanor seemed subdued, as if the compressed energies of New England Puritanism were coiled up inside him, waiting for the opportunity to explode, Hamilton conveyed kinetic energy incessantly ex- pressing itself in bursts of conspicuous brilliance.

    Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair. But, it’s Hamilton who receives the ultimate honor of being an honorary non-White….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair. But, it’s Hamilton who receives the ultimate honor of being an honorary non-White…."

    The more Mediterranean looking Richard Nixon had darker eyes and hair than Bill Clinton, yet it's the more Nordic looking latter that is referred to as an honorary Black man by the African American community, lol.

    Richard Nixon had such a Non Nordic phenotype that he was played by Syrian Jewish actor Dan Hedaya in a film.

    , @Joe Schmoe

    Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair.
     
    Except for they don't.

    Pretty much everyone actually rich enough to get what they really want picks a classically beautiful european, ie., Tiger Woods and every other pro athlete and rich guy.
  23. It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can’t tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @res

    It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected.
     
    One of the interesting features of this post-election season is the new norms for appropriate behavior. It will be interesting to see the reaction when the shoe is on the other foot (and all of this after screams of racism for the slightest criticism of Obama).
    , @Jefferson
    "It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can’t tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would."

    If I'm going to drop a couple of thousand dollars, I would rather spend it traveling to see Wrestlemania 33 next year in Orlando than spend that money on Hamilton. I will get a better bang for my buck entertainment.

    , @Dr. X

    It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can’t tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.
     
    Frankly, it was stupid of Pence to go there in the first place. He should have known better. The Left in the is country is obnoxious, arrogant, rude, childish, juvenile, petulant, and disrespectful. The only way to deal with them is through force -- not by attending their stupid Negro hip-hop "play" and giving it dignity it doesn't deserve by treating it as if it were fine art of some kind.

    If Pence and Trump don't know what the Left is really like, I hope this incident schools them and they give these punks the back of their hand good and hard.
    , @Anon
    Trump should have just called them boorish and low class, because when a guy like Trump says you're low-class, it really has to sting. It got Megyn Kelly to change her hairdo.
  24. @Steve Sailer
    But Chernow's book plays up the politically correct side of Hamilton (against slavery!) and plays down the politically incorrect side (against democracy). Together, the message is: What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the vibrant diversity, too.

    You made the case better than I have for the sort of cherry-picking I imagined. Though, we should be grateful for the crumbs as most of the founders are trashed for any number of (alleged and imagined) sins.

    Read More
  25. In response to Donald J. Trump’s threat that he will cut off funding to sanctuary cities, Rahm Dead Fish Emanuel recently told his NAM supporters in Chicago that they are safe there. Yeah safe in a city that has recently had more murders than New York City and Los Angeles combined. Safe and Chicago go together like Sonny & Cher, Simon & Garfunkel, Hall & Oates, Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons, etc.

    Read More
  26. @Stephen R. Diamond
    O.T.:I don't understand why you don't hear much anything from the right regarding the public schools excusing students en masse to protest an election. Would the school authorities have sanctioned protests against a Clinton victory? I don't think students generally get to decide when to skip class.

    I'm a far leftist, and even I'm disgusted. I certainly don't mind students protesting, but wouldn't anyone prefer to march than attend class?

    The education system has 3.2 million students enrolled in post-secondary education today. The stats are very clear on how people with a post-secondary education vote. The Title IX system has been organized into a progressive ideological boot camp and the drill sergeants are the faculty and administrators.

    I don’t know how schools dismissing students to protest the Constitutional outcome surprises anyone. The schools are waging a war for their future and we haven’t seen anything yet. The student loan crisis needs to be carefully examined for how these institutions can be reined in. Financial aid is not the lifeblood of students, but the lifeblood of the progressive ideology indoctrination system. The universities depend upon adjunct faculty and student indebtedness. These are solvable problems for a Trump administration.

    Read More
  27. Stephen, The Left is currently driving a wedge between them and everyone who does not agree with them in all matters. In two years we vote the House again and I don’t think it will go well for the Dems. The people who were already sick of their shit will be more organized and people like you, who are just starting to see the light will come on board.

    The other possibility is that voters go with the historical trend, and start voting the President’s party out of office. Dems were doing pretty well in 2008.

    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).

    Your tears are delicious.

    Read More
  28. @matt
    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).

    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).

    Sound policy. Revolutionary France was a menace.

    Read More
  29. Imagine Joe Biden at a Rodeo in Texas in November of 2007; he would not be roundly booed, and none of the entertainers would lecture him.

    Texas rednecks have more class than rich people in Manhattan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    They're less sure of themselves--because of the dominant culture, but also because everyone is small before God, etc.
  30. OT

    Professor George Borjas of Harvard has met with and talked about immigration with Jeff Sessions and found him to be unusually knowledgeable. Borjas strongly endorses Sessions for AG.

    https://gborjas.org/2016/11/18/senator-sessions-for-attorney-general/

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    OT

    Professor George Borjas of Harvard has met with and talked about immigration with Jeff Sessions and found him to be unusually knowledgeable. Borjas strongly endorses Sessions for AG.
     
    That's an endorsement that actually means something.
  31. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    You don’t elect the world’s greatest shitposter and then not expect him to shitpost

    Read More
  32. @syonredux
    Here’s Joseph Ellis on the physical contrast between Burr and Hamilton:

    Burr had the dark and severe coloring of his Edwards ancestry, with black hair receding from the forehead and dark brown, almost black, eyes _ Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair, all of which came together to suggest an animated beam of light to Burr’s somewhat stationary shadow. Whereas Burr’s overall demeanor seemed subdued, as if the compressed energies of New England Puritanism were coiled up inside him, waiting for the opportunity to explode, Hamilton conveyed kinetic energy incessantly ex- pressing itself in bursts of conspicuous brilliance.
     
    Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair. But, it’s Hamilton who receives the ultimate honor of being an honorary non-White….

    “Interesting. Current prejudices favor the swarthy over the fair. But, it’s Hamilton who receives the ultimate honor of being an honorary non-White….”

    The more Mediterranean looking Richard Nixon had darker eyes and hair than Bill Clinton, yet it’s the more Nordic looking latter that is referred to as an honorary Black man by the African American community, lol.

    Richard Nixon had such a Non Nordic phenotype that he was played by Syrian Jewish actor Dan Hedaya in a film.

    Read More
  33. @Svigor
    It's really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can't tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected.

    One of the interesting features of this post-election season is the new norms for appropriate behavior. It will be interesting to see the reaction when the shoe is on the other foot (and all of this after screams of racism for the slightest criticism of Obama).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    The left will be as rude as possible toward Trump, claiming the entitlement to do so because of how conservatives treated Obama. The history of how Obama was treated in office will be rewritten many times yet. The left is planning to oppose Trump from day 1--in this case day 1 is not January 20, but rather November 9.
  34. @syonredux

    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).
     
    Sound policy. Revolutionary France was a menace.

    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.
     
    Becoming a tyrant in turn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

    The Drownings at Nantes (French: Noyades de Nantes) were a series of mass executions by drowning during the Reign of Terror in Nantes, France, that occurred between November 1793 and February 1794. During this period, anyone arrested and jailed for not consistently supporting the Revolution, or suspected of being a royalist sympathizer, especially Catholic priests and nuns, was cast into the Loire and drowned on the orders of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, the representative-on-mission in Nantes. Before the murders ceased, as many as four thousand or more people, including innocent families with women and children, died in what Carrier himself called "the national bathtub.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e


    Burke saw what was at stake:

    This mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations, even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia, and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this, which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality, and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions, and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by manners.


    But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. 128
    On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege, are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father, are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance, or in any way, gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.

    On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons; so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems, is equally true as to states:—Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation, which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.

     

    , @Mr. Anon
    "A menace to tyrants. The best kind."

    Nonsense. The Directorate was a far worse tyranny than the reign of the Bourbons was. Just as the Bolsheviks were far, far worse tyrants than the Tsar they replaced.

  35. Hamilton represents the future of America. A better future. A future free from the incompetence and bigotry of white men. To dislike Hamilton is to dislike America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Your cognitive dissonance comes only from your futile attempts to resist Trump Love. I know it's scary. But we love you, brother, sister, whatever. Come on in, Tiny Duck, the water's fine.
    , @Jack D

    A future free from the incompetence....of white men
     
    I usually don't respond to TD but his trolling game has really fallen off since the election. In order to sting, trolling has to at least bear some relation to reality. I really can't wait until the white men are gone and the REALLY competent brown people run things as well as they do in Zimbabwe and Tijuana.

    If we live in a future America where white men are extinct, maybe the food will be spicier and the music will have more beat to it, but the idea that competence will increase does not compute even by imaginary leftist troll standards.
  36. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    “Kaz”, They attacked the VP elect from the stage while the crowd jeered Pence. watch it, it was NOT polite it was a nasty bullying attack. Imagine if some conservatives had done the same to Obama. The media and left would have blood pouring out of their…whatevers. You are either stupid or a Hillary shill, so go away.

    Read More
  37. Trump uses the left’s victim tactics against them. Finally old non Jewish white men can be victims.

    Read More
  38. @Forbes
    I always assumed the Broadway show Hamilton was a retconning, or a historical re-write of the actual Alexander Hamilton to suit the purposes of the PC left. Hamilton was just the device or vessel for the political agenda--in other words, a fictional portrayal.

    It's artistically clever to do an all-black cast (and interpretation) for The Wizard of Oz, and call it The Wiz. Romeo & Juliet as West Side Story was a smash success. Hamilton strikes me as a political vehicle, not an artistic one.

    Blogger Ryan Landry’s theory is that Hamilton is a CIA PsyOp designed to make wealthy white liberals more comfortable living as a minority. The images are designed to make it look like the race of the founders was accidental, and that progressive liberalism will survive without a white majority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    That's the irony - if the founders really looked like what the actors look like, US politics would have ended up being more like Haiti's or Zimbabwe's.
    , @Forbes
    Interesting, clever perspective.
  39. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Trump is a master entertainer. Despite not even attending the play, he was able to become its star. Truly genius. 88d chess.

    Read More
  40. @Paul Kersey
    More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of "good moral character" could get citizenship (the franchise).

    Have a happy thanksgiving, sir. Your hard work, podcasts, etc are most appreciated, especially during the 2016 election.

    Read More
  41. @matt
    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.

    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.

    Becoming a tyrant in turn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

    The Drownings at Nantes (French: Noyades de Nantes) were a series of mass executions by drowning during the Reign of Terror in Nantes, France, that occurred between November 1793 and February 1794. During this period, anyone arrested and jailed for not consistently supporting the Revolution, or suspected of being a royalist sympathizer, especially Catholic priests and nuns, was cast into the Loire and drowned on the orders of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, the representative-on-mission in Nantes. Before the murders ceased, as many as four thousand or more people, including innocent families with women and children, died in what Carrier himself called “the national bathtub.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e

    Burke saw what was at stake:

    This mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations, even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia, and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this, which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality, and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions, and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by manners.

    But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. 128
    On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege, are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father, are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance, or in any way, gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.

    On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons; so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems, is equally true as to states:—Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation, which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    I'm not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I'll stick to just a few examples.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Praga#Massacre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798#Government

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.
    , @Desiderius

    All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason.
     
    Autism run roughshod.
  42. @Svigor
    It's really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can't tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    “It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can’t tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.”

    If I’m going to drop a couple of thousand dollars, I would rather spend it traveling to see Wrestlemania 33 next year in Orlando than spend that money on Hamilton. I will get a better bang for my buck entertainment.

    Read More
  43. @Svigor
    It's really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can't tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    It’s really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can’t tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    Frankly, it was stupid of Pence to go there in the first place. He should have known better. The Left in the is country is obnoxious, arrogant, rude, childish, juvenile, petulant, and disrespectful. The only way to deal with them is through force — not by attending their stupid Negro hip-hop “play” and giving it dignity it doesn’t deserve by treating it as if it were fine art of some kind.

    If Pence and Trump don’t know what the Left is really like, I hope this incident schools them and they give these punks the back of their hand good and hard.

    Read More
  44. @Forbes
    Perhaps it's just now dawning on you that schools haven't been in the knowledge transmission business for some time. It's mission is propaganda indoctrination--what to think, not how to think. Another part of its mission is socialization--how to get along with others. This is where politically correct bromides come in to play, e.g. checking your privilege, committing no micro-aggressions, celebrating diversity, etc.

    School authorities sanction Trump protests because school authorities voted for Clinton--so of course they wouldn't sanction protests against Clinton, had she won.

    Will anyone on the right speak up about this? There's a chance the right has finally learned not to interrupt the opposition while they are knee-deep digging a hole.

    “Perhaps it’s just now dawning on you that schools haven’t been in the knowledge transmission business for some time. It’s mission is propaganda indoctrination–what to think, not how to think. Another part of its mission is socialization–how to get along with others. This is where politically correct bromides come in to play, e.g. checking your privilege, committing no micro-aggressions, celebrating diversity, etc.

    School authorities sanction Trump protests because school authorities voted for Clinton–so of course they wouldn’t sanction protests against Clinton, had she won.

    Will anyone on the right speak up about this? There’s a chance the right has finally learned not to interrupt the opposition while they are knee-deep digging a hole.”

    I graduated from high school in 2003. Back than the Left Wing brainwashing of America’s public schools was not as bad as it is today. What a difference 13 years makes.

    Read More
  45. @sf
    Hamilton himself was a British citizen born in the British West Indies to a British father and French mother. On moving to New York, another British colony, in 1772, he retained his British citizenship (until July 4, 1776). So he was no more an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers.

    You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a “mixed” child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Now, hold it, hold it. Question: was Hamilton "mixed", as in Mulatto? A la Sally Hennings? This definition of a mixed person was well known at the time, especially in the South.

    In other words, Hamilton's "mixed" was a mere trifle compared to say, if he were an octomoroon, or a mulatto. The larger point of course, that Hamilton was a Spaniard/Amerindian mixture a la the actor currently playing him on Broadway, is laughably ignorant of the actual historical record, as well as the idea that major Founding Fathers and their friends would've been African-American or mulatto in origin is simply asinine to contemplate.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a “mixed” child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time."

    That is ahistorical, and - unsurprisingly, coming from you - ridiculously stupid. Nearly every monarch in Europe was "mixed" in that regard. Were the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs or the Romanovs or the Hanoverians considered to be "marginalized" people?
    , @S. Anonyia
    French and English = mixed?

    How would that be considered undesirable? You do realize the English always found the French pretty fashionable right? And that English monarchs regularly had French spouses. And many French colonial immigrants had a lot of money. On the side of my family that has colonial ancestry, I have found many French-English pairings, albeit switched, with a French father and English mother. I'm assuming the woman was "marrying up" in most cases.
  46. @Paul Kersey
    More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of "good moral character" could get citizenship (the franchise).

    “More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise).”

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils.”

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites–his brethren–in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a “good white” or a “bad white”?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. "Melting Pot" today can mean various things, as in "whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color".

    "The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided."

    No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent.

    Your statement, judging by the results of how the historical record, (how things played out in actual practice) is basically bullshit.

    For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country. After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren't very many "refugees", or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers. In the 1950's, "Operation Wetback" was explicitly designed to curb the tide of (at that time) what was seen as runaway Mexican immigration.

    Dunno about anyone here, but ca.90% appears to be a clear majority for any one single ethny or racial makeup of a nation.
    , @Opinionator
    Your evidence that intermixing among Europeans was frowned upon is what?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself."

    Right, which is why there were french huguenots in Germany, or Germans in Russia and Romania, or......etc. You are evidently as ignorant of european history as you are of so many other things. In any event, it certainly wasn't a world mixing pot, the very idea of which would have been abhorent to early Americans.

    "Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations."

    They left lots of things unsaid. They never imagined that so much of the country would fall into the hands of people who were hostile to the founding stock of the nation.

    " The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.""

    Then why did they enact it? No, it is you who are misguided. Or just lying.

    , @guest
    Melting pot my butt. That term comes from the 29th century, when they had the means, through mass education, mass media, and mass consumption to propagandize everyone into submission.
    , @guest
    "a big no-no in Europe itself"

    Which is why they had all those ethnic conflicts, cleansings, separatist movements, and so forth later on. Because no peoples intermixed before.
    , @reiner Tor

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.
     
    That's false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans. Even mixing with some other races wasn't totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled. (At the time, after the destruction of the Turkish wars, there was a lot of unsettled land which could be distributed among these families as an incentive to both parties in these marriages.) So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a "big no-no" in the 18th century.
    , @Lurker

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.
     
    I'm English (mostly) and I had an Italian ancestor arrive here in 1699. He married the grandaughter of the Lord Mayor of Newcastle (he was also an MP) ie not a mere peasant. How did that happen if intermixing of Europeans was a big no-no? And his children kept his name, they didn't anglicise.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Hamilton, the other Founding Fathers, and the Republic's original legislators knew what they were doing and did what they wrote. It took an honest sociological researcher over 200 years to figure out they were right (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract). Putnam's research basically confirmed many of Hamilton's observations. Putnam has spent the past fifteen years since publishing his research furiously backpedaling from reality to get back in the good graces of his SJW compatriots.

    BTW, making up historical realities to support an argument, in the hope you'll get away with the con was - and I can only hope still is - regarded as an automatic loss in formal debating if you're opponents call you out on it. My impression is that most oif your audience here is far more informed than you, individually and collectively, and particularly in the areas of history and current events. It might be best to eschew the con job approach and made up history in the future.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    a big no-no in Europe itself.


    I won't heap on any more than other posters have to this statement, other than to ask, do you even spend five seconds considering what you're typing? You post a lot of stuff like this.
  47. @syonredux

    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.
     
    Becoming a tyrant in turn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

    The Drownings at Nantes (French: Noyades de Nantes) were a series of mass executions by drowning during the Reign of Terror in Nantes, France, that occurred between November 1793 and February 1794. During this period, anyone arrested and jailed for not consistently supporting the Revolution, or suspected of being a royalist sympathizer, especially Catholic priests and nuns, was cast into the Loire and drowned on the orders of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, the representative-on-mission in Nantes. Before the murders ceased, as many as four thousand or more people, including innocent families with women and children, died in what Carrier himself called "the national bathtub.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e


    Burke saw what was at stake:

    This mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations, even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia, and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this, which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality, and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions, and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by manners.


    But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. 128
    On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege, are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father, are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance, or in any way, gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.

    On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons; so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems, is equally true as to states:—Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation, which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.

     

    I’m not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I’ll stick to just a few examples.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Praga#Massacre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798#Government

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I’m not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I’ll stick to just a few examples.

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

     

    Don't sell them short, dear fellow. The French Revolutionaries committed atrocities with such gusto and verve.And then there's the 20 plus years of slaughter that they initiated:

    French Revolution (1789-94)
    Encarta, "French Revolution"
    Reign of Terror
    Executed with Trial: 17,000
    Executed w/o Trial: 12,000
    Died in jail: "thousands"
    TOTAL: 40,000
    Vendee rebellion: 100,000
    Britannica: 17,000 executed and 10,000 died in jail during the Reign of Terror.
    James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): 300-600,000 men, women, children k. in suppression of Vendée revolt. ("1793")
    Herbert Rowen, A History of Early Modern Europe: 1500-1815 (1960)
    September Massacres (Paris, 1792): >1,000
    Reign of Terror: 17,000 k. after trial and 20,000 "with less formality".
     

    Saint-Domingue (1791-1803)
    Slave Revolt and Civil War
    Scheina, Latin America's Wars, v.2, p.18
    Haitians: 350,000 d.
    French
    soldiers: only 10,000 survived out of 55,131 sent
    sailors: 10,000 d.
     

    French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)

    Clodfelter
    War of the 1st Coalition, 1792-97
    French: 100,000 combat d.
    Austrian: 94,700
    War of the 2nd Coalition, 1799-1801
    French: 75,000 KIA
    Austrian: 79,520 KIA
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 290,000
    Military. Killed and died: 1,100,000
     

    The Napoleonic Empire, 2d ed (1991, 2003) Geoffrey Ellis (citing Esdaile)
    KIA, Died of Wounds + Camp Disease, France Proper: 1,400,000 during the period 1792-1815, incl. 916,000 [65%] under the Empire.
    Total war dead among all Eur. armies: 3 million during the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Era [65% or 1.95M under the Empire?]
    Civilians: 1 million
     
    And, of course, there's the fact that they served as the model for subsequent radical revolutions (Russia, China, etc).....
  48. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    It’s globo-diversitopian politics posing as Judaeo-Broadway mass entertainment by a mixed-race second-generation propagandist.

    It’s the equivalent on the Live Infotainment front of that other half-Puerto-Rican/dad-was-a-NYC City Hall-racial-mahoff mass culture soopergenius beloved of SWPLs, Neil de Grasse Tyson, aka Black Science Man.

    Hey, if they can Appropriate white science, why not white history?

    Read More
  49. Watching that Miranda video made me so happy once again that Trump won. The smugness…..

    Read More
  50. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    The cast statement would have been OK standing alone. But it wasn’t standing alone: What I think Trump and many others find offensive is that the statement was implicitly siding with the gutter nonsense from the mostly-rich audience audience members.

    Read More
  51. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”.

    “The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.”

    No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent.

    Your statement, judging by the results of how the historical record, (how things played out in actual practice) is basically bullshit.

    For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country. After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers. In the 1950′s, “Operation Wetback” was explicitly designed to curb the tide of (at that time) what was seen as runaway Mexican immigration.

    Dunno about anyone here, but ca.90% appears to be a clear majority for any one single ethny or racial makeup of a nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”."

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    "No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent."

    It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered "anti-white"?

    "For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country."

    The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

    "After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers."

    A product of the times. Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?
  52. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    I took Trump’s tweets as pure trollery. He even threw in something about how the theatre should be a ‘safe space’. I doubt it was even Trump; it’s probably Bannon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat

    the cast lectured Pence from the stage after the final curtain (except that Pence had already slipped out).
     
    I heard that he'd left his seat but witnessed the oration from the aisle.


    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show.
     
    The thing is, you can't really go wrong with a musical, as long as the cast and production has a modicum of professionalism, whereas comedy or drama can seriously stink.
    , @Henry's Cat
    OK, it was actually 'safe....place', but, same difference.
  53. This is a video on the Apollo missions and it mentions states where it was made. No Mexico or China needed.

    00:15 through 1:25.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Thank you. I had forgotten about the unmanned Gemini and Apollo test flights.

    No H-1B workers from other countries needed, either.

    , @antipater_1
    Hey, there are no big fat guys in that video!
  54. @Corvinus
    You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a "mixed" child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.

    Now, hold it, hold it. Question: was Hamilton “mixed”, as in Mulatto? A la Sally Hennings? This definition of a mixed person was well known at the time, especially in the South.

    In other words, Hamilton’s “mixed” was a mere trifle compared to say, if he were an octomoroon, or a mulatto. The larger point of course, that Hamilton was a Spaniard/Amerindian mixture a la the actor currently playing him on Broadway, is laughably ignorant of the actual historical record, as well as the idea that major Founding Fathers and their friends would’ve been African-American or mulatto in origin is simply asinine to contemplate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Hamilton was mixed, the son of a mixed-race woman from the British West Indies.

    Heck, Americans are mixed. They are from different ethnic groups.

    Being "mixed" does not exclusively refer to being mulatto.
  55. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Your evidence that intermixing among Europeans was frowned upon is what?

    Read More
  56. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    If you listen to the recorded version (and the number of people who have experienced it that way far exceeds those who have seen it in the theater), it is easy to forget/ignore the historically inaccurate races of the actors.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Of course it is overhyped, but it is fairly well-constructed as a play (with recurring motifs such as the line “not throwing away my shot” and the act of simply counting from one to ten taking on different meanings in different contexts).

    P.S. There are probably different clips filmed by different people, but at least in the one that I saw, it seemed that as many people cheered Pence as booed him. It was definitely a battle between two factions rather than a unanimous boo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.
     
    Interestingly enough, putting all those Blacks onstage produces a rather curious side-effect: it makes Miranda look vaguely White....

    Of course, in his ancestral Puerto Rico, Miranda would count as a White man, so perhaps the effect was intentional?
    , @keypusher
    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.


    That may be the craziest statement I've read about Hamilton on Steve's blog, and that's saying something. First of all, Miranda doesn't need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.

    http://splitsider.com/2016/10/are-you-not-entertained-lin-manuel-miranda-sings-his-way-through-snl/

    Second, he did not write a hip-hop musical with the idea of casting a bunch of white actors in it. His previous show was about Washington Heights and featured the same kind of cast that Hamilton has.
    , @Wilkey
    "I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast."

    If Miranda wanted to play Alexander Hamilton among an otherwise white cast he could have. Even if he doesn't appear especially British the rules of stage casting would allow it. If an actor does a good job in the role you very quickly forget their skin color.

    No, he wrote a rap musical. He wanted it populated with minorities. His other two big rap musicals - "In the Heights" (which was meh) and "Bring It On" (which was pretty fun) - were also cast largely with minorities. That's the way he wanted it.

    As for the cast "speaking" to Mike Pence (it's hysterically funny and pompous if he wasn't actually there) it's in particularly bad taste to call out anyone in public like that when they aren't in a position to respond, especially after Pence had already been booed by some in the audience. This is why people hate left-wingers. They can keep pulling shit like this, and we can keep hating them even more. Their little stunt may also have killed some of the enthusiasm for their show, especially as it goes on tour.
  57. I haven’t seen or heard Hamilton so I can’t comment on its quality, but it is a difficult challenge for racial minorities (especially blacks and American Indians) to identify with American’s founders. Whites should at least recognize that and hopefully feel some empathy while still being fiercely loyal to our founders. From the perspective of American patriotism, Hamilton seems like a very good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rw95
    Please explain to me how some Slavic peasant from bumblefuck, nowhere has a connection to the dominantly Anglo-Saxon founders of the United States?
  58. @Henry's Cat
    I took Trump's tweets as pure trollery. He even threw in something about how the theatre should be a 'safe space'. I doubt it was even Trump; it's probably Bannon.

    the cast lectured Pence from the stage after the final curtain (except that Pence had already slipped out).

    I heard that he’d left his seat but witnessed the oration from the aisle.

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show.

    The thing is, you can’t really go wrong with a musical, as long as the cast and production has a modicum of professionalism, whereas comedy or drama can seriously stink.

    Read More
  59. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    You expect Trump to change? :D

    He didn’t change after winning the nomination and managed to win so I doubt he’ll be any more “Presidential” in the future. Trump is Trump: the Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.

    That said, I can see why he was offended. Pence attends a performance and really shouldn’t be lectured. The message was respectful in tone but patronizing in content.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ganderson
    "The message was respectful in tone but patronizing in content."

    I'm stealing that, if you don't mind!"
  60. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    Read More
  61. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Democratic Party used to be a southern agrarian, Irish Catholic, immigrant, working class, poor black, Jewish, and Wasp conscience party. (There was a time when it was more about White Conscience than White Guilt. White Conscience was about white Liberals with immense pride in America but aware of the injustices in the treatment of workers and the poor.) It was quite a coalition. Also, Democrats had the women vote.

    The Democratic Party might have remained dominant but for the fact that blacks turned out to be rather crazy. If blacks were merely whites with black skin or like Hindus(dark-skinned Caucasians), I think the Civil Rights Movement would have worked out just fine. The Kennedy-LBJ coalition would have been triumphant.

    But once blacks got equality, they began burning down cities and committing tons of crime. This lost the white working class. And rise of black power in the South drove whites to the GOP.
    There was the youth factor too in the 60s as Democrats became the hothead youth party, and young people got out of control at the 68 Convention, driving older Silent Majority voters to the GOP. A good many of these youths were radical Jews, but there were troublesome youths of all color.
    But youth wasn’t a long-term factor since young people eventually grow up and mellow out.
    In contrast, blacks remained black in behavior despite the passage of yrs.

    If blacks had been sane, I think Democrats would have pretty much ruled. US would have become like Social-Democratic dominant Europe.

    But blacks weren’t merely problematic but downright disastrous all across America, destroying entire communities, even entire cities as in Detroit and Baltimore.

    Black drove so many people away from the Democratic party that the Democrats might have gone nearly extinct but for the Jews(who loathed the GOP as the Wasp-dominant party). Whereas white ethnics didn’t mind joining the GOP and playing second fiddle to dominant Wasps, Jews didn’t want to play second fiddle to anyone. Since GOP was so wasp-dominant, Jews stuck with the Democratic Party, and that kep the Party going.

    Indeed, imagine American history from the late 60s without Jews. Democratic Party would be bleeding support largely due to black violence and nuttery. Blacks would be going nuts, and southern whites and working class whites move to GOP. And even liberal women are scared of black crime and become suburban soccer moms. Urban areas are falling apart from black assault.

    But the Democrats had the Jews with immense wealth, control of media and academia, and pull on politicians dependent on Jewish donations. Also, with control of media and academia, Jews gained great influence over even GOP and conservatives due to their control of Narrative. The Narrative made even GOP and conservatives sing hosannas to MLK, denounce ‘racism’, and worship the Holocaust.

    This Narrative changed White Conscience into White Guilt. The White Conscience of men like FDR and LBJ was about noblesse oblige(though not without political cynicism as LBJ wanted to lock in the black votes). It was about magnanimity. But White Guilt is about atonement and redemption. It is about White Shame and Abasement.

    [MORE]

    This control of the Narrative robbed the ascendant GOP of moral arsenal(except in the Cold War against Communism which became an easy moral target as communist Southeast Asia turned into hellhole and truths came out about Russian and Chinese horrors under communism).

    Without Jewish power and influence, there might have been no Democratic monopoly of the Narrative. There might still have been self-critical white gentile liberals, but their mode would have been more of White Conscience than White Guilt.
    Also, without Jewish money, far fewer politicians would have been bought by the Democratic Machine. Even without Jews, blacks would have bitched and whined about ‘racism’ and other problems, but as blacks wouldn’t have had control of media and academia, their reach would have been limited. Indeed, Obama the first black prez was totally a Jewish creation.

    Also, if there had been no Jewish Factor, there would have been no worship of Israel and the takeover of the GOP by the Neocon faction. And there would have been no homomania either. Homos would still be a tolerated sexual minority than a much-adulated holy group.

    Blacks destroyed the Democratic coalition by scaring so many folks half to death, but Jews held it together with their money, smarts, connections, and influence. Money and influence go a long way. Also, Jewish money kept enough economy in the cities and afforded enough people to keep control of the downtown core from which gentrification could one day grow outward.

    But Jews did sense the problem with blacks. And this is where Jews came to depend more on immigrants for the long term strategy. Without rising tide of immigrants, Jews cannot succeed for long with blacks alone. Blacks drive out too many people from the Democratic coalition. And blacks never change. Even after so many decades, we still have BLM craziness full of pathology, insanity, thuggery, and lunacy.

    So, in the long run, blacks will have to be made to take a backseat to the immigrants. Now, immigrants aren’t necessarily ‘natural liberals’, but there are reasons why they lean Democratic for the time being.
    With Mexicans, the reasons for their pro-Democratic leaning is (1) resentment at richer gringo (2) brown power by more immigration (3) welfare and benefits.
    With Asians, the only rule is they go with the power and prestige. Since PC is law of the land and since all the rich cities and elite institutions are Democratic, the yellows just follow along like dogs. Yellows don’t have much in the way of agency or foresight.

    As of now and for the foreseeable future, Four Groups really matter in US politics.
    All this talk of diversity really misses the point. Yes, US has people from all over the world, but most don’t add up to much. I mean what do Nepalese-Americans or Turkmenistan-Americans amount to?

    The ones that matter are white gentiles obviously, still the majority.

    Jews who are only 2% but very smart and very powerful.

    Blacks who number over 40 million, scare lots of folks, have MLK holiness, and dominate badass cred of pop culture. Blacks produce lots of negative cultural trends like ‘twerking’, but they do catch on. Also, as black Africa is exploding, many more will come. Also, as there is brain-drain effect of bringing higher-IQ black Africans, the future of US may be black-American masses being led by black African elites and mulattos. Indeed, Obama is sort of that kind of person. Even in Hollywood, we often see the casting of black African actors over black American ones. And in elite colleges, the kinds of ‘black Americans’ that the white elites rub shoulders with are black African immigrant in origin. Can black Africans claim Selma when their ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites? Everyone is mum about this, but maybe this should be made an issue. Why should black Africans get affirmative action and claim the mantle of Selma when their history is so different? Imagine Mongolians who arrived recently claiming the narrative of Japanese internment camps. It’d be ridiculous.

    Browns. Browns may be ‘mediocre’, but they are huge in number and keep growing, and their votes really matter in certain states. And even in states without many of them, they can tip the balance against the GOP.

    As for the rest, they don’t matter. Status-obsessed and/or imitative Asians just go with the winner(who happen to be Democrats in elite centers of power even after the GOP victory in 2016). They will follow any side that has the privilege and prestige.
    To be sure, Hindus are more independent-minded than yellows(and India may become the #1 source of immigration to the US in the future), but they, along with Muslims, don’t really have a hold on the American political or cultural imagination. When Hindus, Muslims, and yellows bitch about problems, even white Americans just shut their ears or tell them to shut up.
    While some Hindus are very smart and join in the intellectual debate, everything they say is hand-me-down PC from whites. They are lively but rarely original.

    As for homos, their power is considerable but depends largely on Jews. Homos, along with trannies, are on top now, but they don’t have independent power. They are on an artificial high because the ruling minority elites of Jews favor them. If Jewish power goes, homo power will begin to dissipate.

    So, the future of Democratic Party depends on Jews, White Guilt gentiles, blacks, and browns. (Asians and Muslims will go for the ride, but they won’t be significant.) Homos are important but mini-me’s of Jews essentially, or proxy of Zion.

    Question is…

    How can more white guilt gentiles be ‘redpilled’?

    How can blacks be persuaded that mass immigration has turned them from the First Minority(biggest and most important minority) into the Second Minority(surpassed by browns) and even third minority(given there is so much more fanfare about homos)? Blacks who heard about Hillary’s Open Borders plan couldn’t have been happy about US being open to 600 million ‘Latinos’. For nearly all of American history, blacks were the undisputed First Minority, but within a few decades after the passage of Immigration Act, blacks became the Second Minority. Also, all immigrant groups seem to pass ahead of blacks in most areas except sports and music. Government jobs are one area where blacks do have a certain quota-filled lock, but they might come under more competition for government jobs as private sector becomes a less secure place for jobs.

    How serious will PC turn pro-BDS and begin to really scare Jews?

    As for browns, might there be a way to drive a wedge between white ones, brown ones, and other ones(such as blacks)? White Hispanics are among the dirtiest bunch of a-holes, posing as ‘people of color’ and blaming ‘gringo’ for all the problems when it was their Conquistador ancestors who created all the mess in ‘Latin America’.

    If there is a way to make non-white ‘Latinos’ move against white Latinos, the latter will have no choice but to identify as white and maybe join with whites. Of course, they prefer the fact that they are white or whiter than short stocky mestizos and indios, but they feel a degree of inferiority complex vis-a-vis lighter northern Europeans. It’s like what Southern Italians have long in relation to lighter-skinned northern Europeans.
    But if Southern Italians still regard themselves as white, Latin whites have been posing as ‘people of color’.
    There might a way to crack that nut.

    Of course, it is advantageous for Latin whites to identify as ‘mestizo’ since they are minorities in Latin American nations. If they make too much fuss about their whiteness, the masses of non-whites might target them as the oppressors. But if they make their whiteness invisible by pretending to be part of the Latin American melting pot — where all races have harmoniously mixed together — , they can direct the ire of the non-whites masses at the white ‘yanqui’ and ‘gringo’. It is ironic that America, that makes so much fuss about the evils of Jim Crow and Apartheid, has essentially aided the ‘white supremacist’ domination of Latin America by Conquistador-American elites, sometimes by repressive means that cost 100,000s of lives in places like Guatemala. I guess Latin America avoided the full scrutiny of this bloodbath because it is at least officially all about race-mixing. Official Propaganda goes a long way to divert our eyes from the actual truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rw95
    Do you feel better now?
    How many white children have you had? For that matter, how many white children does Steve have? We already know the Derb failed on that part...
  62. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Svigor
    It's really low-class to boo a Vice-President, just for having the temerity to get himself elected. He has to maintain the dignity of his office. He can't tell them all to go @(!* themselves, like I would.

    Trump should have just called them boorish and low class, because when a guy like Trump says you’re low-class, it really has to sting. It got Megyn Kelly to change her hairdo.

    Read More
  63. In future, any SWPLs or SJWs who complain about cultural appropriation should be directed to Hamilton and told to stuff it. I can’t think of any greater meso-aggression than appropriating white anglo-saxon american culture by turning the founding fathers into rappin’ black and brown dudes.

    And putting it on in the Richard Rodgers theater too – Jesus wept! Rodgers was one of the great American composers – a fine artist, who wrote music of great sophistication and beauty – and now his namesake theater features a bunch of vile snoop-doggery.

    Read More
  64. @Steve Sailer
    But Chernow's book plays up the politically correct side of Hamilton (against slavery!) and plays down the politically incorrect side (against democracy). Together, the message is: What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the vibrant diversity, too.

    Against Democracy is hardly politically incorrect. The Left has really turned on Democracy in the last several years.

    Read More
  65. It is disgraceful that the cast of a musical would behave in such a manner. Pence and his party should have the price of their tickets refunded. What is the point of traveling to New York if you can’t enjoy a show in peace out of working hours regardless of your political affiliation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this. The vile singling out of Pence and his family was abhorrent. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed ( I think the Flotus said "proud") of the United States. These actors are mean-spirited and downright abusive. I have never seen actors call out a publicly elected figure out like this, and ENJOY excoriating him - I sensed the humiliation of Pence, his daughters and wife- it was abhorrent to witness. I am still appalled and disgusted. There truly is no decency and respect anymore. Everyone here knows that I voted for Obama in the past, but now, now, now, now...I wish nothing but bad luck for these brazenly cruel actors, and anyone who was stupid enough to vote for the corrupt Hillary. I am sick of these whiny so-called "progressives;" get a fracking life and move the eff on! Please move to Mexico, Venezuela, somewhere. I predict that Hamilton musical will suffer a big league backlash for humiliating the Presidency, you just don't go LOW like that on a basically, international stage. scuzzbuckets.
    , @anon
    maybe you should just stay away from New York and catch the white version of Hamilton when it hits Indianapolis 2020
  66. @matt
    I'm not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I'll stick to just a few examples.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Praga#Massacre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798#Government

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

    I’m not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I’ll stick to just a few examples.

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

    Don’t sell them short, dear fellow. The French Revolutionaries committed atrocities with such gusto and verve.And then there’s the 20 plus years of slaughter that they initiated:

    French Revolution (1789-94)
    Encarta, “French Revolution”
    Reign of Terror
    Executed with Trial: 17,000
    Executed w/o Trial: 12,000
    Died in jail: “thousands”
    TOTAL: 40,000
    Vendee rebellion: 100,000
    Britannica: 17,000 executed and 10,000 died in jail during the Reign of Terror.
    James Trager, The People’s Chronology (1992): 300-600,000 men, women, children k. in suppression of Vendée revolt. (“1793″)
    Herbert Rowen, A History of Early Modern Europe: 1500-1815 (1960)
    September Massacres (Paris, 1792): >1,000
    Reign of Terror: 17,000 k. after trial and 20,000 “with less formality”.

    Saint-Domingue (1791-1803)
    Slave Revolt and Civil War
    Scheina, Latin America’s Wars, v.2, p.18
    Haitians: 350,000 d.
    French
    soldiers: only 10,000 survived out of 55,131 sent
    sailors: 10,000 d.

    French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)

    Clodfelter
    War of the 1st Coalition, 1792-97
    French: 100,000 combat d.
    Austrian: 94,700
    War of the 2nd Coalition, 1799-1801
    French: 75,000 KIA
    Austrian: 79,520 KIA
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 290,000
    Military. Killed and died: 1,100,000

    The Napoleonic Empire, 2d ed (1991, 2003) Geoffrey Ellis (citing Esdaile)
    KIA, Died of Wounds + Camp Disease, France Proper: 1,400,000 during the period 1792-1815, incl. 916,000 [65%] under the Empire.
    Total war dead among all Eur. armies: 3 million during the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Era [65% or 1.95M under the Empire?]
    Civilians: 1 million

    And, of course, there’s the fact that they served as the model for subsequent radical revolutions (Russia, China, etc)…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you're completely cool with it. I'm sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, "Honest" Abe.
    , @matt
    If we're counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.

    Besides, if we're laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.

  67. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Ha, ha brilliant...reverse Psy_ops! I feel much better now!
  68. @James Kabala
    If you listen to the recorded version (and the number of people who have experienced it that way far exceeds those who have seen it in the theater), it is easy to forget/ignore the historically inaccurate races of the actors.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Of course it is overhyped, but it is fairly well-constructed as a play (with recurring motifs such as the line "not throwing away my shot" and the act of simply counting from one to ten taking on different meanings in different contexts).

    P.S. There are probably different clips filmed by different people, but at least in the one that I saw, it seemed that as many people cheered Pence as booed him. It was definitely a battle between two factions rather than a unanimous boo.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Interestingly enough, putting all those Blacks onstage produces a rather curious side-effect: it makes Miranda look vaguely White….

    Of course, in his ancestral Puerto Rico, Miranda would count as a White man, so perhaps the effect was intentional?

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Interestingly enough, putting all those Blacks onstage produces a rather curious side-effect: it makes Miranda look vaguely White….

    Of course, in his ancestral Puerto Rico, Miranda would count as a White man, so perhaps the effect was intentional?


    Like dyed-blonde creole Beyonce surrounding herself with darker, kinky-afroed backup dancers at the Superbowl?
  69. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    Uh, Abe Lincoln got harassed by an actor at the theater so the precautionary principle applies.
    And KAZ, substitute “white” for “diverse” in Dixon’s hectoring prepared statement and you’ll see how a winning proportion of the electorate felt this election about the candidate who went down and her predecessor(s).

    Read More
  70. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    You must be a Jeb! voter with that “Ill just lay here and bleed quietly” mentality.

    Read More
  71. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    I can see you were not a Trumpp supporter.

    If you don’t like it there’s always Canada or Mexico for you to relocate to.

    Read More
  72. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    “Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.”

    Right, which is why there were french huguenots in Germany, or Germans in Russia and Romania, or……etc. You are evidently as ignorant of european history as you are of so many other things. In any event, it certainly wasn’t a world mixing pot, the very idea of which would have been abhorent to early Americans.

    “Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations.”

    They left lots of things unsaid. They never imagined that so much of the country would fall into the hands of people who were hostile to the founding stock of the nation.

    ” The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.””

    Then why did they enact it? No, it is you who are misguided. Or just lying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Right, which is why there were french huguenots in Germany, or Germans in Russia and Romania, or……etc. You are evidently as ignorant of european history as you are of so many other things. In any event, it certainly wasn’t a world mixing pot, the very idea of which would have been abhorent to early Americans."

    First, there were French Huguenots in those areas because of a common religious bond.

    Second, the ethnic mixing that took place was a social taboo, as it lead to conflict. I thought whites were to get along with one another.

    Third, I never said anything about a "world melting pot", you made that characterization. I made it clear that it was an American concept.

    “They left lots of things unsaid. They never imagined that so much of the country would fall into the hands of people who were hostile to the founding stock of the nation."

    Like whites from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Greece? Again, it is indisputable that Congress was given the authority to determine the citizenship for future generations.

    "Then why did they enact it? No, it is you who are misguided. Or just lying."

    They put in place those standards as a product of the times. Times change.
  73. @Stephen R. Diamond
    O.T.:I don't understand why you don't hear much anything from the right regarding the public schools excusing students en masse to protest an election. Would the school authorities have sanctioned protests against a Clinton victory? I don't think students generally get to decide when to skip class.

    I'm a far leftist, and even I'm disgusted. I certainly don't mind students protesting, but wouldn't anyone prefer to march than attend class?

    They have. It’s just that schools are run by the far left so nothing happens.

    Read More
  74. At first glance, the Obamaesque agitprop at the end seemed just a case of bad manners. But what other choice did the cast have, once they knew Pence was in the house? They had to defend their brand. Imagine their discomfort at being lynched by their own PC mob the next morning for not piping up?

    Read More
  75. @syonredux

    I’m not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I’ll stick to just a few examples.

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

     

    Don't sell them short, dear fellow. The French Revolutionaries committed atrocities with such gusto and verve.And then there's the 20 plus years of slaughter that they initiated:

    French Revolution (1789-94)
    Encarta, "French Revolution"
    Reign of Terror
    Executed with Trial: 17,000
    Executed w/o Trial: 12,000
    Died in jail: "thousands"
    TOTAL: 40,000
    Vendee rebellion: 100,000
    Britannica: 17,000 executed and 10,000 died in jail during the Reign of Terror.
    James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): 300-600,000 men, women, children k. in suppression of Vendée revolt. ("1793")
    Herbert Rowen, A History of Early Modern Europe: 1500-1815 (1960)
    September Massacres (Paris, 1792): >1,000
    Reign of Terror: 17,000 k. after trial and 20,000 "with less formality".
     

    Saint-Domingue (1791-1803)
    Slave Revolt and Civil War
    Scheina, Latin America's Wars, v.2, p.18
    Haitians: 350,000 d.
    French
    soldiers: only 10,000 survived out of 55,131 sent
    sailors: 10,000 d.
     

    French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)

    Clodfelter
    War of the 1st Coalition, 1792-97
    French: 100,000 combat d.
    Austrian: 94,700
    War of the 2nd Coalition, 1799-1801
    French: 75,000 KIA
    Austrian: 79,520 KIA
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 290,000
    Military. Killed and died: 1,100,000
     

    The Napoleonic Empire, 2d ed (1991, 2003) Geoffrey Ellis (citing Esdaile)
    KIA, Died of Wounds + Camp Disease, France Proper: 1,400,000 during the period 1792-1815, incl. 916,000 [65%] under the Empire.
    Total war dead among all Eur. armies: 3 million during the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Era [65% or 1.95M under the Empire?]
    Civilians: 1 million
     
    And, of course, there's the fact that they served as the model for subsequent radical revolutions (Russia, China, etc).....

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.
     
    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.
  76. @syonredux

    I’m not really interested in endlessly trading late 18th century atrocity porn with you, so I’ll stick to just a few examples.

    Yes, the Jacobins were violent people in a violent era. Shocking.

     

    Don't sell them short, dear fellow. The French Revolutionaries committed atrocities with such gusto and verve.And then there's the 20 plus years of slaughter that they initiated:

    French Revolution (1789-94)
    Encarta, "French Revolution"
    Reign of Terror
    Executed with Trial: 17,000
    Executed w/o Trial: 12,000
    Died in jail: "thousands"
    TOTAL: 40,000
    Vendee rebellion: 100,000
    Britannica: 17,000 executed and 10,000 died in jail during the Reign of Terror.
    James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): 300-600,000 men, women, children k. in suppression of Vendée revolt. ("1793")
    Herbert Rowen, A History of Early Modern Europe: 1500-1815 (1960)
    September Massacres (Paris, 1792): >1,000
    Reign of Terror: 17,000 k. after trial and 20,000 "with less formality".
     

    Saint-Domingue (1791-1803)
    Slave Revolt and Civil War
    Scheina, Latin America's Wars, v.2, p.18
    Haitians: 350,000 d.
    French
    soldiers: only 10,000 survived out of 55,131 sent
    sailors: 10,000 d.
     

    French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)

    Clodfelter
    War of the 1st Coalition, 1792-97
    French: 100,000 combat d.
    Austrian: 94,700
    War of the 2nd Coalition, 1799-1801
    French: 75,000 KIA
    Austrian: 79,520 KIA
    Urlanis
    K. in Battle: 290,000
    Military. Killed and died: 1,100,000
     

    The Napoleonic Empire, 2d ed (1991, 2003) Geoffrey Ellis (citing Esdaile)
    KIA, Died of Wounds + Camp Disease, France Proper: 1,400,000 during the period 1792-1815, incl. 916,000 [65%] under the Empire.
    Total war dead among all Eur. armies: 3 million during the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Era [65% or 1.95M under the Empire?]
    Civilians: 1 million
     
    And, of course, there's the fact that they served as the model for subsequent radical revolutions (Russia, China, etc).....

    If we’re counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.

    Besides, if we’re laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    If we’re counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.
     
    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years' War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent. As I noted upthread, the French Revolutionaries had a lot in common with their "tyrannical" predecessors....

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.
     
    Being awfully Hegelian there, dear fellow.....

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.
     
    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!

    Besides, if we’re laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.
     
    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau.....). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.
    , @PV van der Byl
    Sen's comparison with India is completely dishonest. The comparison should be made between Communist China and KMT-ruled Taiwan. Communist China didn't "save" any lives.

    Quite the contrary.
  77. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    I saw it before it was a huge deal and went in not really knowing much about it other than it was the story of Alexander Hamilton set to hip hop. I thought it was pretty decent – similar to 1776 in artistic license but it’s catchy with a strong dramatic arc and hey if it at least teaches the kids who Alexander Hamilton is that’s not the worst thing. I noticed the rah-rah-immigration overtones at the time and thought, well, maybe people won’t take that away as the main point. But I guess it wound up being the main point.

    Read More
  78. @syonredux

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.
     
    Interestingly enough, putting all those Blacks onstage produces a rather curious side-effect: it makes Miranda look vaguely White....

    Of course, in his ancestral Puerto Rico, Miranda would count as a White man, so perhaps the effect was intentional?

    Interestingly enough, putting all those Blacks onstage produces a rather curious side-effect: it makes Miranda look vaguely White….

    Of course, in his ancestral Puerto Rico, Miranda would count as a White man, so perhaps the effect was intentional?

    Like dyed-blonde creole Beyonce surrounding herself with darker, kinky-afroed backup dancers at the Superbowl?

    Read More
  79. @Corvinus
    You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a "mixed" child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.

    “You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a “mixed” child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.”

    That is ahistorical, and – unsurprisingly, coming from you – ridiculously stupid. Nearly every monarch in Europe was “mixed” in that regard. Were the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs or the Romanovs or the Hanoverians considered to be “marginalized” people?

    Read More
  80. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Slightly OT: The left have drifted off into total nutjobism. I hang out on a discussion board that has nothing to do with politics, but which has a number of liberals, and the fear and paranoia among them is simply off the charts. They’re afraid Trump’s government is going to come after them for their posts, and they’re begging to have their entire posting histories deleted. Frankly, this paranoia reeks of a guilty conscience. They’ve been hassling conservatives for years, and they’re frightened they’re going to be treated the same way. The Hamilton crew’s speech is of the same ilk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Yeah, the left is fearful that Trump is going to do to them what they want to do to Trump. So in that way, the fear is completely self-induced--even as you say, total nutjobism. But there is a tincture of logic. They made Trump out to be a monster and the monster was elected, so presumably Trump will act as a monster. You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves in to.
  81. @matt
    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.

    “A menace to tyrants. The best kind.”

    Nonsense. The Directorate was a far worse tyranny than the reign of the Bourbons was. Just as the Bolsheviks were far, far worse tyrants than the Tsar they replaced.

    Read More
  82. @James Kabala
    If you listen to the recorded version (and the number of people who have experienced it that way far exceeds those who have seen it in the theater), it is easy to forget/ignore the historically inaccurate races of the actors.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Of course it is overhyped, but it is fairly well-constructed as a play (with recurring motifs such as the line "not throwing away my shot" and the act of simply counting from one to ten taking on different meanings in different contexts).

    P.S. There are probably different clips filmed by different people, but at least in the one that I saw, it seemed that as many people cheered Pence as booed him. It was definitely a battle between two factions rather than a unanimous boo.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    That may be the craziest statement I’ve read about Hamilton on Steve’s blog, and that’s saying something. First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.

    http://splitsider.com/2016/10/are-you-not-entertained-lin-manuel-miranda-sings-his-way-through-snl/

    Second, he did not write a hip-hop musical with the idea of casting a bunch of white actors in it. His previous show was about Washington Heights and featured the same kind of cast that Hamilton has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail."

    In that picture he looks like the many Arab cab drivers in New York City. He doesn't look White enough where he could me mistaken for a Donald Trump supporter.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I agree with your comment, except for:

    First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white

     

    He doesn’t look white, unless you also count MENA Caucasoids as white. (I don’t.) He’s not as solidly ‘vibrant’ as some of the more hip-hoppity cast members, but he isn’t quite white, either. ‘Mystery meat’ might be the best (unsentimental) phenotypical descriptor.
    , @James Kabala
    I didn't mean that he ever actually intended to cast it with white actors. I think it was all bound up together in his mind from the very beginning - I will write it in hip-hop style, I will be the star, and the cast will all be black. But "I will be the star" was probably the most important part in his mind. And it certainly worked for him!

    And obviously his previous works set in minority milieus had minority casts.

  83. @Jasper Been
    Does Hamilton actually have a plot, or is it just a bunch of vibrantly diverse and oh so fabulous people prancing around and singing, play-acting that POC played a role in laying the foundations for this country?

    A bit surprised Mike Pence uh, subjected himself to seeing the show. Hell I am much further to the left than him and I have no interest in seeing it.

    I’ve shilled for Hamilton enough here, and Steve does it better anyway. But speaking as someone who sees a lot of musicals, there’s more brains in Hamilton than in all the shows in a normal Broadway season put together. Just because it’s propaganda for the multicult and a lot of hateful people like it doesn’t mean it’s not great.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    You just nailed the problem with our culture right there. The people who designate shows as "great" tend to be the foes of western civilization. You said that it's propaganda and hateful yet still all the cool people want to go see it.

    I won't have it anymore. No matter the music or the lights or the acting or whatever, if it trashes my beliefs and history, it doesn't get a cent of my money. Call me a fuddyduddy, I don't care. Fortunately for me there's plenty of high quality art and music still in existence that I'll happily pay to see and hear.
    , @Olorin

    Just because it’s propaganda for the multicult and a lot of hateful people like it doesn’t mean it’s not great.
     
    So greatness means...what, again?

    But speaking as someone who sees a lot of musicals, there’s more brains in Hamilton than in all the shows in a normal Broadway season put together.
     
    Feinting with damning praise.

    I guess that qualifies, here in the Golden Aeon of Participation Trophies.

  84. @matt
    If we're counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.

    Besides, if we're laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.

    If we’re counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.

    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years’ War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent. As I noted upthread, the French Revolutionaries had a lot in common with their “tyrannical” predecessors….

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.

    Being awfully Hegelian there, dear fellow…..

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.

    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!

    Besides, if we’re laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.

    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau…..). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt

    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years’ War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent.
     
    You're forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France's quest for domination.

    Being awfully Hegelian there fellow, dear fellow...
     
    I'm not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven't read them, but in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, look here.

    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!
     
    .

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn't speak at all to my point.

    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau…..). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.
     
    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were "dutiful imitators" of the Jacobins, you'd have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins' respect for bourgeois property (that of traitors and émigrés excepted), Marx and Engels' critique of the Terror, etc. I will be pleasantly surprised if you accomplish this task, but my hopes are not high, given that your historical erudition seems to consist of copying and pasting long block-quotes from Wikipedia and necrometrics.com

    The American Revolution as a "conservative" one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson's sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional "rights of Englishmen" against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.

    But let's say you're right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution. There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.
  85. The author/composer is a smart, sophisticated student of politics.

    His dad is a political consultant in NYC and was Mayor Ed Koch’s head Puerto Rican vote wrangler in the 1980s.

    One of these things is not like the other. I see someone who would have been writing jingles for the late Cal Worthington at best. Who leveraged his dad’s prominence into … fame. The Puerto Rican Lena Dunham is not an achievement.

    Read More
  86. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Notice that “liberals ” never demand open borders, ‘diversity or mass immigration into any non white population anywhere. That’s strictly the white ‘privilege’

    Why is that? What is their real goal?

    Diversity means Chasing Out the Last White Family

    Thats why we talk about Anti White.

    Thats why we talk about White G——-

    Read More
  87. Trump erred in his response to the statement from the cast of Hamilton. He should’ve let it blow over. Their little speech was high-minded and self-important, but it wasn’t overtly rude or ill mannered. Much of America is watching him closely to see how well he can cope with the little stuff before he starts dealing with the big stuff. The left is always going to hate him, but he can win moderates over by not flying off the handle over insignificant crap…and that will put the left in the minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If there's one thing I've learned through 8 years of Obama, it's that ignoring lefty obnoxiousness doesn't work. When there's no reply, it makes all the bystanders think the new orthodoxy is now extreme leftism. There needs to be a reply to leftism, a contrast so all the undecided persons can get their bearings.

    Trump demanded that the cast apologize. I'm sure it's never occurred to any leftist in America that they should apologize for anything they say or do at all. Meanwhile, the bystanders will all of a sudden think, "Hey, being rude to the new vice president is wrong. Of course the Hamilton cast should apologize. That was a jerky thing to do."

    It's bad tactics to let the left create the narrative. There needs to be a counter-narrative, if America is going to ever head back towards the middle, much less the right.

    Trump also understands a very basic important point. Getting your way means you have to demand your way. You never get that last piece of cake on the plate unless you demand it. Trump knows this lesson because he's spent a lifetime negotiating tough business deals.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Yep, and that attitude is how we got President Romney.

    Some of you have learned nothing.
    , @anon
    Nothing about Trump would indicate he operates at a level above his Twitter. There is much written about his apparent ADD. Let's hope for the best with our "empty vessel" president
    , @Anonymous
    Codswollop.

    Trump did just the right thing with just the right tone.

    1) He stuck up for his #2 man. This shows that Trump won't let others isolate and destroy anyone on his team. Truly Alpha behavior and very reassuring to all his future appointees. He's got your back.

    2) Trump's measured reproval was a direct appeal for decency and fair treatment. He asked for an apology. By way of contrast, Obama or Hillary would have sicced the Justice Department on the theater troop and canceled funding for the theater.

    3. Trump demonstrates that he is standing up for standards of decorum--something entirely lacking in the behavior of the Left--just look at their debased election campaign. Decorum is the essence of what Burke was talking about in the comment by the poster above. Decorum is not just empty going-through-the-motions. It has substance and confers recognition on those with whom we are not on intimate terms.

    Trump's reaction shows that he is head and shoulder above the sad-sack posers up on stage and their apologists.
  88. @Steve Sailer
    But Chernow's book plays up the politically correct side of Hamilton (against slavery!) and plays down the politically incorrect side (against democracy). Together, the message is: What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the vibrant diversity, too.

    I don’t know about his Hamilton book, but as I’ve said before Chernow’s books on the Rockefeller and Morgan cabals are a treasure trove for revisionists and conspiracy theorists, and not the kind the Establishment likes. I don’t presume this was on purpose, but he is at least a moderately honest court historian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @onetwothree
    Chernow’s books on the Rockefeller and Morgan cabals are a treasure trove for revisionists and conspiracy theorists

    I'm about halfway through "Titan" and it's a real bore. What am I missing?
  89. @matt
    Hamilton also, like Trump, loved plutocracy, the untrammeled rule of finance capital, and regressive taxation, and had a contempt for international law (e.g., he wanted to tear up the French treaties).

    Regarding Trump:

    “loved plutocracy”

    That’s more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump’s trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.

    “the untrammeled rule of finance capital”

    Not in evidence.

    “regressive taxation”

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others. The most regressive tax of all, inflation, is beloved by both parties.

    “contempt for international law”

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He’s against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt

    That’s more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump’s trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.
     
    Where did I defend the Democrats?

    It remains to be seen what Trump's trade and immigration policies will be exactly, but even if the ruling class is hurt by them somewhat, you can bet that they will be generously compensated with tax cuts, union busting, privatization, military spending, financial deregulation, elimination of Medicare, and a host of other reactionary policies. Trumpism, like all nationalisms, is based on class collaboration, not class conflict. "Deal-making."


    Not in evidence.
     
    Wait till he picks his Treasury Secretary and SEC chair, then get back to me.

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others.
     
    Less progressive, or more regressive. Whatever you want to call it, it means more money in the bank accounts of the rich.

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He’s against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.
     
    He's proposed torture and pillage, both violations of the Geneva Conventions, for starters. And international law isn't the same as "international rule", whatever that is, but you knew that.
  90. @Mr. Anon
    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you're completely cool with it. I'm sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, "Honest" Abe.

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.

    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison."

    The attempted secession was in the name of secession. Lincoln didn't give two f**ks about blacks. He did apparently give some f**ks about slaughtering his countrymen. He really, really dug it.

    Hey, we all know you have a hard-on for the Butcher of Springfield. I'm sure, had you been of age in the 1860s, you would have leapt to volunteer to serve in the Grand Army of the Republic, bravely sh*tting yourself to death in Camp Dysentery for the incompetent General George McClellan.

    You would have, right? Or is that sort of thing just a cause that other people should die for - not you?

    Oh yeah, and I am not your "dear fellow". Your louche swish act wears thin very fast. But then, perhaps it's not an act; perhaps you have a few other things in common with that original Log Cabin Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

    , @CK
    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.
  91. I have to ask a blunt question, if (when ?) America has say less than 10% whites in the population (so like South Africa), ignoring the fact that they will get the “remove their statues” treatment, would the founding fathers even be talked about ?

    This may seem a strange thing to ask when this Hamilton play is about non whites praising him, but the fundamental demographics shifts have not even made a significant dent compared to where they will be in 100 years from now. The way I see it, someone like Hamilton will be as important to the offspring of Somali, Pakistani, Mexican, etc, immigrants as Cecil Rhodes is to current black students in South Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "I have to ask a blunt question, if (when ?) America has say less than 10% whites in the population (so like South Africa), ignoring the fact that they will get the “remove their statues” treatment, would the founding fathers even be talked about ?"

    No.

    San Francisco school board president calls for the renaming of schools tied to slavery

    Get a load of the headline: the school itself is "tied to slavery", as if the SFUSD once owned slaves or something.
  92. @syonredux

    If we’re counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.
     
    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years' War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent. As I noted upthread, the French Revolutionaries had a lot in common with their "tyrannical" predecessors....

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.
     
    Being awfully Hegelian there, dear fellow.....

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.
     
    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!

    Besides, if we’re laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.
     
    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau.....). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.

    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years’ War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent.

    You’re forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France’s quest for domination.

    Being awfully Hegelian there fellow, dear fellow…

    I’m not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven’t read them, but in case you’re wondering what I’m talking about, look here.

    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!

    .

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn’t speak at all to my point.

    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau…..). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.

    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were “dutiful imitators” of the Jacobins, you’d have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins’ respect for bourgeois property (that of traitors and émigrés excepted), Marx and Engels’ critique of the Terror, etc. I will be pleasantly surprised if you accomplish this task, but my hopes are not high, given that your historical erudition seems to consist of copying and pasting long block-quotes from Wikipedia and necrometrics.com

    The American Revolution as a “conservative” one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional “rights of Englishmen” against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.

    But let’s say you’re right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution. There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    You’re forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France’s quest for domination.
     
    Sometimes you can get the other fellow's will-to-power to work for you.

    I’m not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven’t read them,
     
    If only I hadn't read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I've had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn't?

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn’t speak at all to my point.
     
    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I'm very interested in Mao's penchant for megadeaths....

    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were “dutiful imitators” of the Jacobins, you’d have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins’ respect for bourgeois property
     
    Dear fellow, it's more a matter of the Bolsheviks being frightfully keen on all that Jacobin radicalism....and then outdoing it.....

    The American Revolution as a “conservative” one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional “rights of Englishmen” against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.
     
    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.

    But let’s say you’re right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution

    There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

     

    Dunno, dear fellow. I'm more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French, the race that brought us such fell figures as Rousseau, Lacan, and Althusser...

    RE: the American Revolution,

    I've long thought that that was a mistake. Not because of the addled French, though. You see, the notion of the entirety of Anglo-America being part of the British Empire fills me with joy....
  93. @FactsAreImportant
    OT

    Professor George Borjas of Harvard has met with and talked about immigration with Jeff Sessions and found him to be unusually knowledgeable. Borjas strongly endorses Sessions for AG.

    https://gborjas.org/2016/11/18/senator-sessions-for-attorney-general/

    OT

    Professor George Borjas of Harvard has met with and talked about immigration with Jeff Sessions and found him to be unusually knowledgeable. Borjas strongly endorses Sessions for AG.

    That’s an endorsement that actually means something.

    Read More
  94. @syonredux

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.
     
    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.

    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.
     
    MMM, let's just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery....
  95. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Melting pot my butt. That term comes from the 29th century, when they had the means, through mass education, mass media, and mass consumption to propagandize everyone into submission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    No, by the 25th century that had all broken down due to the malfunctioning grey goo released by the Xzurxy-Chang administration in an attempt to create jobs after the nanomachines automated janitorial and paranursing positions and the illegal aliens (from Alpha Centauri) had affirmative action positions for everything else. It was the 23rd century when they were using implanted software to broadcast first politically correct messages and then ads shortly afterward into everyone's brains. (In the 22nd century, of course, war was beginning.)

    The 29th century was mostly about the development of furnaces that could recover metal from all the useless cars lying around and get us back into the iron age.

  96. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    “a big no-no in Europe itself”

    Which is why they had all those ethnic conflicts, cleansings, separatist movements, and so forth later on. Because no peoples intermixed before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That term comes from the 29th century, when they had the means, through mass education, mass media, and mass consumption to propagandize everyone into submission."

    You are ignorant.

    From wikipedia...

    The first use in American literature of the concept of immigrants "melting" into the receiving culture are found in the writings of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecoeur writes, in response to his own question, "What then is the American, this new man?" that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."

    "Which is why they had all those ethnic conflicts, cleansings, separatist movements, and so forth later on. Because no peoples intermixed before."

    Right, as I corrected stated, the mixing of ethnic groups was a big no-no.
  97. @guest
    Regarding Trump:

    "loved plutocracy"

    That's more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump's trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.

    "the untrammeled rule of finance capital"

    Not in evidence.

    "regressive taxation"

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others. The most regressive tax of all, inflation, is beloved by both parties.

    "contempt for international law"

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He's against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.

    That’s more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump’s trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.

    Where did I defend the Democrats?

    It remains to be seen what Trump’s trade and immigration policies will be exactly, but even if the ruling class is hurt by them somewhat, you can bet that they will be generously compensated with tax cuts, union busting, privatization, military spending, financial deregulation, elimination of Medicare, and a host of other reactionary policies. Trumpism, like all nationalisms, is based on class collaboration, not class conflict. “Deal-making.”

    Not in evidence.

    Wait till he picks his Treasury Secretary and SEC chair, then get back to me.

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others.

    Less progressive, or more regressive. Whatever you want to call it, it means more money in the bank accounts of the rich.

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He’s against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.

    He’s proposed torture and pillage, both violations of the Geneva Conventions, for starters. And international law isn’t the same as “international rule”, whatever that is, but you knew that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    He’s proposed torture and pillage, both violations of the Geneva Conventions

     

    Uh, we already do that I think. I vaguely remember, but am not sure, there being a controversy in the media about that a while back.
  98. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    You are floundering in the deep end.

    Admittedly, Trump is conflating the actions of the crowd with that of the show. However, that little lecture was a tacit approval of the audience’s rudeness. They could have at least chastised the booers before addressing Pence.

    That being said, the how presumptuous. Your just an actor. I wouldn’t lecture you on how to suck a dick if you showed up where I work.

    Read More
  99. Aside from the good sense expressed in Alexander Hamilton’s words, the articulateness with which he expresses himself is well-nigh staggering. Can any politician today match that level? I suppose that Hamilton’s capacity stemmed from two sources: an education steeped in classical literature, and the fact that he could write for a erudite and learned audience. But when I read items like this, or Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, I am filled with a sense of loss.

    Read More
  100. @matt

    Interesting to note how those 18th century conflicts (Seven Years’ War, War of the Austrian Succession, etc) also largely revolved around France attempting to impose her supremacy on the Continent.
     
    You're forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France's quest for domination.

    Being awfully Hegelian there fellow, dear fellow...
     
    I'm not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven't read them, but in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, look here.

    Which makes the 40 million who died under Mao all the more unnecessary, dear fellow. Talk about a gratuitous slaughter!
     
    .

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn't speak at all to my point.

    Difficult to do so, dear fellow. You see, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution. The excesses of the French Revolution were the result of the French being poor students of the American example (all that Rousseau…..). The Soviets and the Red Chinese, in contrast, were dutiful imitators of their Gallic model.
     
    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were "dutiful imitators" of the Jacobins, you'd have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins' respect for bourgeois property (that of traitors and émigrés excepted), Marx and Engels' critique of the Terror, etc. I will be pleasantly surprised if you accomplish this task, but my hopes are not high, given that your historical erudition seems to consist of copying and pasting long block-quotes from Wikipedia and necrometrics.com

    The American Revolution as a "conservative" one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson's sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional "rights of Englishmen" against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.

    But let's say you're right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution. There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

    You’re forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France’s quest for domination.

    Sometimes you can get the other fellow’s will-to-power to work for you.

    I’m not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven’t read them,

    If only I hadn’t read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I’ve had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn’t?

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn’t speak at all to my point.

    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I’m very interested in Mao’s penchant for megadeaths….

    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were “dutiful imitators” of the Jacobins, you’d have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins’ respect for bourgeois property

    Dear fellow, it’s more a matter of the Bolsheviks being frightfully keen on all that Jacobin radicalism….and then outdoing it…..

    The American Revolution as a “conservative” one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional “rights of Englishmen” against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.

    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.

    But let’s say you’re right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution

    There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

    Dunno, dear fellow. I’m more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French, the race that brought us such fell figures as Rousseau, Lacan, and Althusser…

    RE: the American Revolution,

    I’ve long thought that that was a mistake. Not because of the addled French, though. You see, the notion of the entirety of Anglo-America being part of the British Empire fills me with joy….

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "who isn't?"

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can't read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.
    , @guest
    Don't be too tough on the French. They have good reactionaries, better than the Anglosphere in some ways in recent decades: Faye, Raspail, Benoist (not my favorite).
  101. I have yet to hear a single note from Hamilton! I’m not familiar with Broadway generally, and don’t seek out its music, stories, pageantry, and so forth. But I am acquainted with the stuff that seeps into popular culture. In recent decades, not counting the adaptations from movies and rock music reviews, that consists entirely of Andrew Lloyd Webber and one song from Rent.

    Steve comments on the great divide between the ruling class, the glitterati, and the non-Coalition of the Fringes commoners. This is a perfect example of it. Why not comment on the utter lack of popular penetration of the biggest Big Thing on Broadway since forever?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Why not comment on the utter lack of popular penetration of the biggest Big Thing on Broadway since forever?

    Is this premise true?
  102. @syonredux

    You’re forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France’s quest for domination.
     
    Sometimes you can get the other fellow's will-to-power to work for you.

    I’m not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven’t read them,
     
    If only I hadn't read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I've had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn't?

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn’t speak at all to my point.
     
    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I'm very interested in Mao's penchant for megadeaths....

    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were “dutiful imitators” of the Jacobins, you’d have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins’ respect for bourgeois property
     
    Dear fellow, it's more a matter of the Bolsheviks being frightfully keen on all that Jacobin radicalism....and then outdoing it.....

    The American Revolution as a “conservative” one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional “rights of Englishmen” against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.
     
    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.

    But let’s say you’re right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution

    There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

     

    Dunno, dear fellow. I'm more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French, the race that brought us such fell figures as Rousseau, Lacan, and Althusser...

    RE: the American Revolution,

    I've long thought that that was a mistake. Not because of the addled French, though. You see, the notion of the entirety of Anglo-America being part of the British Empire fills me with joy....

    “who isn’t?”

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can’t read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “who isn’t?”

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can’t read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.
     
    You're being far too generous. I know plenty of German academics. According to them, Heidegger actually reads better in English translation....
  103. @matt
    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.

    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.

    MMM, let’s just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery….

    Read More
  104. @syonredux

    You’re forgetting one: the American War of Independence, another part of dastardly France’s quest for domination.
     
    Sometimes you can get the other fellow's will-to-power to work for you.

    I’m not impressed by shallow name-dropping of philosophers by people who almost certainly haven’t read them,
     
    If only I hadn't read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I've had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn't?

    If you want to say that the famine and the Cultural Revolution were pointless wastes of life, I have no argument, but that doesn’t speak at all to my point.
     
    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I'm very interested in Mao's penchant for megadeaths....

    If you want to make the case that the Bolsheviks were “dutiful imitators” of the Jacobins, you’d have to undertake an extensive study of their similarities and differences, addressing the Jacobins’ respect for bourgeois property
     
    Dear fellow, it's more a matter of the Bolsheviks being frightfully keen on all that Jacobin radicalism....and then outdoing it.....

    The American Revolution as a “conservative” one is also a more complex issue than you likely have the capacity to understand. In order to make that case, one would need to address the role of radicals like Thomas Paine, Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution, the eventual transformation of the American Revolution from one seeking to defend the traditional “rights of Englishmen” against an overreaching Parliament, to one that established a republic with a written constitution, etc. A difficult task, and one I have no confidence that you have the talent to carry out.
     
    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.

    But let’s say you’re right. The Jacobins were poor students of the American Revolution

    There is no question, however, that they were its students. Would it not have been better to simply accept the relatively benign rule of the British Empire, rather than risk, by example (poorly learnt or otherwise), setting off a chain of events that has been (in your view) so disastrous? Such are the dangers of revolution. Washington has much to answer for.

     

    Dunno, dear fellow. I'm more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French, the race that brought us such fell figures as Rousseau, Lacan, and Althusser...

    RE: the American Revolution,

    I've long thought that that was a mistake. Not because of the addled French, though. You see, the notion of the entirety of Anglo-America being part of the British Empire fills me with joy....

    Don’t be too tough on the French. They have good reactionaries, better than the Anglosphere in some ways in recent decades: Faye, Raspail, Benoist (not my favorite).

    Read More
  105. If only I hadn’t read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I’ve had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn’t?

    Yes, on second thought, I bet you have read them. Charlatans who fancy themselves intellectuals do like to read other charlatans who fancied themselves intellectuals.

    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I’m very interested in Mao’s penchant for megadeaths….

    Given that you’re interested in body counts (and, from my many interactions with you, that’s all you seem to be interested in), the lives saved by the post-1949 Chinese state are relevant as much as the lives ended by it.

    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.

    Good one. That’s what I would say if I had no idea what I was talking about, too.

    I’m more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French

    An inept pupil requires all the more careful instruction. Blame Jefferson and Franklin for going over there to stir them up, putting all sorts of ideas into their foolish heads…

    I’m done with this exchange, and all future ones with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Yes, on second thought, I bet you have read them. Charlatans who fancy themselves intellectuals do like to read other charlatans who fancied themselves intellectuals.
     
    Aren't you a Marxist? I thought that all you fellows had to read at least a little Hegel....

    Given that you’re interested in body counts (and, from my many interactions with you, that’s all you seem to be interested in), the lives saved by the post-1949 Chinese state are relevant as much as the lives ended by it.
     
    In the case of Mao, it's more a case of being interested in the sheer number of completely unnecessary deaths. Killing 40 million people for absurd reasons is pretty impressive.....

    Good one. That’s what I would say if I had no idea what I was talking about, too.
     
    Feel free to use it, dear fellow.

    An inept pupil requires all the more careful instruction. Blame Jefferson and Franklin for going over there to stir them up, putting all sorts of ideas into their foolish heads…

     

    Dunno. I mean we are talking about the French, after all. Instructing them in Anglo-Saxon concepts is something of a fool's errand...

    I’m done with this exchange, and all future ones with you.
     
    No problem, dear fellow. Arguing with Marxists can get a bit tiresome.....
  106. George Takei says Bannon was in the audience for Hamilton tonight. That is just epic level trolling. My God, the next four years will be glorious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "George Takei says Bannon was in the audience for Hamilton tonight. That is just epic level trolling. My God, the next four years will be glorious."

    George Takei looks like he is the wife in his Homosexual relationship. He has a very submissive beta look.
  107. @matt

    If only I hadn’t read him, dear fellow! Sadly, given my academic interests, I’ve had to plow my way through far too much Hegel. On the plus side, he is easier to read than Heidegger. But, then again, who isn’t?
     
    Yes, on second thought, I bet you have read them. Charlatans who fancy themselves intellectuals do like to read other charlatans who fancied themselves intellectuals.

    Which puts us at cross purposes, dear fellow, seeing as how I’m very interested in Mao’s penchant for megadeaths….
     
    Given that you're interested in body counts (and, from my many interactions with you, that's all you seem to be interested in), the lives saved by the post-1949 Chinese state are relevant as much as the lives ended by it.

    Dear fellow, that would be both easy and tedious.
     
    Good one. That's what I would say if I had no idea what I was talking about, too.

    I’m more inclined to fault the pupil for being so inept. Of course, they were French
     
    An inept pupil requires all the more careful instruction. Blame Jefferson and Franklin for going over there to stir them up, putting all sorts of ideas into their foolish heads...

    I'm done with this exchange, and all future ones with you.

    Yes, on second thought, I bet you have read them. Charlatans who fancy themselves intellectuals do like to read other charlatans who fancied themselves intellectuals.

    Aren’t you a Marxist? I thought that all you fellows had to read at least a little Hegel….

    Given that you’re interested in body counts (and, from my many interactions with you, that’s all you seem to be interested in), the lives saved by the post-1949 Chinese state are relevant as much as the lives ended by it.

    In the case of Mao, it’s more a case of being interested in the sheer number of completely unnecessary deaths. Killing 40 million people for absurd reasons is pretty impressive…..

    Good one. That’s what I would say if I had no idea what I was talking about, too.

    Feel free to use it, dear fellow.

    An inept pupil requires all the more careful instruction. Blame Jefferson and Franklin for going over there to stir them up, putting all sorts of ideas into their foolish heads…

    Dunno. I mean we are talking about the French, after all. Instructing them in Anglo-Saxon concepts is something of a fool’s errand…

    I’m done with this exchange, and all future ones with you.

    No problem, dear fellow. Arguing with Marxists can get a bit tiresome…..

    Read More
  108. But in 1790 and 1802, North America was largely underpopulated. To survive, the new nation needed a population critical mass. Wasn’t it foolish therefore to oppose immigration then (as opposed to today, when this country is mostly full?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    But in 1790 and 1802, North America was largely underpopulated. To survive, the new nation needed a population critical mass. Wasn’t it foolish therefore to oppose immigration then (as opposed to today, when this country is mostly full?)

    Yes. One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that Great Britain had opposed more immigration to the North American colonies because it was leading to expensive confrontations with the Indians. In spite of the desire to increase the population, the new US government was careful to limit naturalization (in the 1795 law, not the 1790 version, iiirc) to whites. They knew the dangers racial animosity could pose.
  109. @syonredux

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.
     
    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.

    “Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.”

    The attempted secession was in the name of secession. Lincoln didn’t give two f**ks about blacks. He did apparently give some f**ks about slaughtering his countrymen. He really, really dug it.

    Hey, we all know you have a hard-on for the Butcher of Springfield. I’m sure, had you been of age in the 1860s, you would have leapt to volunteer to serve in the Grand Army of the Republic, bravely sh*tting yourself to death in Camp Dysentery for the incompetent General George McClellan.

    You would have, right? Or is that sort of thing just a cause that other people should die for – not you?

    Oh yeah, and I am not your “dear fellow”. Your louche swish act wears thin very fast. But then, perhaps it’s not an act; perhaps you have a few other things in common with that original Log Cabin Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The attempted secession was in the name of secession.
     
    They seceded in defense of slavery, dear fellow.Cf Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone" speech:

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

    Lincoln didn’t give two f**ks about blacks.
     
    Oh, Lincoln certainly cared more about White people. That's one of the reasons why he didn't want slavery to spread any farther....

    He did apparently give some f**ks about slaughtering his countrymen. He really, really dug it.
     
    Dunno. Jefferson Davis and Co. seemed far more enthusiastic about killing White people than Lincoln....

    Hey, we all know you have a hard-on for the Butcher of Springfield. I’m sure, had you been of age in the 1860s, you would have leapt to volunteer to serve in the Grand Army of the Republic, bravely sh*tting yourself to death in Camp Dysentery for the incompetent General George McClellan.
     
    Hey, better than fighting in the name of a decadent slavocracy....And, if I'm going to LARP, I would much rather serve under Grant, who had a rather dim view of Jeff Davis' abilities:

    It may be that Longstreet was not sent to Knoxville for the reason stated, but because Mr. Davis had an exalted opinion of his own military genius, and thought he saw a chance of "killing two birds with one stone." On several occasions during the war he came to the relief of the Union army by means of his superior military genius.
     

    You would have, right? Or is that sort of thing just a cause that other people should die for – not you?
     
    Dear fellow,I'm a conservative; I would gladly fight in defense of Anglo-American unity.

    Oh yeah, and I am not your “dear fellow”.
     
    Don't sell yourself short. I find you quite endearing...

    Your louche swish act wears thin very fast.
     
    You cut me to the quick. I work so hard at it....

    But then, perhaps it’s not an act; perhaps you have a few other things in common with that original Log Cabin Republican, Abraham Lincoln.
     
    Oh dear, don't tell me that you actually believe Larry Kramer's deluded rantings....
  110. @neutral
    I have to ask a blunt question, if (when ?) America has say less than 10% whites in the population (so like South Africa), ignoring the fact that they will get the "remove their statues" treatment, would the founding fathers even be talked about ?

    This may seem a strange thing to ask when this Hamilton play is about non whites praising him, but the fundamental demographics shifts have not even made a significant dent compared to where they will be in 100 years from now. The way I see it, someone like Hamilton will be as important to the offspring of Somali, Pakistani, Mexican, etc, immigrants as Cecil Rhodes is to current black students in South Africa.

    “I have to ask a blunt question, if (when ?) America has say less than 10% whites in the population (so like South Africa), ignoring the fact that they will get the “remove their statues” treatment, would the founding fathers even be talked about ?”

    No.

    San Francisco school board president calls for the renaming of schools tied to slavery

    Get a load of the headline: the school itself is “tied to slavery”, as if the SFUSD once owned slaves or something.

    Read More
  111. Ouch! (As in the truth hurts.) Or Liberia.

    Read More
  112. Nails it.

    Read More
  113. @Ttjy
    This is a video on the Apollo missions and it mentions states where it was made. No Mexico or China needed.

    00:15 through 1:25.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM2KWCMrOYw

    Thank you. I had forgotten about the unmanned Gemini and Apollo test flights.

    No H-1B workers from other countries needed, either.

    Read More
  114. Slightly OT:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/steven-van-zandt-tells-hamilton-to-apologize-to-mike-pence-w451539

    E Street Band guitarist Steven Van Zandt called upon Lin-Manuel Miranda to apologize to Mike Pence for the Hamilton cast’s speech to the Vice President-elect following Friday’s performance.

    Although Van Zandt tweeted that “everyone who is sane disagrees with [Pence's] policies,” he argued that a Broadway show – or anywhere where art is performed – is not the proper venue to “bully” an audience member.

    “Hamilton made a mistake. Audiences shouldn’t have to worry about being blindsided like that. Theater should be sanctuary for Art to speak,” Van Zandt wrote.

    “Lin-Manuel is a genius. He has created the greatest play since West Side Story. He is also a role model. This sets a terrible precedent. Completely inappropriate. Theater should be a safe haven for Art to speak. Not the actors. He needs to apologize to Mike Pence.”

    Van Zandt reiterated that he is a staunchly against Donald Trump and Pence’s policies – “Nobody on this planet disagrees more with everything Pence represents,” the rocker said – but likened the Hamilton cast’s curtain call speech to the “same bullying tactic” employed by Trump during his presidential campaign.

    “It was the most respectful, benign form of bullying ever. But bullying nonetheless. And by the way, human rights must be won, not asked for,” Van Zandt said.

    “When artists perform the venue becomes your home. The audience are your guests,” Van Zandt continued. “It’s taking unfair advantage of someone who thought they were a protected guest in your home… A guy comes to a Broadway show for a relaxing night out. Instead he gets a lecture from the stage! Not a level playing field. It’s bullying. You don’t single out an audience member and embarrass him from the stage. A terrible precedent to set.”

    Fans were quick to call out Van Zandt for taking the side of Trump on (strictly) this matter, but as the guitarist noted, “There has never been a more outspoken politically active artist than me.” Van Zandt also admitted that while the Hamilton’s cast message itself was “beautiful,” the Richard Rodgers Theatre wasn’t the appropriate venue to relay it.

    “The statement is beautiful. And completely inappropriate at that time. And I would defend the cast’s right to be inappropriate forever,” Van Zandt said. “That statement may prove to be correct for these men in their new positions, we’ll see. But that doesn’t mean we have to lose our civility.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    That wasn't off topic and it was a particularly clear eyed response. You simply do not use a performance to lecture an audience member who is completely defenseless.

    Nevertheless, there are ways to be political without targeting an individual. Story goes that the Germans sought to put on a performance of a Schiller play, but they were only allowed to do so if they promised not to make any political statements (since the French occupiers were in the audience; this during the Napoleonic period.) At one point in the third act a horse came on stage, and, being a horse, promptly emptied his bowels on the stage. The lead reacted to this, looked out to the audience, and said, "Don't you know you aren't supposed to be making any political statements?"
  115. @keypusher
    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.


    That may be the craziest statement I've read about Hamilton on Steve's blog, and that's saying something. First of all, Miranda doesn't need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.

    http://splitsider.com/2016/10/are-you-not-entertained-lin-manuel-miranda-sings-his-way-through-snl/

    Second, he did not write a hip-hop musical with the idea of casting a bunch of white actors in it. His previous show was about Washington Heights and featured the same kind of cast that Hamilton has.

    “First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.”

    In that picture he looks like the many Arab cab drivers in New York City. He doesn’t look White enough where he could me mistaken for a Donald Trump supporter.

    Read More
  116. @Boomstick
    George Takei says Bannon was in the audience for Hamilton tonight. That is just epic level trolling. My God, the next four years will be glorious.

    https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/800130330032275456

    “George Takei says Bannon was in the audience for Hamilton tonight. That is just epic level trolling. My God, the next four years will be glorious.”

    George Takei looks like he is the wife in his Homosexual relationship. He has a very submissive beta look.

    Read More
  117. @keypusher
    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.


    That may be the craziest statement I've read about Hamilton on Steve's blog, and that's saying something. First of all, Miranda doesn't need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.

    http://splitsider.com/2016/10/are-you-not-entertained-lin-manuel-miranda-sings-his-way-through-snl/

    Second, he did not write a hip-hop musical with the idea of casting a bunch of white actors in it. His previous show was about Washington Heights and featured the same kind of cast that Hamilton has.

    I agree with your comment, except for:

    First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white

    He doesn’t look white, unless you also count MENA Caucasoids as white. (I don’t.) He’s not as solidly ‘vibrant’ as some of the more hip-hoppity cast members, but he isn’t quite white, either. ‘Mystery meat’ might be the best (unsentimental) phenotypical descriptor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I just checked on Google. The guy looks totally European. A bit Southern European, but European nevertheless. There are Germans who look like him. Not typical Germans, but some Germans do look like him.
  118. Whoopi Goldberg recently said on The View that Black people are not going anywhere, in response to Donald J. Trump winning the presidency.

    Donald J. Trump never said if he gets elected POTUS that he is going to round up all of the Black people and deport them back to Africa.

    Whoopi Goldberg is a typical uninformed voter of the political Left. What makes it even more embarrassing is that she’s part of the 1 percent elite in this country, yet she is just as equally uninformed as a Black voter who belongs to the underclass.

    You can take Whoopi out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of Whoopi.

    Read More
  119. @Jonathan Mason
    It is disgraceful that the cast of a musical would behave in such a manner. Pence and his party should have the price of their tickets refunded. What is the point of traveling to New York if you can't enjoy a show in peace out of working hours regardless of your political affiliation?

    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this. The vile singling out of Pence and his family was abhorrent. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed ( I think the Flotus said “proud”) of the United States. These actors are mean-spirited and downright abusive. I have never seen actors call out a publicly elected figure out like this, and ENJOY excoriating him – I sensed the humiliation of Pence, his daughters and wife- it was abhorrent to witness. I am still appalled and disgusted. There truly is no decency and respect anymore. Everyone here knows that I voted for Obama in the past, but now, now, now, now…I wish nothing but bad luck for these brazenly cruel actors, and anyone who was stupid enough to vote for the corrupt Hillary. I am sick of these whiny so-called “progressives;” get a fracking life and move the eff on! Please move to Mexico, Venezuela, somewhere. I predict that Hamilton musical will suffer a big league backlash for humiliating the Presidency, you just don’t go LOW like that on a basically, international stage. scuzzbuckets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I am totally with you. I am disgusted, ashamed and very angry. I was hoping that after election things would calm down. Now I am afraid that it will get worse. Neither Obama nor Clinton expressed their disapproval for the excesses. And Obama keeps repeating the phrase on being on the right side of the history that makes me sick because it was used by Bolsheviks when they were murdering and exterminating their opponents.

    I am craving for justice and retribution.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this.
     
    Me too, and I am an immigrant too and a US citizen, and so is my wife. Legal immigrants have gone through many hoops, waited for years, paid extortionate fees, made dangerous journeys to obtain required documents, paid extortionate fees for medical examinations, undergone vaccinations, sat for hours in the airport on arrival so as to immigrate legally, paid more money for Green Cards, and so on.

    Meanwhile large employers in agriculture and some other industries facilitate the arrival of illegals, so as to undercut US wages.

    So apparently there are also illegals now working on Broadway stages who are scared of being deported.

    Deport them immediately, I say, for the damage they have already done to the New York tourism industry, and before they do any more harm. Or at least deport them the day after the Inauguration.

    The next thing is to go after the large scale employers of illegals and throw them in prison. Make examples of them to discourage the others.
  120. @Lagertha
    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this. The vile singling out of Pence and his family was abhorrent. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed ( I think the Flotus said "proud") of the United States. These actors are mean-spirited and downright abusive. I have never seen actors call out a publicly elected figure out like this, and ENJOY excoriating him - I sensed the humiliation of Pence, his daughters and wife- it was abhorrent to witness. I am still appalled and disgusted. There truly is no decency and respect anymore. Everyone here knows that I voted for Obama in the past, but now, now, now, now...I wish nothing but bad luck for these brazenly cruel actors, and anyone who was stupid enough to vote for the corrupt Hillary. I am sick of these whiny so-called "progressives;" get a fracking life and move the eff on! Please move to Mexico, Venezuela, somewhere. I predict that Hamilton musical will suffer a big league backlash for humiliating the Presidency, you just don't go LOW like that on a basically, international stage. scuzzbuckets.

    I am totally with you. I am disgusted, ashamed and very angry. I was hoping that after election things would calm down. Now I am afraid that it will get worse. Neither Obama nor Clinton expressed their disapproval for the excesses. And Obama keeps repeating the phrase on being on the right side of the history that makes me sick because it was used by Bolsheviks when they were murdering and exterminating their opponents.

    I am craving for justice and retribution.

    Read More
  121. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/andyswan/status/799852951955193856

    Ha, ha brilliant…reverse Psy_ops! I feel much better now!

    Read More
  122. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @J1234
    Trump erred in his response to the statement from the cast of Hamilton. He should've let it blow over. Their little speech was high-minded and self-important, but it wasn't overtly rude or ill mannered. Much of America is watching him closely to see how well he can cope with the little stuff before he starts dealing with the big stuff. The left is always going to hate him, but he can win moderates over by not flying off the handle over insignificant crap...and that will put the left in the minority.

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned through 8 years of Obama, it’s that ignoring lefty obnoxiousness doesn’t work. When there’s no reply, it makes all the bystanders think the new orthodoxy is now extreme leftism. There needs to be a reply to leftism, a contrast so all the undecided persons can get their bearings.

    Trump demanded that the cast apologize. I’m sure it’s never occurred to any leftist in America that they should apologize for anything they say or do at all. Meanwhile, the bystanders will all of a sudden think, “Hey, being rude to the new vice president is wrong. Of course the Hamilton cast should apologize. That was a jerky thing to do.”

    It’s bad tactics to let the left create the narrative. There needs to be a counter-narrative, if America is going to ever head back towards the middle, much less the right.

    Trump also understands a very basic important point. Getting your way means you have to demand your way. You never get that last piece of cake on the plate unless you demand it. Trump knows this lesson because he’s spent a lifetime negotiating tough business deals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J1234
    Some good points. However, I'm now wondering if the intended response of Trump wasn't to have both him and Pence (who just said no apology was necessary) reply in their usual good-cop, bad-cop fashion. Actually, kind of an effective strategy. Don't know if my speculation is correct...but it's interesting.
    , @Forbes
    The days of Dems playing to win and Reps being gracious losers is over.
  123. Why was Pence seeing “Hamilton” anyway? Was his wife with him? I mean I don’t recall Nixon going to see “Hair.” I mean, seriously, WTF.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Why was Pence seeing “Hamilton” anyway?
     
    Pence comes from that part of the right that still thinks they run the country (looking at the election returns, they may have a point). It's noblesse oblige/good sportsmanship.
    , @snorlax
    It was almost certainly one of his teenage daughters' idea.
  124. @PiltdownMan
    Slightly OT:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/steven-van-zandt-tells-hamilton-to-apologize-to-mike-pence-w451539


    E Street Band guitarist Steven Van Zandt called upon Lin-Manuel Miranda to apologize to Mike Pence for the Hamilton cast's speech to the Vice President-elect following Friday's performance.

    Although Van Zandt tweeted that "everyone who is sane disagrees with [Pence's] policies," he argued that a Broadway show – or anywhere where art is performed – is not the proper venue to "bully" an audience member.

    "Hamilton made a mistake. Audiences shouldn't have to worry about being blindsided like that. Theater should be sanctuary for Art to speak," Van Zandt wrote.

    "Lin-Manuel is a genius. He has created the greatest play since West Side Story. He is also a role model. This sets a terrible precedent. Completely inappropriate. Theater should be a safe haven for Art to speak. Not the actors. He needs to apologize to Mike Pence."

    Van Zandt reiterated that he is a staunchly against Donald Trump and Pence's policies – "Nobody on this planet disagrees more with everything Pence represents," the rocker said – but likened the Hamilton cast's curtain call speech to the "same bullying tactic" employed by Trump during his presidential campaign.

    "It was the most respectful, benign form of bullying ever. But bullying nonetheless. And by the way, human rights must be won, not asked for," Van Zandt said.

    "When artists perform the venue becomes your home. The audience are your guests," Van Zandt continued. "It's taking unfair advantage of someone who thought they were a protected guest in your home… A guy comes to a Broadway show for a relaxing night out. Instead he gets a lecture from the stage! Not a level playing field. It's bullying. You don't single out an audience member and embarrass him from the stage. A terrible precedent to set."

    Fans were quick to call out Van Zandt for taking the side of Trump on (strictly) this matter, but as the guitarist noted, "There has never been a more outspoken politically active artist than me." Van Zandt also admitted that while the Hamilton's cast message itself was "beautiful," the Richard Rodgers Theatre wasn't the appropriate venue to relay it.

    "The statement is beautiful. And completely inappropriate at that time. And I would defend the cast's right to be inappropriate forever," Van Zandt said. "That statement may prove to be correct for these men in their new positions, we'll see. But that doesn't mean we have to lose our civility."
     

    That wasn’t off topic and it was a particularly clear eyed response. You simply do not use a performance to lecture an audience member who is completely defenseless.

    Nevertheless, there are ways to be political without targeting an individual. Story goes that the Germans sought to put on a performance of a Schiller play, but they were only allowed to do so if they promised not to make any political statements (since the French occupiers were in the audience; this during the Napoleonic period.) At one point in the third act a horse came on stage, and, being a horse, promptly emptied his bowels on the stage. The lead reacted to this, looked out to the audience, and said, “Don’t you know you aren’t supposed to be making any political statements?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    "Theater should be a safe haven for Art to speak. Not the actors."

    Quite unusual to see that level of unemotional and perceptive moral reasoning in public comment these days, I thought.
  125. @SPMoore8
    That wasn't off topic and it was a particularly clear eyed response. You simply do not use a performance to lecture an audience member who is completely defenseless.

    Nevertheless, there are ways to be political without targeting an individual. Story goes that the Germans sought to put on a performance of a Schiller play, but they were only allowed to do so if they promised not to make any political statements (since the French occupiers were in the audience; this during the Napoleonic period.) At one point in the third act a horse came on stage, and, being a horse, promptly emptied his bowels on the stage. The lead reacted to this, looked out to the audience, and said, "Don't you know you aren't supposed to be making any political statements?"

    “Theater should be a safe haven for Art to speak. Not the actors.”

    Quite unusual to see that level of unemotional and perceptive moral reasoning in public comment these days, I thought.

    Read More
  126. @James Kabala
    If you listen to the recorded version (and the number of people who have experienced it that way far exceeds those who have seen it in the theater), it is easy to forget/ignore the historically inaccurate races of the actors.

    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.

    Of course it is overhyped, but it is fairly well-constructed as a play (with recurring motifs such as the line "not throwing away my shot" and the act of simply counting from one to ten taking on different meanings in different contexts).

    P.S. There are probably different clips filmed by different people, but at least in the one that I saw, it seemed that as many people cheered Pence as booed him. It was definitely a battle between two factions rather than a unanimous boo.

    “I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.”

    If Miranda wanted to play Alexander Hamilton among an otherwise white cast he could have. Even if he doesn’t appear especially British the rules of stage casting would allow it. If an actor does a good job in the role you very quickly forget their skin color.

    No, he wrote a rap musical. He wanted it populated with minorities. His other two big rap musicals – “In the Heights” (which was meh) and “Bring It On” (which was pretty fun) – were also cast largely with minorities. That’s the way he wanted it.

    As for the cast “speaking” to Mike Pence (it’s hysterically funny and pompous if he wasn’t actually there) it’s in particularly bad taste to call out anyone in public like that when they aren’t in a position to respond, especially after Pence had already been booed by some in the audience. This is why people hate left-wingers. They can keep pulling shit like this, and we can keep hating them even more. Their little stunt may also have killed some of the enthusiasm for their show, especially as it goes on tour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    He had his niece and nephew with him....probably their idea, cringe. I don't know how I would have reacted, as a teen/college student, if my dad had been a sitting duck, booed and lectured to by an impudent (naive, to say the least) actor, publicly, and streamed all over the world, with words written by the playwright. I would have screamed back, and man, that would have been enjoyable to see the Liberal Groupthink audience react to a wild-eyed, angry, screaming, teenage girl! Phony, uncouth liberals in that audience, the ones that booed, and the ones that were wussy-assed bystanders, would not have expected a bitchy young woman screeching back....now, that would have won me a Tony! - they'd still be writing about the "Girl with The Dragon Tattoo" striking back at stifling, fascistic conformity, by a young woman protesting the public humiliation (not to mention inappropriate, plain tacky) of her daddy.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    Maybe I'll change my mind about this stuff and go see Hamilton just so I can wear a Pence t-shirt.

    Nah, I never saw Les Miz when it was all the rage back in the 80's.
  127. @andy
    But in 1790 and 1802, North America was largely underpopulated. To survive, the new nation needed a population critical mass. Wasn't it foolish therefore to oppose immigration then (as opposed to today, when this country is mostly full?)

    But in 1790 and 1802, North America was largely underpopulated. To survive, the new nation needed a population critical mass. Wasn’t it foolish therefore to oppose immigration then (as opposed to today, when this country is mostly full?)

    Yes. One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that Great Britain had opposed more immigration to the North American colonies because it was leading to expensive confrontations with the Indians. In spite of the desire to increase the population, the new US government was careful to limit naturalization (in the 1795 law, not the 1790 version, iiirc) to whites. They knew the dangers racial animosity could pose.

    Read More
  128. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    That’s false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans. Even mixing with some other races wasn’t totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled. (At the time, after the destruction of the Turkish wars, there was a lot of unsettled land which could be distributed among these families as an incentive to both parties in these marriages.) So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a “big no-no” in the 18th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That’s false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans."

    It was still considered a big no-no. Interesting that despite the cultural threats that people made their own decisions about race, ethnicity, and culture.;

    "Even mixing with some other races wasn’t totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled...So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a “big no-no” in the 18th century.

    And what was the reason for this "compulsory intermarriage"? Hungarian leaders at that point in time dealt with the "Romani question" by placing restrictions on Romani marriages, and ordered children to be taken away from Romani parents to be raised in 'bourgeois or peasant' families. In other words, forced assimilation.

    Bans on traveling, settling by force, and deportation continued a tradition of expulsion and repression lasted for centuries by one white group over another white group. Were Hungarians the "good whites" or the "bad whites" in this situation?
  129. @Paul Kersey
    More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of "good moral character" could get citizenship (the franchise).

    If we had continued with the Naturalization Act of 1790 and had earlier forgone slavery we would be trillions ahead and be a much better country.

    Read More
  130. @sf
    Hamilton himself was a British citizen born in the British West Indies to a British father and French mother. On moving to New York, another British colony, in 1772, he retained his British citizenship (until July 4, 1776). So he was no more an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers.

    I think it’s wrong to call Hamilton, or other Founding Fathers, immigrants. They moved from one British territory (England) to others (Crown colonies). That is not immigration as they stayed subjects to the same sovereign.

    Once they overthrew British rule in America they did not suddenly become immigrants either since they conjured the United States out of thin air. Traitors or revolutionaries, depending on your point of view: Yes. Immigrants? No.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ganderson
    I actually heard someone (can't remember who, but it was a big foot member of the media) say that Hamilton wasn't eligible to be President because he had been born in the West Indies. I'm a high school History teacher- I try, I really do, but sometimes it just doesn't take!
  131. @Henry's Cat
    I took Trump's tweets as pure trollery. He even threw in something about how the theatre should be a 'safe space'. I doubt it was even Trump; it's probably Bannon.

    OK, it was actually ‘safe….place’, but, same difference.

    Read More
  132. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    I’m English (mostly) and I had an Italian ancestor arrive here in 1699. He married the grandaughter of the Lord Mayor of Newcastle (he was also an MP) ie not a mere peasant. How did that happen if intermixing of Europeans was a big no-no? And his children kept his name, they didn’t anglicise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    The mixing of ethnic groups in Europe in the 1600 and 1700's for the higher classes was considered acceptable as the vehicle to secure political and economic power.
  133. Thinking people will refrain from using “hip hop” and “music” in the same sentence.

    Read More
  134. That Pence would go to see this anti-white cultural marxist atrocity shows what an unsophisticated goyishe kopf idiot he is.

    I can’t believe how many conservatives have tried to tout this garbage as somehow being good. How stupid can a person be? It’s like they can’t understand when they are being insulted and demeaned.

    The stupidity of a white conservative who thinks “Hamilton” will give young blacks and Hispanics an appreciation for America’s founding principals is unfathomable.

    Read More
  135. @Steve Sailer
    It follows Ron Chernow's highbrow biography of Hamilton leading up to his death in the duel with Aaron Burr.

    highbrow

    It’s a good read, but still very much middlebrow, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Middlebrow by your standards. But astronomically highbrow by the standards of NY theater goers.
  136. Hamilton was an immigrant. Washington, Jefferson, Adams families had already been in America for four or five generations. Hamilton was steeped in British imperialism rather than the self-government tradition of the 13 colonies. He wanted to re-create British imperialism in the new United States. Though temporarily thwarted, he set up the basis for the future imperialist direction of the U.S. About 50 years ago, I remember a discussion about Hamilton being Jewish. His parentage is somewhat murky. He may have been illegitimate and his mother was named Rebekah. It indicates how ignorant of history American discussion has become. If Hamilton was not pure Brit, it is much more likely that he had Jewish rather than black mixture.

    Read More
  137. @SPMoore8
    Why was Pence seeing "Hamilton" anyway? Was his wife with him? I mean I don't recall Nixon going to see "Hair." I mean, seriously, WTF.

    Why was Pence seeing “Hamilton” anyway?

    Pence comes from that part of the right that still thinks they run the country (looking at the election returns, they may have a point). It’s noblesse oblige/good sportsmanship.

    Read More
  138. @syonredux

    A menace to tyrants. The best kind.
     
    Becoming a tyrant in turn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

    The Drownings at Nantes (French: Noyades de Nantes) were a series of mass executions by drowning during the Reign of Terror in Nantes, France, that occurred between November 1793 and February 1794. During this period, anyone arrested and jailed for not consistently supporting the Revolution, or suspected of being a royalist sympathizer, especially Catholic priests and nuns, was cast into the Loire and drowned on the orders of Jean-Baptiste Carrier, the representative-on-mission in Nantes. Before the murders ceased, as many as four thousand or more people, including innocent families with women and children, died in what Carrier himself called "the national bathtub.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drownings_at_Nantes



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e


    Burke saw what was at stake:

    This mixed system of opinion and sentiment had its origin in the ancient chivalry; and the principle, though varied in its appearance by the varying state of human affairs, subsisted and influenced through a long succession of generations, even to the time we live in. If it should ever be totally extinguished, the loss I fear will be great. It is this which has given its character to modern Europe. It is this which has distinguished it under all its forms of government, and distinguished it to its advantage, from the states of Asia, and possibly from those states which flourished in the most brilliant periods of the antique world. It was this, which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality, and handed it down through all the gradations of social life. It was this opinion which mitigated kings into companions, and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by manners.


    But now all is to be changed. All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. All the decent drapery of life is to be rudely torn off. All the superadded ideas, furnished from the wardrobe of a moral imagination, which the heart owns, and the understanding ratifies, as necessary to cover the defects of our naked, shivering nature, and to raise it to dignity in our own estimation, are to be exploded as a ridiculous, absurd, and antiquated fashion. 128
    On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege, are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father, are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance, or in any way, gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.

    On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors, and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations, or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons; so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems, is equally true as to states:—Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation, which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.

     

    All the pleasing illusions, which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason.

    Autism run roughshod.

    Read More
  139. @Corvinus
    You beat me to it with your comment. Hamilton was a "mixed" child in this regard, which was considered undesirable at that point in time.

    French and English = mixed?

    How would that be considered undesirable? You do realize the English always found the French pretty fashionable right? And that English monarchs regularly had French spouses. And many French colonial immigrants had a lot of money. On the side of my family that has colonial ancestry, I have found many French-English pairings, albeit switched, with a French father and English mother. I’m assuming the woman was “marrying up” in most cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "How would that be considered undesirable? You do realize the English always found the French pretty fashionable right?"

    Fashionable to fight several wars against one another, yes.

    "And that English monarchs regularly had French spouses."

    Not surprising, since throughout European history the upper classes intermarried to gain wealth, status, and power.
  140. Burr kind of looked like David Cross from Mr. Show.

    Nonsense. Everyone knows he looked like Leslie Odom Jr.

    Read More
  141. @Jefferson
    "Who cares what he said. Hamilton was a beautiful and glorious black man. That’s what’s important."

    A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture.

    “A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture.”

    But surely he would have identified as a Black Man had he been fortunate enough to live in Current Year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "But surely he would have identified as a Black Man had he been fortunate enough to live in Current Year."

    Lin Manuel Miranda being a Triracial Pardo Puerto Rican has more of a legit claim to Blackness than the Scottish, French, and English Alexander Hamilton.

    Heck even Ronda Rousey has more of a legit claim to Blackness than Alexander Hamilton, yet Ronda does not go around saying she is a Black woman, she doesn't one drop rule herself.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey#Early_life
  142. @Desiderius

    highbrow
     
    It's a good read, but still very much middlebrow, not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Middlebrow by your standards. But astronomically highbrow by the standards of NY theater goers.

    Read More
  143. @Ttjy
    This is a video on the Apollo missions and it mentions states where it was made. No Mexico or China needed.

    00:15 through 1:25.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM2KWCMrOYw

    Hey, there are no big fat guys in that video!

    Read More
  144. @Lagertha
    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this. The vile singling out of Pence and his family was abhorrent. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed ( I think the Flotus said "proud") of the United States. These actors are mean-spirited and downright abusive. I have never seen actors call out a publicly elected figure out like this, and ENJOY excoriating him - I sensed the humiliation of Pence, his daughters and wife- it was abhorrent to witness. I am still appalled and disgusted. There truly is no decency and respect anymore. Everyone here knows that I voted for Obama in the past, but now, now, now, now...I wish nothing but bad luck for these brazenly cruel actors, and anyone who was stupid enough to vote for the corrupt Hillary. I am sick of these whiny so-called "progressives;" get a fracking life and move the eff on! Please move to Mexico, Venezuela, somewhere. I predict that Hamilton musical will suffer a big league backlash for humiliating the Presidency, you just don't go LOW like that on a basically, international stage. scuzzbuckets.

    As an immigrant, I was disgusted by this.

    Me too, and I am an immigrant too and a US citizen, and so is my wife. Legal immigrants have gone through many hoops, waited for years, paid extortionate fees, made dangerous journeys to obtain required documents, paid extortionate fees for medical examinations, undergone vaccinations, sat for hours in the airport on arrival so as to immigrate legally, paid more money for Green Cards, and so on.

    Meanwhile large employers in agriculture and some other industries facilitate the arrival of illegals, so as to undercut US wages.

    So apparently there are also illegals now working on Broadway stages who are scared of being deported.

    Deport them immediately, I say, for the damage they have already done to the New York tourism industry, and before they do any more harm. Or at least deport them the day after the Inauguration.

    The next thing is to go after the large scale employers of illegals and throw them in prison. Make examples of them to discourage the others.

    Read More
  145. @Svigor
    Imagine Joe Biden at a Rodeo in Texas in November of 2007; he would not be roundly booed, and none of the entertainers would lecture him.

    Texas rednecks have more class than rich people in Manhattan.

    They’re less sure of themselves–because of the dominant culture, but also because everyone is small before God, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    everyone is small before God
     
    This cannot be overstated.

    There is a reason, many in fact, why Christendom has reigned these 2,000 years.

    Reports of her death are, as always, premature or at least not much use when her namesake is known for not staying dead.
  146. @keypusher
    I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast.


    That may be the craziest statement I've read about Hamilton on Steve's blog, and that's saying something. First of all, Miranda doesn't need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white, especially since he got rid of the beard and ponytail.

    http://splitsider.com/2016/10/are-you-not-entertained-lin-manuel-miranda-sings-his-way-through-snl/

    Second, he did not write a hip-hop musical with the idea of casting a bunch of white actors in it. His previous show was about Washington Heights and featured the same kind of cast that Hamilton has.

    I didn’t mean that he ever actually intended to cast it with white actors. I think it was all bound up together in his mind from the very beginning – I will write it in hip-hop style, I will be the star, and the cast will all be black. But “I will be the star” was probably the most important part in his mind. And it certainly worked for him!

    And obviously his previous works set in minority milieus had minority casts.

    Read More
  147. @guest
    Melting pot my butt. That term comes from the 29th century, when they had the means, through mass education, mass media, and mass consumption to propagandize everyone into submission.

    No, by the 25th century that had all broken down due to the malfunctioning grey goo released by the Xzurxy-Chang administration in an attempt to create jobs after the nanomachines automated janitorial and paranursing positions and the illegal aliens (from Alpha Centauri) had affirmative action positions for everything else. It was the 23rd century when they were using implanted software to broadcast first politically correct messages and then ads shortly afterward into everyone’s brains. (In the 22nd century, of course, war was beginning.)

    The 29th century was mostly about the development of furnaces that could recover metal from all the useless cars lying around and get us back into the iron age.

    Read More
  148. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    I haven't seen or heard Hamilton so I can't comment on its quality, but it is a difficult challenge for racial minorities (especially blacks and American Indians) to identify with American's founders. Whites should at least recognize that and hopefully feel some empathy while still being fiercely loyal to our founders. From the perspective of American patriotism, Hamilton seems like a very good thing.

    Please explain to me how some Slavic peasant from bumblefuck, nowhere has a connection to the dominantly Anglo-Saxon founders of the United States?

    Read More
  149. @syonredux

    An impressively blood-soaked record. And, yet, when your blood-stained hero Lincoln slaughters a few hundred thousand people, you’re completely cool with it. I’m sure that the Jacobins and Napoleon were just as certain of the righteousness of their cause as was that bloody-minded butcher, “Honest” Abe.
     
    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.

    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.
     
    And yet, somehow, the Confederacy was entirely composed of slave states........Must be a coincidence......
  150. @Anon
    Democratic Party used to be a southern agrarian, Irish Catholic, immigrant, working class, poor black, Jewish, and Wasp conscience party. (There was a time when it was more about White Conscience than White Guilt. White Conscience was about white Liberals with immense pride in America but aware of the injustices in the treatment of workers and the poor.) It was quite a coalition. Also, Democrats had the women vote.

    The Democratic Party might have remained dominant but for the fact that blacks turned out to be rather crazy. If blacks were merely whites with black skin or like Hindus(dark-skinned Caucasians), I think the Civil Rights Movement would have worked out just fine. The Kennedy-LBJ coalition would have been triumphant.

    But once blacks got equality, they began burning down cities and committing tons of crime. This lost the white working class. And rise of black power in the South drove whites to the GOP.
    There was the youth factor too in the 60s as Democrats became the hothead youth party, and young people got out of control at the 68 Convention, driving older Silent Majority voters to the GOP. A good many of these youths were radical Jews, but there were troublesome youths of all color.
    But youth wasn't a long-term factor since young people eventually grow up and mellow out.
    In contrast, blacks remained black in behavior despite the passage of yrs.

    If blacks had been sane, I think Democrats would have pretty much ruled. US would have become like Social-Democratic dominant Europe.

    But blacks weren't merely problematic but downright disastrous all across America, destroying entire communities, even entire cities as in Detroit and Baltimore.

    Black drove so many people away from the Democratic party that the Democrats might have gone nearly extinct but for the Jews(who loathed the GOP as the Wasp-dominant party). Whereas white ethnics didn't mind joining the GOP and playing second fiddle to dominant Wasps, Jews didn't want to play second fiddle to anyone. Since GOP was so wasp-dominant, Jews stuck with the Democratic Party, and that kep the Party going.

    Indeed, imagine American history from the late 60s without Jews. Democratic Party would be bleeding support largely due to black violence and nuttery. Blacks would be going nuts, and southern whites and working class whites move to GOP. And even liberal women are scared of black crime and become suburban soccer moms. Urban areas are falling apart from black assault.

    But the Democrats had the Jews with immense wealth, control of media and academia, and pull on politicians dependent on Jewish donations. Also, with control of media and academia, Jews gained great influence over even GOP and conservatives due to their control of Narrative. The Narrative made even GOP and conservatives sing hosannas to MLK, denounce 'racism', and worship the Holocaust.

    This Narrative changed White Conscience into White Guilt. The White Conscience of men like FDR and LBJ was about noblesse oblige(though not without political cynicism as LBJ wanted to lock in the black votes). It was about magnanimity. But White Guilt is about atonement and redemption. It is about White Shame and Abasement.



    This control of the Narrative robbed the ascendant GOP of moral arsenal(except in the Cold War against Communism which became an easy moral target as communist Southeast Asia turned into hellhole and truths came out about Russian and Chinese horrors under communism).

    Without Jewish power and influence, there might have been no Democratic monopoly of the Narrative. There might still have been self-critical white gentile liberals, but their mode would have been more of White Conscience than White Guilt.
    Also, without Jewish money, far fewer politicians would have been bought by the Democratic Machine. Even without Jews, blacks would have bitched and whined about 'racism' and other problems, but as blacks wouldn't have had control of media and academia, their reach would have been limited. Indeed, Obama the first black prez was totally a Jewish creation.

    Also, if there had been no Jewish Factor, there would have been no worship of Israel and the takeover of the GOP by the Neocon faction. And there would have been no homomania either. Homos would still be a tolerated sexual minority than a much-adulated holy group.

    Blacks destroyed the Democratic coalition by scaring so many folks half to death, but Jews held it together with their money, smarts, connections, and influence. Money and influence go a long way. Also, Jewish money kept enough economy in the cities and afforded enough people to keep control of the downtown core from which gentrification could one day grow outward.

    But Jews did sense the problem with blacks. And this is where Jews came to depend more on immigrants for the long term strategy. Without rising tide of immigrants, Jews cannot succeed for long with blacks alone. Blacks drive out too many people from the Democratic coalition. And blacks never change. Even after so many decades, we still have BLM craziness full of pathology, insanity, thuggery, and lunacy.

    So, in the long run, blacks will have to be made to take a backseat to the immigrants. Now, immigrants aren't necessarily 'natural liberals', but there are reasons why they lean Democratic for the time being.
    With Mexicans, the reasons for their pro-Democratic leaning is (1) resentment at richer gringo (2) brown power by more immigration (3) welfare and benefits.
    With Asians, the only rule is they go with the power and prestige. Since PC is law of the land and since all the rich cities and elite institutions are Democratic, the yellows just follow along like dogs. Yellows don't have much in the way of agency or foresight.

    As of now and for the foreseeable future, Four Groups really matter in US politics.
    All this talk of diversity really misses the point. Yes, US has people from all over the world, but most don't add up to much. I mean what do Nepalese-Americans or Turkmenistan-Americans amount to?

    The ones that matter are white gentiles obviously, still the majority.

    Jews who are only 2% but very smart and very powerful.

    Blacks who number over 40 million, scare lots of folks, have MLK holiness, and dominate badass cred of pop culture. Blacks produce lots of negative cultural trends like 'twerking', but they do catch on. Also, as black Africa is exploding, many more will come. Also, as there is brain-drain effect of bringing higher-IQ black Africans, the future of US may be black-American masses being led by black African elites and mulattos. Indeed, Obama is sort of that kind of person. Even in Hollywood, we often see the casting of black African actors over black American ones. And in elite colleges, the kinds of 'black Americans' that the white elites rub shoulders with are black African immigrant in origin. Can black Africans claim Selma when their ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites? Everyone is mum about this, but maybe this should be made an issue. Why should black Africans get affirmative action and claim the mantle of Selma when their history is so different? Imagine Mongolians who arrived recently claiming the narrative of Japanese internment camps. It'd be ridiculous.

    Browns. Browns may be 'mediocre', but they are huge in number and keep growing, and their votes really matter in certain states. And even in states without many of them, they can tip the balance against the GOP.

    As for the rest, they don't matter. Status-obsessed and/or imitative Asians just go with the winner(who happen to be Democrats in elite centers of power even after the GOP victory in 2016). They will follow any side that has the privilege and prestige.
    To be sure, Hindus are more independent-minded than yellows(and India may become the #1 source of immigration to the US in the future), but they, along with Muslims, don't really have a hold on the American political or cultural imagination. When Hindus, Muslims, and yellows bitch about problems, even white Americans just shut their ears or tell them to shut up.
    While some Hindus are very smart and join in the intellectual debate, everything they say is hand-me-down PC from whites. They are lively but rarely original.

    As for homos, their power is considerable but depends largely on Jews. Homos, along with trannies, are on top now, but they don't have independent power. They are on an artificial high because the ruling minority elites of Jews favor them. If Jewish power goes, homo power will begin to dissipate.

    So, the future of Democratic Party depends on Jews, White Guilt gentiles, blacks, and browns. (Asians and Muslims will go for the ride, but they won't be significant.) Homos are important but mini-me's of Jews essentially, or proxy of Zion.

    Question is...

    How can more white guilt gentiles be 'redpilled'?

    How can blacks be persuaded that mass immigration has turned them from the First Minority(biggest and most important minority) into the Second Minority(surpassed by browns) and even third minority(given there is so much more fanfare about homos)? Blacks who heard about Hillary's Open Borders plan couldn't have been happy about US being open to 600 million 'Latinos'. For nearly all of American history, blacks were the undisputed First Minority, but within a few decades after the passage of Immigration Act, blacks became the Second Minority. Also, all immigrant groups seem to pass ahead of blacks in most areas except sports and music. Government jobs are one area where blacks do have a certain quota-filled lock, but they might come under more competition for government jobs as private sector becomes a less secure place for jobs.

    How serious will PC turn pro-BDS and begin to really scare Jews?

    As for browns, might there be a way to drive a wedge between white ones, brown ones, and other ones(such as blacks)? White Hispanics are among the dirtiest bunch of a-holes, posing as 'people of color' and blaming 'gringo' for all the problems when it was their Conquistador ancestors who created all the mess in 'Latin America'.

    If there is a way to make non-white 'Latinos' move against white Latinos, the latter will have no choice but to identify as white and maybe join with whites. Of course, they prefer the fact that they are white or whiter than short stocky mestizos and indios, but they feel a degree of inferiority complex vis-a-vis lighter northern Europeans. It's like what Southern Italians have long in relation to lighter-skinned northern Europeans.
    But if Southern Italians still regard themselves as white, Latin whites have been posing as 'people of color'.
    There might a way to crack that nut.

    Of course, it is advantageous for Latin whites to identify as 'mestizo' since they are minorities in Latin American nations. If they make too much fuss about their whiteness, the masses of non-whites might target them as the oppressors. But if they make their whiteness invisible by pretending to be part of the Latin American melting pot --- where all races have harmoniously mixed together --- , they can direct the ire of the non-whites masses at the white 'yanqui' and 'gringo'. It is ironic that America, that makes so much fuss about the evils of Jim Crow and Apartheid, has essentially aided the 'white supremacist' domination of Latin America by Conquistador-American elites, sometimes by repressive means that cost 100,000s of lives in places like Guatemala. I guess Latin America avoided the full scrutiny of this bloodbath because it is at least officially all about race-mixing. Official Propaganda goes a long way to divert our eyes from the actual truth.

    Do you feel better now?
    How many white children have you had? For that matter, how many white children does Steve have? We already know the Derb failed on that part…

    Read More
  151. @matt

    That’s more the Democratic Party these days, and Trump’s trade and immigration policies are definitely at odds with them.
     
    Where did I defend the Democrats?

    It remains to be seen what Trump's trade and immigration policies will be exactly, but even if the ruling class is hurt by them somewhat, you can bet that they will be generously compensated with tax cuts, union busting, privatization, military spending, financial deregulation, elimination of Medicare, and a host of other reactionary policies. Trumpism, like all nationalisms, is based on class collaboration, not class conflict. "Deal-making."


    Not in evidence.
     
    Wait till he picks his Treasury Secretary and SEC chair, then get back to me.

    You probably mean less progressive taxation than others.
     
    Less progressive, or more regressive. Whatever you want to call it, it means more money in the bank accounts of the rich.

    Not in evidence. Trump certainly wants to renegotiate. He’s against international rule in general, being an American Firster in general.
     
    He's proposed torture and pillage, both violations of the Geneva Conventions, for starters. And international law isn't the same as "international rule", whatever that is, but you knew that.

    He’s proposed torture and pillage, both violations of the Geneva Conventions

    Uh, we already do that I think. I vaguely remember, but am not sure, there being a controversy in the media about that a while back.

    Read More
  152. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    You expect Trump to change? :D

    He didn't change after winning the nomination and managed to win so I doubt he'll be any more "Presidential" in the future. Trump is Trump: the Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.


    That said, I can see why he was offended. Pence attends a performance and really shouldn't be lectured. The message was respectful in tone but patronizing in content.

    “The message was respectful in tone but patronizing in content.”

    I’m stealing that, if you don’t mind!”

    Read More
  153. @Shine a Light
    I think it's wrong to call Hamilton, or other Founding Fathers, immigrants. They moved from one British territory (England) to others (Crown colonies). That is not immigration as they stayed subjects to the same sovereign.

    Once they overthrew British rule in America they did not suddenly become immigrants either since they conjured the United States out of thin air. Traitors or revolutionaries, depending on your point of view: Yes. Immigrants? No.

    I actually heard someone (can’t remember who, but it was a big foot member of the media) say that Hamilton wasn’t eligible to be President because he had been born in the West Indies. I’m a high school History teacher- I try, I really do, but sometimes it just doesn’t take!

    Read More
  154. Are the showrunners of Reality Itself following iSteve (probably from the executive washroom stall on their iPhones where no one can see them) or what? First the adoption of Arch-Federalist Alexander Hamilton as a Founding Father of Vibrancy, thus completing the inversion of the party of Jackson and Jefferson, and now this circus. I love America!

    Read More
  155. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    Hamilton, the other Founding Fathers, and the Republic’s original legislators knew what they were doing and did what they wrote. It took an honest sociological researcher over 200 years to figure out they were right (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract). Putnam’s research basically confirmed many of Hamilton’s observations. Putnam has spent the past fifteen years since publishing his research furiously backpedaling from reality to get back in the good graces of his SJW compatriots.

    BTW, making up historical realities to support an argument, in the hope you’ll get away with the con was – and I can only hope still is – regarded as an automatic loss in formal debating if you’re opponents call you out on it. My impression is that most oif your audience here is far more informed than you, individually and collectively, and particularly in the areas of history and current events. It might be best to eschew the con job approach and made up history in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Putnam’s research basically confirmed many of Hamilton’s observations. Putnam has spent the past fifteen years since publishing his research furiously backpedaling from reality to get back in the good graces of his SJW compatriots."

    All you did was link to an abstract to Putnam's work without actually stating exactly how and why his research "confirmed" Hamilton's observations. Putnam's work also received a heavy heap of legitimate criticism.

    http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/20060707gabbard.html

    "BTW, making up historical realities to support an argument, in the hope you’ll get away with the con was – and I can only hope still is – regarded as an automatic loss in formal debating if you’re opponents call you out on it."

    Assuming that I made up historical realities. Praytell, what say you about this ongoing "good white" vs. "bad white" argument?
  156. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. "Melting Pot" today can mean various things, as in "whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color".

    "The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided."

    No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent.

    Your statement, judging by the results of how the historical record, (how things played out in actual practice) is basically bullshit.

    For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country. After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren't very many "refugees", or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers. In the 1950's, "Operation Wetback" was explicitly designed to curb the tide of (at that time) what was seen as runaway Mexican immigration.

    Dunno about anyone here, but ca.90% appears to be a clear majority for any one single ethny or racial makeup of a nation.

    “Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”.”

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    “No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent.”

    It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered “anti-white”?

    “For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country.”

    The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

    “After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers.”

    A product of the times. Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    A product of the times.
     
    Why do you continue to lie about this. It was the product of a great deal of activism over a long time by a certain group.

    However, I am glad you have given us a justification for the the actions to be taken when the stables are cleaned out.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "A product of the times" is a non-sequitor. It's always "the times", so what? We have to go by what is in fact, the historical record, as well as the actual outcome of what occurred, as well as the results. Not by wishful thinking.

    "Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white."

    Uh, yes it does. It is the product (wait for it…) of the times, (2016). I live in 2016land, how about you?

    "Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?"

    And, for nearly 200 yrs they did make their own racial/ethnic decisions. Immigration was largely based on the 1790 Act which wanted the US to remain majority white. In point of fact this is exactly what occurred for well near 200 yrs----in the sense that "majority white" tended to hover well around ca.75-90%.

    But as we live in 2016, for whites to have an explicit racial consciousness as all other races do, is strictly forbidden. If any lawmaker were to publicly state that he wanted to reform the immigration process so that virtually all non-whites were excluded from entering the US for citizenship, what would happen to him? He'd be out of office so fast it'd make your head spin. So much for the idea that in 2016, whites are permitted to make their own racial decisions in public policy that pertains to immigration. So then the answer to that question is NO. Whites are NOT allowed to make their own racial decisions IF the decision would be "Hey, let's return to banning most non-whites from entering the US and for the most part only allow whites from Europe/Australia/South Africa to enter the US and apply for citizenship."

    "It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered “anti-white”?"

    Nope, because the word used is "certain", but not ALL white Europeans. The 1924 Act also kept out most non-white peoples and the Chinese exclusion act remained largely untouched. Basically, the 1924 Act was about keeping the majority of immigrants to the US, while strictly curtailed, keeping those that were permitted to come in for citizenship as white. Until 1965, in public policy regarding immigration, it simply never occurred to lawmakers to "Hey, let's throw open our borders willy nilly to everyone in the world, whether white or not, and especially if they're not white." That was in fact the ultimate aim of the 1965 Act, as for the first time, non-whites were explicitly allowed to come in and apply for citizenship, and at a much higher rate than whites have been since that time.

    "The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable."

    A non-sequitor. Completely meaningless. What would Charles Darwin's research have said? Uh, that they were in fact, from a strictly scientific point, white.


    "Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites"

    Hold it. Restrictions? The 1790 Act, which in fact was the blueprint for all immigration acts until 1965, explicitly did not allow for many into the country, period. It basically was a near total ban on non-wbite immigration.


    "but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people."

    Whatever. Another meaningless phrase that means nothing. Its understandable that your candidate Hillary Clinton did not win the election and you may feel out of sorts if not butt hurt that she lost. Understandable. But do try and make a coherent point on immigration as it relates the challenges of 2016.
    , @Jefferson
    "Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white."

    America is a salad bowl, not a melting pot. Due to mass immigration with no significant break to let immigrants assimilate like what happened between 1924 and 1965, we in The U.S are increasingly no longer being united by one common language and a common set of cultural values.

    The San Gabriel Valley for example is extremely culturally different from Scranton, Pennsylvania, like night and day. Scranton is culturally American as apple pie, while in SGV the number of Cantonese speaking households outnumber English speaking households. That's what you call Balkanization, not a melting pot.

    What the hell unites a German from Scranton and a Chinese person from the San Gabriel Valley? Nothing, they don't see each other as fellow American countrymen.

  157. Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    LOL. That must be why one needs a slide rule to figure out Europe’s royal family trees.

    There’s no cure for stupid, but maybe some white man will help you out one day.

    Read More
  158. @a Newsreader
    Blogger Ryan Landry's theory is that Hamilton is a CIA PsyOp designed to make wealthy white liberals more comfortable living as a minority. The images are designed to make it look like the race of the founders was accidental, and that progressive liberalism will survive without a white majority.

    That’s the irony – if the founders really looked like what the actors look like, US politics would have ended up being more like Haiti’s or Zimbabwe’s.

    Read More
  159. @Tiny Duck
    Hamilton represents the future of America. A better future. A future free from the incompetence and bigotry of white men. To dislike Hamilton is to dislike America.

    Your cognitive dissonance comes only from your futile attempts to resist Trump Love. I know it’s scary. But we love you, brother, sister, whatever. Come on in, Tiny Duck, the water’s fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Come on, dude, you'll get banned by Chrisnonymous.

    I think we need a better quality of troll. Tiny Duck is rather unenterprising, he just talks about how bad white people are. A better troll would attack the alt-right's contradictions or weaknesses. Talk about how manospherians just want to flip the feminist double standard to favor them, about how white nationalists keep drawing the boundaries of whitness arbitrarily, immigration restrictionists are hypocrites, Trump isn't going to gas his own grandkids and may in fact have the most Jewish-controlled administration in a while if the stories about Ivanka and Jared are true, etc. Heck, look at Steve's post about how Skorzeny was a Mossad agent, where he trolled his own commenters. No movement is monolithic and perfect.

  160. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Don’t blame the audience or Dixon for being rude to and lecturing Vice President elect Pence. After all, they were just defending what they thought was their people-of-color “safe space” from invasion by a whitey.

    They do it on university campuses every day, which is why they see nothing wrong with it. Indeed they are incredulous when it is pointed out to them that booing, shaming, publicly humiliating and jeering at someone and then lecturing them about tolerance and inclusion are mutually exclusive. They really don’t get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Dixon is a lesser creature than that: http://theambitjournal.com/2016/11/20/hamilton-actor-called-out-mike-pence-history-demeaning-white-women-twitter/
  161. @Corvinus
    "More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of “good moral character” could get citizenship (the franchise)."

    Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations. The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.

    "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils."

    So, Hamilton was talking about his intense bitterness for other whites--his brethren--in particular the French. Would he fit under the description of a "good white" or a "bad white"?

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.

    a big no-no in Europe itself.

    I won’t heap on any more than other posters have to this statement, other than to ask, do you even spend five seconds considering what you’re typing? You post a lot of stuff like this.

    Read More
  162. Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.

    Lincoln was stopping what made this country in the first place: self-determination.

    And obviously, the self-determination was in the name of self-determination. “Stopping slavery” is mere “burning the village to save it” BS. Like killing hundreds of thousands of white men is justified by slavery (were slaveholders killing hundreds of thousands of blacks? No. Not even close). Blacks are still in chains today, because they like putting each other there.

    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.

    Syon’s very much on his own with his Yankee-Judean fondness of Lincoln and his aggressive invasion of the South. To act as though it’s typical of the right, in contrast to the left, is to ignore reality.

    MMM, let’s just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery….

    Right. There was secession, and “suddenly,” slavery was a deal-breaker. Suuuuure.

    Van Zandt, like most lefties, has a rather broad definition of “insanity”:

    Although Van Zandt tweeted that “everyone who is sane disagrees with [Pence's] policies,” he argued that a Broadway show – or anywhere where art is performed – is not the proper venue to “bully” an audience member.

    Half the US is insane, apparently. Actually, he’s probably right; a huge percentage of White Americans have been indoctrinated to multiculti racial insanity. There is no good explanation for why they believe such self-destructive nonsense. So Van Zandt is just wrong about who, not what.

    As for his argument, it’s another reminder of that quote Steve’s cited several times over the years, about how people are most Conservative about what they know best. He’s making a long-winded argument for professionalism.

    Whoopi Goldberg recently said on The View that Black people are not going anywhere

    If leftists aren’t fighting straw men, they have nothing to say.

    They’re less sure of themselves–because of the dominant culture, but also because everyone is small before God, etc.

    More patriotic. You don’t boo the PotUS or the VPotUS, just because he’s from the other party. And more polite. You just don’t act like that. You know many southerners? (K maybe I shouldn’t have chosen Texans, who I don’t know well, and do seem more brash than many southerners).

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    It does now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Hey, haven't we danced this dance before, Svigor? But if you want another round, for old times' sake....

    Lincoln was stopping what made this country in the first place: self-determination.

     

    The Revolution was predicated on the fact that the 13 colonies did not have representation in Parliament. Last time I checked, the South (courtesy of the undemocratic three-fifths clause) was over-represented in Congress.

    And, of course, the Confederacy didn't seem to mind putting-down attempts to secede from the Confederacy in Tennessee. Good for me but not for thee....

    And obviously, the self-determination was in the name of self-determination.
     
    Not according to actual Confederates like Alexander Stephens. They were quite firm on the importance of slavery....

    “Stopping slavery” is mere “burning the village to save it” BS.
     
    Dear fellow, imagine how horrific it would have been if slavery had spread....the USA would have been reduced to the cultural level of the Caribbean.....

    Like killing hundreds of thousands of white men is justified by slavery
     
    Hey, Jeff Davis certainly seemed to think that slavery justified killing hundreds of thousands of White men....


    Syon’s very much on his own with his Yankee-Judean fondness of Lincoln and his aggressive invasion of the South. To act as though it’s typical of the right, in contrast to the left, is to ignore reality.
     
    Dunno. Belief in Anglo unity seems pretty conservative to me.....Of course, I would have been a Tory in the Revolution.....

    MMM, let’s just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery….

    Right. There was secession, and “suddenly,” slavery was a deal-breaker. Suuuuure.

     

    It certainly didn't help.....
    , @Jack D

    Yankee-Judean fondness of Lincoln
     
    I realize that "Judean" is an all purpose slur but in terms of facts, the (small at the time) US Jewish community was probably more pro-Confederacy than pro-North. Not only were there prominent Southern Jews (Judah Benjamin) but a lot of the prominent NY German Jewish families had roots in the South (Lehman Brothers, Adolph Ochs, etc.) and/or interests in the cotton trading business and the Civil War was bad for business. The Old Testament recognizes slavery as permissible. Abolition was more of a Puritan thing than Jewish.

    Now this is not to say that Jews were "big in the slave trade" - that 's equally false. Before the great Ellis Island immigration wave there just weren't many Jews in the US and there were very few things that they were "big" in just by virtue of their rarity.
    , @SFG
    More patriotic. You don’t boo the PotUS or the VPotUS, just because he’s from the other party. And more polite. You just don’t act like that. You know many southerners? (K maybe I shouldn’t have chosen Texans, who I don’t know well, and do seem more brash than many southerners).

    Yeah, you're right. They are bigger on politeness. Patriotism as well, though the devotion to the Confederacy does conflict with that a little. ;)

    I know a few, but no real Southerners, mostly 'I was raised Baptist but really hated it and got out' types.
  163. @Corvinus
    "Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”."

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    "No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent."

    It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered "anti-white"?

    "For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country."

    The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

    "After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers."

    A product of the times. Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?

    A product of the times.

    Why do you continue to lie about this. It was the product of a great deal of activism over a long time by a certain group.

    However, I am glad you have given us a justification for the the actions to be taken when the stables are cleaned out.

    Read More
  164. @SFG
    They're less sure of themselves--because of the dominant culture, but also because everyone is small before God, etc.

    everyone is small before God

    This cannot be overstated.

    There is a reason, many in fact, why Christendom has reigned these 2,000 years.

    Reports of her death are, as always, premature or at least not much use when her namesake is known for not staying dead.

    Read More
  165. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    The author/composer is a smart, sophisticated student of politics. His dad is a political consultant in NYC and was Mayor Ed Koch's head Puerto Rican vote wrangler in the 1980s.

    The author/composer is pretty charismatic, too. I’d lik to dislike him, but I find him pretty entertaining to watch.

    Read More
  166. @SPMoore8
    Why was Pence seeing "Hamilton" anyway? Was his wife with him? I mean I don't recall Nixon going to see "Hair." I mean, seriously, WTF.

    It was almost certainly one of his teenage daughters’ idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Great; so a teenage girl was humiliated in public because of her father. Some things never change.

    Best commentary on this so far: Lincoln's response to Pence: "Could be worse, Bro"

    https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficial/photos/a.10152464900576163.1073741825.15139936162/10154570764541163/?type=3
  167. @matt
    If we're counting battlefield deaths now, then we ought to blame all the European wars of the pre-1789 era on the European Ancien Regime.

    The lives saved by the French Revolution jolting Europe into modernity should count on the other side of the ledger as well.

    With regard to China, Amartya Sen pointed out that the reduction in Chinese mortality after 1949 (compared to India after 1947) means that the Chinese Communists saved 10s of millions of lives, even after discounting the ~30 million deaths in the 1958-61 famine. So thank the Jacobins for that also.

    Besides, if we're laying the blame for the atrocities of the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions on the Jacobins, then we ought to lay the blame for the atrocities of the French Revolution (and by extension, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions) on the American Founding Fathers. Chalk another one up for Hamilton and co.

    Sen’s comparison with India is completely dishonest. The comparison should be made between Communist China and KMT-ruled Taiwan. Communist China didn’t “save” any lives.

    Quite the contrary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    The problem is we don't know the counterfactual. The defeated KMT on Taiwan was encouraged to undertake a developmentalist economic policy so it could serve as a bulwark against the Communist mainland. Would Chiang Kai-Shek have been as developmentalist if he had won the civil war and ruled the mainland. No one knows for sure, but there are reasons to think he wouldn't have.

    The comparison to India is in fact quite fair. India and China were at about the same level of human development in the late 1940s. Furthermore, the Indian state of Kerala has seen a reduction in mortality similar to China's by pursuing similar public health policies, so it isn't impossible for Indians to achieve something like that. Intra-Chinese comparisons are also enlightening: after Deng's reforms led to the destruction of the rural health care system, mortality rates rose sharply in China.

    Vietnam and Sri Lanka also saw big drops in mortality by investing in health care, again in contrast to India.

  168. @Corvinus
    "Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”."

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    "No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent."

    It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered "anti-white"?

    "For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country."

    The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

    "After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers."

    A product of the times. Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?

    “A product of the times” is a non-sequitor. It’s always “the times”, so what? We have to go by what is in fact, the historical record, as well as the actual outcome of what occurred, as well as the results. Not by wishful thinking.

    “Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.”

    Uh, yes it does. It is the product (wait for it…) of the times, (2016). I live in 2016land, how about you?

    “Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?”

    And, for nearly 200 yrs they did make their own racial/ethnic decisions. Immigration was largely based on the 1790 Act which wanted the US to remain majority white. In point of fact this is exactly what occurred for well near 200 yrs—-in the sense that “majority white” tended to hover well around ca.75-90%.

    But as we live in 2016, for whites to have an explicit racial consciousness as all other races do, is strictly forbidden. If any lawmaker were to publicly state that he wanted to reform the immigration process so that virtually all non-whites were excluded from entering the US for citizenship, what would happen to him? He’d be out of office so fast it’d make your head spin. So much for the idea that in 2016, whites are permitted to make their own racial decisions in public policy that pertains to immigration. So then the answer to that question is NO. Whites are NOT allowed to make their own racial decisions IF the decision would be “Hey, let’s return to banning most non-whites from entering the US and for the most part only allow whites from Europe/Australia/South Africa to enter the US and apply for citizenship.”

    “It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered “anti-white”?”

    Nope, because the word used is “certain”, but not ALL white Europeans. The 1924 Act also kept out most non-white peoples and the Chinese exclusion act remained largely untouched. Basically, the 1924 Act was about keeping the majority of immigrants to the US, while strictly curtailed, keeping those that were permitted to come in for citizenship as white. Until 1965, in public policy regarding immigration, it simply never occurred to lawmakers to “Hey, let’s throw open our borders willy nilly to everyone in the world, whether white or not, and especially if they’re not white.” That was in fact the ultimate aim of the 1965 Act, as for the first time, non-whites were explicitly allowed to come in and apply for citizenship, and at a much higher rate than whites have been since that time.

    “The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable.”

    A non-sequitor. Completely meaningless. What would Charles Darwin’s research have said? Uh, that they were in fact, from a strictly scientific point, white.

    “Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites”

    Hold it. Restrictions? The 1790 Act, which in fact was the blueprint for all immigration acts until 1965, explicitly did not allow for many into the country, period. It basically was a near total ban on non-wbite immigration.

    “but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.”

    Whatever. Another meaningless phrase that means nothing. Its understandable that your candidate Hillary Clinton did not win the election and you may feel out of sorts if not butt hurt that she lost. Understandable. But do try and make a coherent point on immigration as it relates the challenges of 2016.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "We have to go by what is in fact, the historical record, as well as the actual outcome of what occurred, as well as the results. Not by wishful thinking."

    The 1790 Immigration Act was a product of the times. It reflected at that juncture specific racial and ethnic attitudes. Those sentiments gradually changed. Furthermore, "melting pot" has no connotation of being "anti-white". It's pro-humanity.

    "And, for nearly 200 yrs they did make their own racial/ethnic decisions. Immigration was largely based on the 1790 Act which wanted the US to remain majority white."

    An early precedent that was broken. Remember, nativists were horrified when the Irish, Germans, and Italians came to our shores. They were other than white from the nativist perspective. Furthermore, a great number of white people within the past 50 years have changed their minds when it comes to desiring a majority white population.

    "But as we live in 2016, for whites to have an explicit racial consciousness as all other races do, is strictly forbidden."

    Don't be so melodramatic. It's not forbidden. You are free to express your whiteness. It's just that your fellow whites, the "bad whites" aren't necessarily on board with you, a "good white".

    "If any lawmaker were to publicly state that he wanted to reform the immigration process so that virtually all non-whites were excluded from entering the US for citizenship, what would happen to him? He’d be out of office so fast it’d make your head spin."

    That would tell you everything you want to know about how most whites feel about immigration, since they are expressing how they want to make those racial decisions in public policy.

    "Whites are NOT allowed to make their own racial decisions IF the decision would be “Hey, let’s return to banning most non-whites from entering the US and for the most part only allow whites from Europe/Australia/South Africa to enter the US and apply for citizenship.”

    Except you are forgetting the concept of "majority rules".

    “It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered “anti-white”?”

    "Nope, because the word used is “certain”, but not ALL white Europeans."

    So, certain parts of the 1924 Act was "anti-white". Why? I thought white was preferable, regardless if they came from different parts of Europe.

    "Until 1965, in public policy regarding immigration, it simply never occurred to lawmakers to “Hey, let’s throw open our borders willy nilly to everyone in the world, whether white or not, and especially if they’re not white.” That was in fact the ultimate aim of the 1965 Act, as for the first time, non-whites were explicitly allowed to come in and apply for citizenship, and at a much higher rate than whites have been since that time."

    Which reflected a change in the times.

    "A non-sequitor. Completely meaningless. What would Charles Darwin’s research have said? Uh, that they were in fact, from a strictly scientific point, white."

    We're not talking about genetics here. We're talking about nativists characterizing certain whites as being other than white from a social standpoint.

    “Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites”

    "The 1790 Act, which in fact was the blueprint for all immigration acts until 1965, explicitly did not allow for many into the country, period. It basically was a near total ban on non-wbite immigration."

    It was not the blueprint, but simply a course of action that could be changed by the citizens of the nation for future generations.

    "Whatever. Another meaningless phrase that means nothing. Its understandable that your candidate Hillary Clinton did not win the election and you may feel out of sorts if not butt hurt that she lost. Understandable. But do try and make a coherent point on immigration as it relates the challenges of 2016."

    First, I didn't vote for Hillary. Second, it is other than meaningless regarding the role of Congress, who was enabled by the Founding Fathers to change the rules regarding citizenship.
  169. @Hunsdon
    Your cognitive dissonance comes only from your futile attempts to resist Trump Love. I know it's scary. But we love you, brother, sister, whatever. Come on in, Tiny Duck, the water's fine.

    Come on, dude, you’ll get banned by Chrisnonymous.

    I think we need a better quality of troll. Tiny Duck is rather unenterprising, he just talks about how bad white people are. A better troll would attack the alt-right’s contradictions or weaknesses. Talk about how manospherians just want to flip the feminist double standard to favor them, about how white nationalists keep drawing the boundaries of whitness arbitrarily, immigration restrictionists are hypocrites, Trump isn’t going to gas his own grandkids and may in fact have the most Jewish-controlled administration in a while if the stories about Ivanka and Jared are true, etc. Heck, look at Steve’s post about how Skorzeny was a Mossad agent, where he trolled his own commenters. No movement is monolithic and perfect.

    Read More
  170. I’m curious as to how the play treats Aaron Burr. My gut guess is that it treats him as a cartoony villain with zero depth and probably a racist to boot, since nothing is more evil than being a racist. In truth, Burr has always seemed like a more interesting and complex person than Hamilton. He’s also a linchpin in various alternative history timelines. For example, had he won the governorship of New York in 1804, there was a good chance that all of the states north of the Mason-Dixon Line (except maybe Delaware) would have seceded.

    Read More
  171. @snorlax
    It was almost certainly one of his teenage daughters' idea.

    Great; so a teenage girl was humiliated in public because of her father. Some things never change.

    Best commentary on this so far: Lincoln’s response to Pence: “Could be worse, Bro”

    https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficial/photos/a.10152464900576163.1073741825.15139936162/10154570764541163/?type=3

    Read More
  172. Abusive husband: “my wife cheated on me (because I beat her), so the judge should deny her a divorce (so I can go on beating her).”

    Judge: “yeah I thought your argument was immoral scheisse, but then I read Syon and got my mind right.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Abusive husband: “my wife cheated on me (because I beat her), so the judge should deny her a divorce (so I can go on beating her).”

    Judge: “yeah I thought your argument was immoral scheisse, but then I read Syon and got my mind right.”
     
    Sadly, dear fellow, the abuse went the other way. The slave-holding South was abusing the North: the three fifths compromise*, the fugitive slave act of 1850 (talk about trampling on States' Rights!), etc.


    *Of course, if the South had had their way, it would have been far worse. Slaves would have counted as full people in terms of apportioning congressional representation....
  173. @Mr. Anon
    "Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself."

    Right, which is why there were french huguenots in Germany, or Germans in Russia and Romania, or......etc. You are evidently as ignorant of european history as you are of so many other things. In any event, it certainly wasn't a world mixing pot, the very idea of which would have been abhorent to early Americans.

    "Yet, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to determine the status of citizenship for future generations."

    They left lots of things unsaid. They never imagined that so much of the country would fall into the hands of people who were hostile to the founding stock of the nation.

    " The implication that this original act was meant to be the standard bearer is misguided.""

    Then why did they enact it? No, it is you who are misguided. Or just lying.

    “Right, which is why there were french huguenots in Germany, or Germans in Russia and Romania, or……etc. You are evidently as ignorant of european history as you are of so many other things. In any event, it certainly wasn’t a world mixing pot, the very idea of which would have been abhorent to early Americans.”

    First, there were French Huguenots in those areas because of a common religious bond.

    Second, the ethnic mixing that took place was a social taboo, as it lead to conflict. I thought whites were to get along with one another.

    Third, I never said anything about a “world melting pot”, you made that characterization. I made it clear that it was an American concept.

    “They left lots of things unsaid. They never imagined that so much of the country would fall into the hands of people who were hostile to the founding stock of the nation.”

    Like whites from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Greece? Again, it is indisputable that Congress was given the authority to determine the citizenship for future generations.

    “Then why did they enact it? No, it is you who are misguided. Or just lying.”

    They put in place those standards as a product of the times. Times change.

    Read More
  174. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I agree with your comment, except for:

    First of all, Miranda doesn’t need to be surrounded by blacks and Dominicans to look white

     

    He doesn’t look white, unless you also count MENA Caucasoids as white. (I don’t.) He’s not as solidly ‘vibrant’ as some of the more hip-hoppity cast members, but he isn’t quite white, either. ‘Mystery meat’ might be the best (unsentimental) phenotypical descriptor.

    I just checked on Google. The guy looks totally European. A bit Southern European, but European nevertheless. There are Germans who look like him. Not typical Germans, but some Germans do look like him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    There is no standard system for reproducing color so color photos can make you look much darker or lighter than your actual skin color and different in skin tone. In the case of many lighter skinned mixed race persons, you can only tell in a photo when they are standing next to a 100% Caucasian person. Like this:

    http://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/george-lucas-lin-manuel-miranda-hamilton-2015-billboard-650.jpg

    http://www.gettyimages.com/event/celebrities-visit-broadway-august-23-2015-527966059#lin-manuel-miranda-and-ron-howard-pose-backstage-at-the-hit-musical-picture-id485063702

    http://www.gettyimages.com/event/celebrities-visit-broadway-august-23-2015-527966059#lin-manuel-miranda-and-stephen-colbert-pose-backstage-at-the-hit-on-picture-id485063808

    Then you can see the distinctive "yaller" (yellow) or olive cast to their skin. While some Greeks or Italians also have this cast (possibly due to their own African admixture) it is pretty rare among Germans, even those with dark hair (see Colbert). When you add a little coffee to the cream among humans, for some reason the coloration tends toward the yellowish and not the brown as you might expect.

  175. @guest
    "a big no-no in Europe itself"

    Which is why they had all those ethnic conflicts, cleansings, separatist movements, and so forth later on. Because no peoples intermixed before.

    “That term comes from the 29th century, when they had the means, through mass education, mass media, and mass consumption to propagandize everyone into submission.”

    You are ignorant.

    From wikipedia…

    The first use in American literature of the concept of immigrants “melting” into the receiving culture are found in the writings of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecoeur writes, in response to his own question, “What then is the American, this new man?” that the American is one who “leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.”

    “Which is why they had all those ethnic conflicts, cleansings, separatist movements, and so forth later on. Because no peoples intermixed before.”

    Right, as I corrected stated, the mixing of ethnic groups was a big no-no.

    Read More
  176. @Anon
    If there's one thing I've learned through 8 years of Obama, it's that ignoring lefty obnoxiousness doesn't work. When there's no reply, it makes all the bystanders think the new orthodoxy is now extreme leftism. There needs to be a reply to leftism, a contrast so all the undecided persons can get their bearings.

    Trump demanded that the cast apologize. I'm sure it's never occurred to any leftist in America that they should apologize for anything they say or do at all. Meanwhile, the bystanders will all of a sudden think, "Hey, being rude to the new vice president is wrong. Of course the Hamilton cast should apologize. That was a jerky thing to do."

    It's bad tactics to let the left create the narrative. There needs to be a counter-narrative, if America is going to ever head back towards the middle, much less the right.

    Trump also understands a very basic important point. Getting your way means you have to demand your way. You never get that last piece of cake on the plate unless you demand it. Trump knows this lesson because he's spent a lifetime negotiating tough business deals.

    Some good points. However, I’m now wondering if the intended response of Trump wasn’t to have both him and Pence (who just said no apology was necessary) reply in their usual good-cop, bad-cop fashion. Actually, kind of an effective strategy. Don’t know if my speculation is correct…but it’s interesting.

    Read More
  177. @Lurker

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.
     
    I'm English (mostly) and I had an Italian ancestor arrive here in 1699. He married the grandaughter of the Lord Mayor of Newcastle (he was also an MP) ie not a mere peasant. How did that happen if intermixing of Europeans was a big no-no? And his children kept his name, they didn't anglicise.

    The mixing of ethnic groups in Europe in the 1600 and 1700′s for the higher classes was considered acceptable as the vehicle to secure political and economic power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Throughout history, it's not unusual for the ruling class to be from a completely different ethnic group than the common people, usually as a result of conquest. The ruling class would intermarry among themselves and not the common people. Until 2 weeks ago, that looked like the direction the US was headed in too.
  178. @reiner Tor

    Interesting to note that America by this time was a melting pot by which the intermixing of Europeans, a big no-no in Europe itself.
     
    That's false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans. Even mixing with some other races wasn't totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled. (At the time, after the destruction of the Turkish wars, there was a lot of unsettled land which could be distributed among these families as an incentive to both parties in these marriages.) So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a "big no-no" in the 18th century.

    “That’s false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans.”

    It was still considered a big no-no. Interesting that despite the cultural threats that people made their own decisions about race, ethnicity, and culture.;

    “Even mixing with some other races wasn’t totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled…So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a “big no-no” in the 18th century.

    And what was the reason for this “compulsory intermarriage”? Hungarian leaders at that point in time dealt with the “Romani question” by placing restrictions on Romani marriages, and ordered children to be taken away from Romani parents to be raised in ‘bourgeois or peasant’ families. In other words, forced assimilation.

    Bans on traveling, settling by force, and deportation continued a tradition of expulsion and repression lasted for centuries by one white group over another white group. Were Hungarians the “good whites” or the “bad whites” in this situation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    [Inter-ethnic marriage] It was still considered a big no-no.

    What's the source for this? The Kingdom of Prussia welcomed French Huguenots, Scottish Presbyerians (ancestors of Kant), Dutch Reformed merchants (ancestors of Schopenhauer), and many others. Greeks, Armenians, and Jews were variously ennobled for their economic contributions and frequently married out (ancestors of von Karajan, Guderian, and Erich von Manstein).

    As noted, the Hungarians sought to assimilate the Tzigane (by force or not) and the Kingdom of Prussia determined that Polish men with German wives were German, while German men with Polish wives were Poles, which points to rampant intermarriage of Western Slavs and Germans throughout this period (modern Poles and Czechs), protestants of all kinds were welcomed in Russia -- even before Peter the Great -- and intermarried, etc. etc. etc.

    I can find no case for frowning on inter-ethnic marriage among the merchant, artisanal, or professional classes in the middle ages or early modern era. There was absolutely nothing unique about the ethnic inter-marriage among the merchant and professional classes in New Amsterdam.

    What was a deal breaker was religion: it was assumed you would adopt the regnant religion, and after that, nobody cared. This was the case in Russia (always), in Germany from the early modern era (e.g., ancestors of Friedrich Jacobi and many others), and in Poland as well, due to the periodic mass conversions of Jews (Sabbatianism, Frankism) who, in turn, were made members of the petty nobility (probable ancestors of Adam Mickiewicz.)
    , @reiner Tor
    I just gave you an example that even intermarriage with Gypsies was considered OK (as long as the couple and their children converged to Hungarian/peasant cultural norms), I could've given numerous examples of intermarriage/assimilation with other ethnic groups. (Lots of famous Hungarians had non-Hungarian ancestry, but Slovakian, Croatian, German/Austrian or Serbian ancestry was never an issue, and accordingly neither was intermarriage. Jews and Gypsies were the only two groups where the issue came up at all, but it was still preferred to these groups staying separate until maybe the 1920s or 30s, as long as the couple and the children converged to Hungarian cultural norms and Christianity.) You seem to be incapable to admit you were wrong on anything.
  179. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Now, hold it, hold it. Question: was Hamilton "mixed", as in Mulatto? A la Sally Hennings? This definition of a mixed person was well known at the time, especially in the South.

    In other words, Hamilton's "mixed" was a mere trifle compared to say, if he were an octomoroon, or a mulatto. The larger point of course, that Hamilton was a Spaniard/Amerindian mixture a la the actor currently playing him on Broadway, is laughably ignorant of the actual historical record, as well as the idea that major Founding Fathers and their friends would've been African-American or mulatto in origin is simply asinine to contemplate.

    Hamilton was mixed, the son of a mixed-race woman from the British West Indies.

    Heck, Americans are mixed. They are from different ethnic groups.

    Being “mixed” does not exclusively refer to being mulatto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    If by mixed race you mean partly African then no, no way. A it's not true and and B there's no mixed race person on earth who was as uber English looking as Hamilton.

    In common use, "mixed race" doesn't mean French/English, etc. but a mixture between one of the major races .

  180. @SFG
    No, by the 25th century that had all broken down due to the malfunctioning grey goo released by the Xzurxy-Chang administration in an attempt to create jobs after the nanomachines automated janitorial and paranursing positions and the illegal aliens (from Alpha Centauri) had affirmative action positions for everything else. It was the 23rd century when they were using implanted software to broadcast first politically correct messages and then ads shortly afterward into everyone's brains. (In the 22nd century, of course, war was beginning.)

    The 29th century was mostly about the development of furnaces that could recover metal from all the useless cars lying around and get us back into the iron age.

    In the year 2525
    if mankind is still alive…

    Read More
  181. @reiner Tor
    I just checked on Google. The guy looks totally European. A bit Southern European, but European nevertheless. There are Germans who look like him. Not typical Germans, but some Germans do look like him.

    There is no standard system for reproducing color so color photos can make you look much darker or lighter than your actual skin color and different in skin tone. In the case of many lighter skinned mixed race persons, you can only tell in a photo when they are standing next to a 100% Caucasian person. Like this:

    http://www.billboard.com/files/styles/article_main_image/public/media/george-lucas-lin-manuel-miranda-hamilton-2015-billboard-650.jpg

    http://www.gettyimages.com/event/celebrities-visit-broadway-august-23-2015-527966059#lin-manuel-miranda-and-ron-howard-pose-backstage-at-the-hit-musical-picture-id485063702

    http://www.gettyimages.com/event/celebrities-visit-broadway-august-23-2015-527966059#lin-manuel-miranda-and-stephen-colbert-pose-backstage-at-the-hit-on-picture-id485063808

    Then you can see the distinctive “yaller” (yellow) or olive cast to their skin. While some Greeks or Italians also have this cast (possibly due to their own African admixture) it is pretty rare among Germans, even those with dark hair (see Colbert). When you add a little coffee to the cream among humans, for some reason the coloration tends toward the yellowish and not the brown as you might expect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Good examples in the photos you linked to. I’d add that Miranda’s facial geometry also looks non-white, even less ‘white’ than many subcontinental Indians who may be far darker in complexion. It’s the combination of features that give us a clue to ancestry. Indeed, Miranda’s Wiki page mentions mixed-race heritage.
  182. @J1234
    Trump erred in his response to the statement from the cast of Hamilton. He should've let it blow over. Their little speech was high-minded and self-important, but it wasn't overtly rude or ill mannered. Much of America is watching him closely to see how well he can cope with the little stuff before he starts dealing with the big stuff. The left is always going to hate him, but he can win moderates over by not flying off the handle over insignificant crap...and that will put the left in the minority.

    Yep, and that attitude is how we got President Romney.

    Some of you have learned nothing.

    Read More
  183. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Mason
    It is disgraceful that the cast of a musical would behave in such a manner. Pence and his party should have the price of their tickets refunded. What is the point of traveling to New York if you can't enjoy a show in peace out of working hours regardless of your political affiliation?

    maybe you should just stay away from New York and catch the white version of Hamilton when it hits Indianapolis 2020

    Read More
  184. @Corvinus
    Hamilton was mixed, the son of a mixed-race woman from the British West Indies.

    Heck, Americans are mixed. They are from different ethnic groups.

    Being "mixed" does not exclusively refer to being mulatto.

    If by mixed race you mean partly African then no, no way. A it’s not true and and B there’s no mixed race person on earth who was as uber English looking as Hamilton.

    In common use, “mixed race” doesn’t mean French/English, etc. but a mixture between one of the major races .

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Even Chernow doesn't buy the "mixed race" rumor, according to the foonotes to the wiki, and that was Miranda's source material.

    My guess is that the mixed race rumor got going for the following reasons: (1) The mother was Huguenot and people don't know what that is, (2) Hamilton was born out of wedlock, (3) The mother was originally married to a Danish Jew (IIRC), which gave her another surname, (4) She was herself born in the Islands which allows for even more speculation.

    I'm quite open to the idea that someone was mixed race, or that Aesop, Hannibal, St Augustine, Socrates, Beethoven, etc. were "part black" if it helps someone of AA heritage to be able to relate to them as part of our common heritage. However, in my experience, telling black kids that Dumas and Pushkin were part black doesn't generate any interest in the Three Musketeers or Eugene Onegin.
  185. @Corvinus
    The mixing of ethnic groups in Europe in the 1600 and 1700's for the higher classes was considered acceptable as the vehicle to secure political and economic power.

    Throughout history, it’s not unusual for the ruling class to be from a completely different ethnic group than the common people, usually as a result of conquest. The ruling class would intermarry among themselves and not the common people. Until 2 weeks ago, that looked like the direction the US was headed in too.

    Read More
  186. @Tiny Duck
    Hamilton represents the future of America. A better future. A future free from the incompetence and bigotry of white men. To dislike Hamilton is to dislike America.

    A future free from the incompetence….of white men

    I usually don’t respond to TD but his trolling game has really fallen off since the election. In order to sting, trolling has to at least bear some relation to reality. I really can’t wait until the white men are gone and the REALLY competent brown people run things as well as they do in Zimbabwe and Tijuana.

    If we live in a future America where white men are extinct, maybe the food will be spicier and the music will have more beat to it, but the idea that competence will increase does not compute even by imaginary leftist troll standards.

    Read More
  187. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @J1234
    Trump erred in his response to the statement from the cast of Hamilton. He should've let it blow over. Their little speech was high-minded and self-important, but it wasn't overtly rude or ill mannered. Much of America is watching him closely to see how well he can cope with the little stuff before he starts dealing with the big stuff. The left is always going to hate him, but he can win moderates over by not flying off the handle over insignificant crap...and that will put the left in the minority.

    Nothing about Trump would indicate he operates at a level above his Twitter. There is much written about his apparent ADD. Let’s hope for the best with our “empty vessel” president

    Read More
    • Replies: @gda
    An "empty vessel" who did the impossible and captured the WH. An "empty vessel" who will work harder than any president, ever.

    And yet we still belittle him. We denied he could win the nomination. We denied he could win the presidency.

    Wasn't there some guy back in biblical times who denied the big guy thrice? Where did that get him?
    , @G Pinfold
    Since the broken widget wrongly adjudged me ineligible to 'Troll' your comment, let me do it the old way and say 'you, Sir, are a troll.'
  188. @guest
    I don't know about his Hamilton book, but as I've said before Chernow's books on the Rockefeller and Morgan cabals are a treasure trove for revisionists and conspiracy theorists, and not the kind the Establishment likes. I don't presume this was on purpose, but he is at least a moderately honest court historian.

    Chernow’s books on the Rockefeller and Morgan cabals are a treasure trove for revisionists and conspiracy theorists

    I’m about halfway through “Titan” and it’s a real bore. What am I missing?

    Read More
  189. @Kaz
    This is fucking stupid. This isn't what I wanted from a Trump presidency. I was hoping he was done with this bullshit. But a theater group sending a simple message that was extremely civil mind you, does not mean harassment.

    "Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at 'Hamilton: An American Musical,' " Dixon said onstage.
    "We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us."

    This is what Trump tweeted 'HARASSMENT' about? This is what he demands an apology for?

    Kaz, you obviously missed on this one. Elections have consequences and this is one of them. Until 2 weeks ago, white people were supposed to submit meekly when a non-white wanted to have a “conversation” with them (i.e. lecture them). We saw this with Sanders, with Christakis at Yale, etc. That era is now officially over.

    If the white cast of a Broadway show had stood before Obama and said, “Mr. President, we’re concerned that you are stuffing the Federal bureaucracy with talented tenth blacks who have a chip on their shoulder against white people, that you are undermining our immigration laws with executive orders, that your anti-coal policies are putting white people out of work and we want you to be the President of ALL the people,” then the show would have closed the next day and whoever read the speech would never work again.

    Read More
  190. @guest
    "who isn't?"

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can't read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.

    “who isn’t?”

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can’t read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.

    You’re being far too generous. I know plenty of German academics. According to them, Heidegger actually reads better in English translation….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    I am reminded of Hugo Rahner (a German Jesuit) saying of the works of his brother Karl (another one) that, once he had a bit of spare time, he would set about translating them into German.
  191. @Wilkey
    "I kind of suspect that the real reason for the minority cast was not a desire to make any kind of political statement, but simply the fact that Miranda wanted to play the title role himself. And once he made that choice, obviously he must have realized that he would look odd in an otherwise white cast."

    If Miranda wanted to play Alexander Hamilton among an otherwise white cast he could have. Even if he doesn't appear especially British the rules of stage casting would allow it. If an actor does a good job in the role you very quickly forget their skin color.

    No, he wrote a rap musical. He wanted it populated with minorities. His other two big rap musicals - "In the Heights" (which was meh) and "Bring It On" (which was pretty fun) - were also cast largely with minorities. That's the way he wanted it.

    As for the cast "speaking" to Mike Pence (it's hysterically funny and pompous if he wasn't actually there) it's in particularly bad taste to call out anyone in public like that when they aren't in a position to respond, especially after Pence had already been booed by some in the audience. This is why people hate left-wingers. They can keep pulling shit like this, and we can keep hating them even more. Their little stunt may also have killed some of the enthusiasm for their show, especially as it goes on tour.

    He had his niece and nephew with him….probably their idea, cringe. I don’t know how I would have reacted, as a teen/college student, if my dad had been a sitting duck, booed and lectured to by an impudent (naive, to say the least) actor, publicly, and streamed all over the world, with words written by the playwright. I would have screamed back, and man, that would have been enjoyable to see the Liberal Groupthink audience react to a wild-eyed, angry, screaming, teenage girl! Phony, uncouth liberals in that audience, the ones that booed, and the ones that were wussy-assed bystanders, would not have expected a bitchy young woman screeching back….now, that would have won me a Tony! – they’d still be writing about the “Girl with The Dragon Tattoo” striking back at stifling, fascistic conformity, by a young woman protesting the public humiliation (not to mention inappropriate, plain tacky) of her daddy.

    Read More
  192. @Corvinus
    "That’s false. There was a great deal of intermixing among Europeans."

    It was still considered a big no-no. Interesting that despite the cultural threats that people made their own decisions about race, ethnicity, and culture.;

    "Even mixing with some other races wasn’t totally frowned upon, at least not everywhere. For example, in the 18th century, there was a strong government policy in Hungary of settling Gypsies, which included compulsory intermarriage with the sons and daughters of Hungarian peasants, among whom they were settled...So clearly in Hungary intermarriage among Gypsies and Gadjos (non-Gypsies) was not a “big no-no” in the 18th century.

    And what was the reason for this "compulsory intermarriage"? Hungarian leaders at that point in time dealt with the "Romani question" by placing restrictions on Romani marriages, and ordered children to be taken away from Romani parents to be raised in 'bourgeois or peasant' families. In other words, forced assimilation.

    Bans on traveling, settling by force, and deportation continued a tradition of expulsion and repression lasted for centuries by one white group over another white group. Were Hungarians the "good whites" or the "bad whites" in this situation?

    [Inter-ethnic marriage] It was still considered a big no-no.

    What’s the source for this? The Kingdom of Prussia welcomed French Huguenots, Scottish Presbyerians (ancestors of Kant), Dutch Reformed merchants (ancestors of Schopenhauer), and many others. Greeks, Armenians, and Jews were variously ennobled for their economic contributions and frequently married out (ancestors of von Karajan, Guderian, and Erich von Manstein).

    As noted, the Hungarians sought to assimilate the Tzigane (by force or not) and the Kingdom of Prussia determined that Polish men with German wives were German, while German men with Polish wives were Poles, which points to rampant intermarriage of Western Slavs and Germans throughout this period (modern Poles and Czechs), protestants of all kinds were welcomed in Russia — even before Peter the Great — and intermarried, etc. etc. etc.

    I can find no case for frowning on inter-ethnic marriage among the merchant, artisanal, or professional classes in the middle ages or early modern era. There was absolutely nothing unique about the ethnic inter-marriage among the merchant and professional classes in New Amsterdam.

    What was a deal breaker was religion: it was assumed you would adopt the regnant religion, and after that, nobody cared. This was the case in Russia (always), in Germany from the early modern era (e.g., ancestors of Friedrich Jacobi and many others), and in Poland as well, due to the periodic mass conversions of Jews (Sabbatianism, Frankism) who, in turn, were made members of the petty nobility (probable ancestors of Adam Mickiewicz.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    the periodic mass conversions of Jews
     
    These never happened in Poland. Maybe a few hundred delusioned Sabbateans converted. At its peak, there were tens of thousands of Frankists among the millions of observant Polish Jews. Frank is best understood as a cult leader and Frankism as a moderately successful cult. There was no more "mass conversion" of Polish Jews to Frankism than there were "mass conversions" of American Christians to Christian Science. Also keep in mind that from the 18th to the 20th century Polish Jews had a terrific fertility rate so even if there were a few defections, their numbers just kept going up and up.
    , @Corvinus
    "What’s the source for this? The Kingdom of Prussia welcomed French Huguenots..."

    Why? Religious liberty, prohibited in France, was found here. The displaced French Hugenots were able to find a more earnest reception, since the court of Prussia was Calvinist and nearly French itself.

    The Dutch Reformed merchants (ancestors of Schopenhauer) were brought in by a regime for religious purposes.

    In these cases, religion trumped race and ethnicity. Still, it was considered taboo by social standards for ethnic groups to intermingle, but people ignored that "rule".
  193. @guest
    I have yet to hear a single note from Hamilton! I'm not familiar with Broadway generally, and don't seek out its music, stories, pageantry, and so forth. But I am acquainted with the stuff that seeps into popular culture. In recent decades, not counting the adaptations from movies and rock music reviews, that consists entirely of Andrew Lloyd Webber and one song from Rent.

    Steve comments on the great divide between the ruling class, the glitterati, and the non-Coalition of the Fringes commoners. This is a perfect example of it. Why not comment on the utter lack of popular penetration of the biggest Big Thing on Broadway since forever?

    Why not comment on the utter lack of popular penetration of the biggest Big Thing on Broadway since forever?

    Is this premise true?

    Read More
  194. @Mr. Anon
    "Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison."

    The attempted secession was in the name of secession. Lincoln didn't give two f**ks about blacks. He did apparently give some f**ks about slaughtering his countrymen. He really, really dug it.

    Hey, we all know you have a hard-on for the Butcher of Springfield. I'm sure, had you been of age in the 1860s, you would have leapt to volunteer to serve in the Grand Army of the Republic, bravely sh*tting yourself to death in Camp Dysentery for the incompetent General George McClellan.

    You would have, right? Or is that sort of thing just a cause that other people should die for - not you?

    Oh yeah, and I am not your "dear fellow". Your louche swish act wears thin very fast. But then, perhaps it's not an act; perhaps you have a few other things in common with that original Log Cabin Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

    The attempted secession was in the name of secession.

    They seceded in defense of slavery, dear fellow.Cf Alexander Stephens “Cornerstone” speech:

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

    Lincoln didn’t give two f**ks about blacks.

    Oh, Lincoln certainly cared more about White people. That’s one of the reasons why he didn’t want slavery to spread any farther….

    He did apparently give some f**ks about slaughtering his countrymen. He really, really dug it.

    Dunno. Jefferson Davis and Co. seemed far more enthusiastic about killing White people than Lincoln….

    Hey, we all know you have a hard-on for the Butcher of Springfield. I’m sure, had you been of age in the 1860s, you would have leapt to volunteer to serve in the Grand Army of the Republic, bravely sh*tting yourself to death in Camp Dysentery for the incompetent General George McClellan.

    Hey, better than fighting in the name of a decadent slavocracy….And, if I’m going to LARP, I would much rather serve under Grant, who had a rather dim view of Jeff Davis’ abilities:

    It may be that Longstreet was not sent to Knoxville for the reason stated, but because Mr. Davis had an exalted opinion of his own military genius, and thought he saw a chance of “killing two birds with one stone.” On several occasions during the war he came to the relief of the Union army by means of his superior military genius.

    You would have, right? Or is that sort of thing just a cause that other people should die for – not you?

    Dear fellow,I’m a conservative; I would gladly fight in defense of Anglo-American unity.

    Oh yeah, and I am not your “dear fellow”.

    Don’t sell yourself short. I find you quite endearing…

    Your louche swish act wears thin very fast.

    You cut me to the quick. I work so hard at it….

    But then, perhaps it’s not an act; perhaps you have a few other things in common with that original Log Cabin Republican, Abraham Lincoln.

    Oh dear, don’t tell me that you actually believe Larry Kramer’s deluded rantings….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Dear fellow,I’m a conservative; I would gladly fight in defense of Anglo-American unity."

    An interesting way to describe the greatest blood-letting in American history. And I suppose the Valentine's Day Massacre was a Chicago civic-pride event.

    "Oh dear, don’t tell me that you actually believe Larry Kramer’s deluded rantings…."

    It stands to reason that a few 19th century historical figures were homosexual. There is some smoke there, maybe some fire. In any event, I'm all for anything that can dethrone that bastard from the American pantheon. He was disastrous for the white-race in America.
  195. @Jack D
    If by mixed race you mean partly African then no, no way. A it's not true and and B there's no mixed race person on earth who was as uber English looking as Hamilton.

    In common use, "mixed race" doesn't mean French/English, etc. but a mixture between one of the major races .

    Even Chernow doesn’t buy the “mixed race” rumor, according to the foonotes to the wiki, and that was Miranda’s source material.

    My guess is that the mixed race rumor got going for the following reasons: (1) The mother was Huguenot and people don’t know what that is, (2) Hamilton was born out of wedlock, (3) The mother was originally married to a Danish Jew (IIRC), which gave her another surname, (4) She was herself born in the Islands which allows for even more speculation.

    I’m quite open to the idea that someone was mixed race, or that Aesop, Hannibal, St Augustine, Socrates, Beethoven, etc. were “part black” if it helps someone of AA heritage to be able to relate to them as part of our common heritage. However, in my experience, telling black kids that Dumas and Pushkin were part black doesn’t generate any interest in the Three Musketeers or Eugene Onegin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Yeah, but sometimes its best to just teach the kids the truth, as in "Nope, nope, and nope. They ain't brothers. They were whiteys, all of 'em." And leave it go at that. Babe Ruth wasn't black, and neither were Beethoven, St. Augustine, or "The Black Prince", Edward, Prince of Wales, oldest son of Edward III (1227-1277). Just tell the kids the truth, it saves them from embarrassment later on. Especially since they're already learning such treasure troves that are contained in that tome Black Athena, and Malcolm X's autobiography.

    Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. And it never stops. Because if you indulge their fantasies that such and such were black, the next thing they insist upon is that the official history books also start to teach everyone else these lies. And if someone stands up to them and points out that it was all a lot of BS to begin with, well, they'll get called racists and be out of a job in no time flat.

    Nope. Long termwise, its best to just tell 'em the full truth if they ask. Oh, and that also includes General "Black Jack" Pershing. He wasn't AA either. And the "black irish" weren't really AA either.
    , @Desiderius

    However, in my experience, telling black kids that Dumas and Pushkin were part black doesn’t generate any interest in the Three Musketeers or Eugene Onegin.
     
    Onegin and Dumas (I'd try Count of Monte Cristo over Three Musketeers) generate their own interest, even among black kids (as long as their reading aptitude is up to the task) as long as they're not presented as eating one's vegetables.

    Those plots and characters have universal appeal.
  196. @SPMoore8
    [Inter-ethnic marriage] It was still considered a big no-no.

    What's the source for this? The Kingdom of Prussia welcomed French Huguenots, Scottish Presbyerians (ancestors of Kant), Dutch Reformed merchants (ancestors of Schopenhauer), and many others. Greeks, Armenians, and Jews were variously ennobled for their economic contributions and frequently married out (ancestors of von Karajan, Guderian, and Erich von Manstein).

    As noted, the Hungarians sought to assimilate the Tzigane (by force or not) and the Kingdom of Prussia determined that Polish men with German wives were German, while German men with Polish wives were Poles, which points to rampant intermarriage of Western Slavs and Germans throughout this period (modern Poles and Czechs), protestants of all kinds were welcomed in Russia -- even before Peter the Great -- and intermarried, etc. etc. etc.

    I can find no case for frowning on inter-ethnic marriage among the merchant, artisanal, or professional classes in the middle ages or early modern era. There was absolutely nothing unique about the ethnic inter-marriage among the merchant and professional classes in New Amsterdam.

    What was a deal breaker was religion: it was assumed you would adopt the regnant religion, and after that, nobody cared. This was the case in Russia (always), in Germany from the early modern era (e.g., ancestors of Friedrich Jacobi and many others), and in Poland as well, due to the periodic mass conversions of Jews (Sabbatianism, Frankism) who, in turn, were made members of the petty nobility (probable ancestors of Adam Mickiewicz.)

    the periodic mass conversions of Jews

    These never happened in Poland. Maybe a few hundred delusioned Sabbateans converted. At its peak, there were tens of thousands of Frankists among the millions of observant Polish Jews. Frank is best understood as a cult leader and Frankism as a moderately successful cult. There was no more “mass conversion” of Polish Jews to Frankism than there were “mass conversions” of American Christians to Christian Science. Also keep in mind that from the 18th to the 20th century Polish Jews had a terrific fertility rate so even if there were a few defections, their numbers just kept going up and up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Yeah, I figured you would call me on that; nevertheless, I have seen numbers in the thousands if not tens of thousands for the conversions that followed Sabbatai Zvi and Jacob Frank: that's "mass" enough for purposes of this discussion (which is arguing that ethnic mixing was a "no no"). The fact that the Eastern Euro Jewish population kept growing is to me relevant only insofar as I think the demographic pressures was part of the reason for these millenarian movements in the first place.

    Moving into the late 18th (post-Moses Mendelssohn) and 19th Century (especially after Russia started to rationalize/modernize) conversion was not uncommon in any of the Eastern Empires.
    , @Opinionator
    What's your source for 18th-20th C fertility rates in Poland? Just curious; I'm not challenging you on it, as it is broadly consistent with my own understanding.
  197. @Paul Kersey
    More importantly, Steve, Mr. Hamilton did not oppose the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated only white men of "good moral character" could get citizenship (the franchise).

    Hamilton surely would have objected to Obama’s eligibility for C-in-C, as well, considering Obama’s father was a British citizen at birth.

    Read More
  198. @Jack D

    the periodic mass conversions of Jews
     
    These never happened in Poland. Maybe a few hundred delusioned Sabbateans converted. At its peak, there were tens of thousands of Frankists among the millions of observant Polish Jews. Frank is best understood as a cult leader and Frankism as a moderately successful cult. There was no more "mass conversion" of Polish Jews to Frankism than there were "mass conversions" of American Christians to Christian Science. Also keep in mind that from the 18th to the 20th century Polish Jews had a terrific fertility rate so even if there were a few defections, their numbers just kept going up and up.

    Yeah, I figured you would call me on that; nevertheless, I have seen numbers in the thousands if not tens of thousands for the conversions that followed Sabbatai Zvi and Jacob Frank: that’s “mass” enough for purposes of this discussion (which is arguing that ethnic mixing was a “no no”). The fact that the Eastern Euro Jewish population kept growing is to me relevant only insofar as I think the demographic pressures was part of the reason for these millenarian movements in the first place.

    Moving into the late 18th (post-Moses Mendelssohn) and 19th Century (especially after Russia started to rationalize/modernize) conversion was not uncommon in any of the Eastern Empires.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Moving into the late 18th (post-Moses Mendelssohn) and 19th Century (especially after Russia started to rationalize/modernize) conversion was not uncommon in any of the Eastern Empire.

    I'm not doubting you, but do you have a citation for that?
    , @PV van der Byl
    During an exchange we had some time ago, you linked to some university website describing a mass conversion of 25,000 Polish Jews to Catholicism in the mid-1500s.

    Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find that webpage just now nor can I remember the name of the scholar or the university affiliation.

    What struck me most, though, was not just the massive size of the conversion but that these men and their families were also admitted to the szlachta, the broad nobility, with their own arms, etc.
    , @PV van der Byl
    I did just manage to find the links you provided:

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.jewish/2011-03/msg00172.html

    https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/redemption-through-judaism-a-shabbat-guest-of-frankist-linage/

    http://drakenberg.weebly.com/lithuanian-polish-royals.html
  199. Commenting on anti-Catholic fervor, historian Alan Heimert wrote that there was “a special and even frenetic urgency to their efforts to revive ancient prejudices by announcing that the Quebec Act—and it alone—confronted America with the possibility of the ‘scarlet whore’ soon riding ‘triumphant over the heads of true Protestants, making multitudes drunk with the wine of her fornications.’” The 1774 Pope Day was one of the grandest in years; in Newport, two large effigies of the pope were paraded. In New York, a group marched to the financial Exchange carrying a huge flag inscribed, “George III Rex, and the Liberties of America. No Popery.” Later that day, a pamphlet that had been distributed urging tolerance toward the Catholics of Canada was smeared with tar and feathers and nailed to the pillory.
    These views were echoed even by some of our most respected founding fathers. [...]

    Alexander Hamilton decried the Quebec Act as a diabolical threat. “Does not your blood run cold to think that an English Parliament should pass an Act for the establishment of arbitrary power and Popery in such an extensive country?…Your loves, your property, your religion are all at stake.” He warned that the Canadian tolerance in Quebec would draw, like a magnet, Catholics from throughout Europe who would eventually destroy America.
    http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/stevenwaldman/2008/04/how-anticatholicism-helped-fue.html

    In many ways he was a visionary.

    Read More
  200. @CK
    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.

    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.

    And yet, somehow, the Confederacy was entirely composed of slave states……..Must be a coincidence……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It's not a coincidence - the reason the south was for free trade was because their unfree labor meant they couldn't be undercut on labor costs.
    , @CK
    Slave labour can always be undercut by paid labour.
    An American slave had to be fed, housed, clothed, and maintained in good health.
    Those are all expenses which the slave does not bear. The paid labourer
    can be paid for whatever amount of hours he works and pays his own food housing clothing and maintenance out of his dollar income. The upside to being paid labour is that you can choose where to be unemployed. The downside to being paid labour is that you do not eat if you do not work.
    I think the phrase is no work no bread. нет работы ни хлеба
    The only way slavery is profitable is the Brazilian/Cuban sugar plantation way. No women, no children and no maintenance. Work the slave until they die and buy a replacement.
  201. @Svigor
    Abusive husband: "my wife cheated on me (because I beat her), so the judge should deny her a divorce (so I can go on beating her)."

    Judge: "yeah I thought your argument was immoral scheisse, but then I read Syon and got my mind right."

    Abusive husband: “my wife cheated on me (because I beat her), so the judge should deny her a divorce (so I can go on beating her).”

    Judge: “yeah I thought your argument was immoral scheisse, but then I read Syon and got my mind right.”

    Sadly, dear fellow, the abuse went the other way. The slave-holding South was abusing the North: the three fifths compromise*, the fugitive slave act of 1850 (talk about trampling on States’ Rights!), etc.

    *Of course, if the South had had their way, it would have been far worse. Slaves would have counted as full people in terms of apportioning congressional representation….

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    the three fifths compromise
     
    To bring that conversation to the current day, how does that compare to our current counting of illegal aliens for congressional representation?

    Folks here probably know all of this, but just in case...
    http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigrants-distort-congressional-representation-and-federal-programs

    P.S. That link implies CA is ~11% illegals (first order estimate computing 6/53). Does that seem realistic? This link estimates 7.5%: http://www.laalmanac.com/immigration/im04a.htm
  202. @syonredux

    “who isn’t?”

    John Dewey is a brick wall. I can’t read German, so I give the benefit of the doubt there.
     
    You're being far too generous. I know plenty of German academics. According to them, Heidegger actually reads better in English translation....

    I am reminded of Hugo Rahner (a German Jesuit) saying of the works of his brother Karl (another one) that, once he had a bit of spare time, he would set about translating them into German.

    Read More
  203. @PV van der Byl
    Sen's comparison with India is completely dishonest. The comparison should be made between Communist China and KMT-ruled Taiwan. Communist China didn't "save" any lives.

    Quite the contrary.

    The problem is we don’t know the counterfactual. The defeated KMT on Taiwan was encouraged to undertake a developmentalist economic policy so it could serve as a bulwark against the Communist mainland. Would Chiang Kai-Shek have been as developmentalist if he had won the civil war and ruled the mainland. No one knows for sure, but there are reasons to think he wouldn’t have.

    The comparison to India is in fact quite fair. India and China were at about the same level of human development in the late 1940s. Furthermore, the Indian state of Kerala has seen a reduction in mortality similar to China’s by pursuing similar public health policies, so it isn’t impossible for Indians to achieve something like that. Intra-Chinese comparisons are also enlightening: after Deng’s reforms led to the destruction of the rural health care system, mortality rates rose sharply in China.

    Vietnam and Sri Lanka also saw big drops in mortality by investing in health care, again in contrast to India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    You have got to be kidding.

    Of course we don't know the counterfactual, we never do. That simply acknowledges that we cannot do controlled experiments involving great historical events: obviously true.

    But the differences between India and China were far greater than the differences between mainland China and Taiwan.

    China and Taiwan shared largely the same racial ancestry (predominantly Han Chinese), employed Mandarin Chinese at official levels and in higher education, and had a common Confucian derived culture.

    And although Chiang governed the mainland and Taiwan at different times, roughly 1927-1947 compared with 1947-1975, it was the same man in charge.

    No, we cannot be sure that Chiang, has he remained in power on the mainland, would have governed the mainland in precisely the same manner as he did in Taiwan.

    But, as historical events go, that's as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as one can make.

    Sen's using India as a baseline to measure Communist Chinese depredation is absurd.
  204. @Svigor

    Lincoln was stopping secession, dear fellow. And the attempted secession was in the name of a bad cause (slavery). No comparison.
     
    Lincoln was stopping what made this country in the first place: self-determination.

    And obviously, the self-determination was in the name of self-determination. "Stopping slavery" is mere "burning the village to save it" BS. Like killing hundreds of thousands of white men is justified by slavery (were slaveholders killing hundreds of thousands of blacks? No. Not even close). Blacks are still in chains today, because they like putting each other there.

    Slavery for blacks is bad, feudalism and serfdom for whites is good. And they say the Left is anti-white.
     
    Syon's very much on his own with his Yankee-Judean fondness of Lincoln and his aggressive invasion of the South. To act as though it's typical of the right, in contrast to the left, is to ignore reality.

    MMM, let’s just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery….
     
    Right. There was secession, and "suddenly," slavery was a deal-breaker. Suuuuure.

    Van Zandt, like most lefties, has a rather broad definition of "insanity":

    Although Van Zandt tweeted that “everyone who is sane disagrees with [Pence's] policies,” he argued that a Broadway show – or anywhere where art is performed – is not the proper venue to “bully” an audience member.
     
    Half the US is insane, apparently. Actually, he's probably right; a huge percentage of White Americans have been indoctrinated to multiculti racial insanity. There is no good explanation for why they believe such self-destructive nonsense. So Van Zandt is just wrong about who, not what.

    As for his argument, it's another reminder of that quote Steve's cited several times over the years, about how people are most Conservative about what they know best. He's making a long-winded argument for professionalism.

    Whoopi Goldberg recently said on The View that Black people are not going anywhere
     
    If leftists aren't fighting straw men, they have nothing to say.

    They’re less sure of themselves–because of the dominant culture, but also because everyone is small before God, etc.
     
    More patriotic. You don't boo the PotUS or the VPotUS, just because he's from the other party. And more polite. You just don't act like that. You know many southerners? (K maybe I shouldn't have chosen Texans, who I don't know well, and do seem more brash than many southerners).

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.
     
    It does now.

    Hey, haven’t we danced this dance before, Svigor? But if you want another round, for old times’ sake….

    Lincoln was stopping what made this country in the first place: self-determination.

    The Revolution was predicated on the fact that the 13 colonies did not have representation in Parliament. Last time I checked, the South (courtesy of the undemocratic three-fifths clause) was over-represented in Congress.

    And, of course, the Confederacy didn’t seem to mind putting-down attempts to secede from the Confederacy in Tennessee. Good for me but not for thee….

    And obviously, the self-determination was in the name of self-determination.

    Not according to actual Confederates like Alexander Stephens. They were quite firm on the importance of slavery….

    “Stopping slavery” is mere “burning the village to save it” BS.

    Dear fellow, imagine how horrific it would have been if slavery had spread….the USA would have been reduced to the cultural level of the Caribbean…..

    Like killing hundreds of thousands of white men is justified by slavery

    Hey, Jeff Davis certainly seemed to think that slavery justified killing hundreds of thousands of White men….

    Syon’s very much on his own with his Yankee-Judean fondness of Lincoln and his aggressive invasion of the South. To act as though it’s typical of the right, in contrast to the left, is to ignore reality.

    Dunno. Belief in Anglo unity seems pretty conservative to me…..Of course, I would have been a Tory in the Revolution…..

    MMM, let’s just say that serfdom is preferable to chattel slavery….

    Right. There was secession, and “suddenly,” slavery was a deal-breaker. Suuuuure.

    It certainly didn’t help…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Last time I checked, the South (courtesy of the undemocratic three-fifths clause) was over-represented in Congress.
     
    The mulatto seats.
  205. @syonredux

    Abusive husband: “my wife cheated on me (because I beat her), so the judge should deny her a divorce (so I can go on beating her).”

    Judge: “yeah I thought your argument was immoral scheisse, but then I read Syon and got my mind right.”
     
    Sadly, dear fellow, the abuse went the other way. The slave-holding South was abusing the North: the three fifths compromise*, the fugitive slave act of 1850 (talk about trampling on States' Rights!), etc.


    *Of course, if the South had had their way, it would have been far worse. Slaves would have counted as full people in terms of apportioning congressional representation....

    the three fifths compromise

    To bring that conversation to the current day, how does that compare to our current counting of illegal aliens for congressional representation?

    Folks here probably know all of this, but just in case…

    http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigrants-distort-congressional-representation-and-federal-programs

    P.S. That link implies CA is ~11% illegals (first order estimate computing 6/53). Does that seem realistic? This link estimates 7.5%: http://www.laalmanac.com/immigration/im04a.htm

    Read More
  206. @syonredux

    Lincoln was fighting to protect a tariff that disfavoured the agricultural exporting south and greatly favoured the industrializing and heavily import dependent North.
    Slavery was not a part of the equation.
     
    And yet, somehow, the Confederacy was entirely composed of slave states........Must be a coincidence......

    It’s not a coincidence – the reason the south was for free trade was because their unfree labor meant they couldn’t be undercut on labor costs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    And yet, slavery had been an integral part of the North for a long time, until they industrialized ...
    , @Jack D
    If slavery hadn't ended, you could imagine a future where you might have had slave-staffed factories in the South outcompeting Northern ones. The kind of whites who voted for Trump were anti-slavery for that reason, while the elites were all in favor of cheap labor.

    Even without slavery, Southern labor costs were lower but due to the depredations of the war, textile mill construction didn't get going in the South until a couple of decades after the Civil War was over. But once it got going, the whole textile industry ended up moving down South from New England and later non-union (foreign owned) auto factories in the South served as a check on the Detroit car industry.
  207. @Jack D

    the periodic mass conversions of Jews
     
    These never happened in Poland. Maybe a few hundred delusioned Sabbateans converted. At its peak, there were tens of thousands of Frankists among the millions of observant Polish Jews. Frank is best understood as a cult leader and Frankism as a moderately successful cult. There was no more "mass conversion" of Polish Jews to Frankism than there were "mass conversions" of American Christians to Christian Science. Also keep in mind that from the 18th to the 20th century Polish Jews had a terrific fertility rate so even if there were a few defections, their numbers just kept going up and up.

    What’s your source for 18th-20th C fertility rates in Poland? Just curious; I’m not challenging you on it, as it is broadly consistent with my own understanding.

    Read More
  208. @SPMoore8
    Yeah, I figured you would call me on that; nevertheless, I have seen numbers in the thousands if not tens of thousands for the conversions that followed Sabbatai Zvi and Jacob Frank: that's "mass" enough for purposes of this discussion (which is arguing that ethnic mixing was a "no no"). The fact that the Eastern Euro Jewish population kept growing is to me relevant only insofar as I think the demographic pressures was part of the reason for these millenarian movements in the first place.

    Moving into the late 18th (post-Moses Mendelssohn) and 19th Century (especially after Russia started to rationalize/modernize) conversion was not uncommon in any of the Eastern Empires.

    Moving into the late 18th (post-Moses Mendelssohn) and 19th Century (especially after Russia started to rationalize/modernize) conversion was not uncommon in any of the Eastern Empire.

    I’m not doubting you, but do you have a citation for that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    For Germany and Europe in general, consult the first chapter of Laqueur's History of Zionism; it's not exhaustive but it makes the point. That Jews assimilated, married out, and converted in Germany is something of a truism; that's why the Nazis had all those different grades of Mischlinge.

    For Eastern Europe, consult the links PV van der Byl came up with, for Russia, a good start in the second volume of Florinsky's History of Russia, where he discusses imperial attempts to absorb minorities, including non-Orthodox Christian minorities.

    I first became aware of this when reading the biographies of eminent Europeans; thus among Germans, for example, the Marx and Mendelssohn families were hardly unusual.

    Keep in mind that there are competing national-ethnic team loyalties here and I don't want to get into that kind of argument. Thus someone could say, of some national hero, that he couldn't have been Jewish or part-Jewish, while someone else will say, an evaluation of his writings (or other creations) indicates a soul that is quintessentially Jewish, etc. etc.

    Good example is Spinoza: born "Baruch", excommunicated by the Jewish community in Holland (in effect, his synagogue) and then spent the rest of his

    life as "Benedict" hanging out with Christian freethinkers. (dates ca. 1630-1677). Some people say he was the first "purely secular Jew", which I doubt, because he was clearly a Deist at least, some people say he was never a Christian because he never took part in a a Christian mass, and so on. To be honest, I couldn't care less, but these are the kinds of things you are getting into if you dig too deep. Thus, 20 years ago there was an attempt to get his excommunication overturned (!), without success. You can bet that no such attempt would have been made if he was just some zhlub living in his parents' basement. Meanwhile, everyone, Jew and non-Jew, is being baptised post mortem into the Mormon church.

    So again, I don't want to get into arguments about competiting national, ethnic, religious pride. Bu that's because I also have a generally universalist and assimilationist bias.

    So just a reminder, this was an argument about whether out-marriage was a "no no", and it wasn't, and not even among Jews and Christians, after about the 1780's and even before. I won't argue about "how many": I'll let someone else do that.
  209. @Corvinus
    "Not in the sense that 20th century would use the term. “Melting Pot” today can mean various things, as in “whitey, get out of the way and turn over the farm to the peoples of color”."

    Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.

    "No, in actual practice, Mr Kersey is correct. The 1790 Act in actual historical practice was in fact the legal precedent and thus the standard for all US immigration laws. Even the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act had the 1790 Act in mind to an extent."

    It was the legal standard at that point in time. The 1924 Act was specific in its limitations of certain white Europeans, chiefly Eastern and Southern Europe, as being other than desirable. Would not that legislation be considered "anti-white"?

    "For nearly 200 yrs, basically only white Europeans were allowed to migrate to the US, and there were strict numbers on non-whites entering the country."

    The Irish, the Germans, and the Italians were considered by nativists as not white and completely unassimilable. Indeed, there were restrictions on the number of non-whites, but future generations, through an act of Congress, are well within their liberty to include those groups of people.

    "After all, as late as 1965, the US was ca.90% of caucasian origin. There weren’t very many “refugees”, or Middle Easterners, Indians, Cambodians, Huumgs etc. flooding thru the country in massive numbers."

    A product of the times. Are not whites able to make their own racial and ethnic decisions?

    “Melting Pot does NOT mean anti-white.”

    America is a salad bowl, not a melting pot. Due to mass immigration with no significant break to let immigrants assimilate like what happened between 1924 and 1965, we in The U.S are increasingly no longer being united by one common language and a common set of cultural values.

    The San Gabriel Valley for example is extremely culturally different from Scranton, Pennsylvania, like night and day. Scranton is culturally American as apple pie, while in SGV the number of Cantonese speaking households outnumber English speaking households. That’s what you call Balkanization, not a melting pot.

    What the hell unites a German from Scranton and a Chinese person from the San Gabriel Valley? Nothing, they don’t see each other as fellow American countrymen.

    Read More
  210. @Dave Pinsen
    It's not a coincidence - the reason the south was for free trade was because their unfree labor meant they couldn't be undercut on labor costs.

    And yet, slavery had been an integral part of the North for a long time, until they industrialized …

    Read More
  211. @Paco Wové
    "A beautiful and glorious Black man who did not have African eye color, pigmentation, and hair texture."

    But surely he would have identified as a Black Man had he been fortunate enough to live in Current Year.

    “But surely he would have identified as a Black Man had he been fortunate enough to live in Current Year.”

    Lin Manuel Miranda being a Triracial Pardo Puerto Rican has more of a legit claim to Blackness than the Scottish, French, and English Alexander Hamilton.

    Heck even Ronda Rousey has more of a legit claim to Blackness than Alexander Hamilton, yet Ronda does not go around saying she is a Black woman, she doesn’t one drop rule herself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey#Early_life

    Read More
  212. Jack D says: