The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Good Grief, More Straussianism!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

An email following up the earlier post West Coast Straussianism Explained:

Steve, I don’t know if you want to continue this or not. I suspect that you might, given that you added another post, the WSJ review of Hayward’s book. If you do, I have some thoughts below, inspired by some of the comments. I can all but guarantee that this will be my last word, because my holiday break will soon be over!

This is not an attempt to systematically address everything said, but to focus on those objections or misunderstandings that I think are most important. I’m also not going to interfere in the re-litigation of the Civil War. As a self-professed West Coast Straussian, it should be obvious where I stand on that.

Although on that point, I think it’s worth noting that several commenters have Jaffa wrong. Jaffa is most famous for Crisis of the House Divided (1959) which argues that Lincoln transformed the Founding, which was inherently low and flawed, into something noble. East Coast Straussians still speak highly of this book because it begins from one of their core assumptions (America is fundamentally low and flawed) and because it elevates Lincoln to a kind of philosopher-prophet-statesman.

By the mid-1970s, Jaffa had revised his thesis: Lincoln grafted nothing onto America; he merely rediscovered and rearticulated what was already there. This revised thesis is one of the sources of the East-West break. The East has never accepted it. The revised thesis is most fully articulated in A New Birth Freedom (2000),

Actually, I would be quite happy to relitigate Lincoln and the Civil War and I do think it’s worth doing. Just not right now. That’s both for reasons of time and space, but also because those of us who disagree about it have more pressing priorities (or at least we should). For the time being at least, we face a common enemy. I recall, many years ago, visiting a site in China which the Chinese government alleged to have been the place where Mao and Chiang formally agreed (actually Chiang was kidnapped, but that aside) to put aside their differences and focus (for the time being) on the Japanese. Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …

Speaking of issues over which mass fratricide can (and should) also wait: “propositionism.” This is a big theme around here, with you (Steve) unfortunately often contributing to the confusion. By all means, reject the West Coat Straussian teaching on this if you all want to; but at least reject the ACTUAL teaching, and not some silly caricature.

And let me say that the “West Coat Straussian” teaching on this is meant be simply an accurate account of what the Founders believed. It’s not something we made up, though we are often accused of that. I think Tom West’s new book, mentioned before, definitively proves what the Founders really believed. At the very least, it will have to be reckoned with. Mere handwaving about “the rights of Englishmen” is not going to cut it any more.

Let me also say that there is nothing inherently “Straussian” about the Founders’ political philosophy. Some commenters seem simply allergic to Strauss or his school for various reasons and use that allergy to dismiss the whole account of the Founding as foreign and evil or something. That’s a mistake. First because in doing so they’re discarding something extremely valuable and part of their (our) rightful inheritance as Americans. Second, in dismissing this account of the Founding they are not dismissing Strauss. Straussianism was instrumental in laying the foundation for the recovery of the true understanding of the American principles. It was Strauss—against 20th century dogma—who taught a generation of students to look past historicism and examine past thought on its own terms.

The most influential account of the Declaration of Independence before Strauss’s students turned to it was Carl Becker’s. Becker explicitly says that “to ask whether the natural right philosophy of the Declaration is true or false is essentially a meaningless question.” Because of how they were trained by Strauss, Jaffa and others saw that as THE essential question.

Contra the many commenters who complained that my prior email was nonsensical gobbledygook (not that I am claiming it was concise or well organized), this question or something like it has been at the root of both philosophy and religion—central to what it means to be human—for as long as there has been humanity. How should I live? What is justice? What is right and what is wrong? What is good and what is bad? And so on. These are hardly meaningless questions and the debates over them, if perhaps irresolvable and often impractical in the here-and-now, are core to human life itself. These are THE most important questions. And whether we recognize it or not, every actual society—every government every nation, every community of men—presumes to have answers to these questions. Even if those answers are implicit and never stated, they are always there, as presuppositions. Every action we take presupposes some idea of what is good and right.

First sentence of Aristotle’s Ethics: “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action as well as choice, is held to aim at some good.” From the first sentence of Aristotle’s Politics: “every community is constituted for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what is held to be good).”

Had Strauss not taught his American students to re-raise these fundamental questions and apply them to the American Founding, perhaps someone else might have. But he was the one who did. One of the things the West Coasters have found is that if you look back not just to the Founding but also to other periods, until recently, most American statesmen and intellectuals understood American principles in just this way. The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today. Not to sell short what the West Coast school accomplished, but it was fundamentally an excavation of something forgotten, rather than the invention of something new. So once can be as anti-Strauss as one wishes; that does not dispose of the argument that the West Coast school has accurately explained the political theory of the American Founding.

To get more specific: you (Steve) have often mentioned that the simplest way to “debug” the Declaration of Independence would be to add one word (in all caps): ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, IN that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality. Men are obviously not equal in virtue, talent, intelligence, strength, etc. West proves that this was the consensus view of the Founders, among other ways, by looking a vast variety of their public statements: state and national (pre- and post-Constitution) laws; the state constitutions, public pamphlets and sermons, and so on.

Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings. So is Lincoln, who is most maligned for “propositionism.” He says over and over that the American notion of equality is limited to natural rights only. His rightist enemies just glide right past all that.

It is too pat to dismiss all notions of America as a proposition nation. Of course, on one level, it is. We’ve successfully taken people from many different nations and made them Americans. This was true from the beginning. Americans had to unite themselves into a new nation. To some extent that work had been accomplished organically in the ~150 years from the establishment of the first colonies until the Revolution. But 150 years is a short time compared the many centuries that the European nations formed. Also, people’s origins—in part because more recent—were simply much better KNOWN that the average European’s were known. Nationhood lost in the mists of time generally has a great psychological hold. Someone born in England of English parents ad English ancestors going back 1,000 years “knows” he is English even if he does not know how or why. Someone whose grandparents came to the colonies as an indentured servant only 50 years prior—what does he think of himself as? English? American? Pennsylvanian (or whatever)? Not so easy. Propositionism was a way of taking this somewhat diverse group and melding them into one people, including—crucially—in their own minds.

And of course, even after the Revolution, America continued to accept immigrants. Propositionism is effective at assimilating those new immigrants into their new nation. The alternatives would have been 1) accept no immigrants or 2) accept them, but make a cut-off of who counts as “American” at July 4th, 1776 (or whenever) and make every later entrant some kind of resident alien. #2 leads to a lot of problems, as we know from (for instance) the ancient city and modern Germany, And our own situation. If you are going to accept immigrants, some sense of a legitimate belonging to the nation through common citizenship makes a lot more sense.

But all that is not the most fundamental meaning of the “proposition.” The proposition is really just another way of expressing the principle of consent. Consent follows from equality. We are all by nature equally free and independent. THEREFORE, no man is placed by nature as the ruler of any other (“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”). THEREFORE the only just government is government by consent. To consent is, in effect, to accept the proposition. That is true not just in the U.S. but in any country governed by modern small-“l” liberal and/or small-“r” republican principles. Consent is first established through the social compact—formally, in our case, by the Revolution and the Constitution. In subsequent generations consent is derived from continued residence beyond the age of majority. Don’t like the government you’re born into? Don’t want to give it your consent? Then emigrate.

Some commenters dismiss all such language in the Founding as PR, that is, as an effort to self-justify what they were doing. As if that’s in and of itself proof that all the arguments were disingenuous. But that’s silly. OF COURSE the Founders wanted to justify what they were doing. The Declaration itself begins by stating that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [we] should declare the causes which impel [us] to the separation.”

They wanted to explain to themselves, and to the world, that what they were doing was RIGHT and JUST. This is hardly frivolous. This is life and death stuff for the legitimacy of the order they were to found. If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.

Others in the thread noted that men always need to believe that what they are doing (especially the big stuff) is just. I believe that is true. Which is why it was so important to the Founders to be correct in their justification. That is, they didn’t simply say all that stuff cynically, so as to give the appearance that they had good reasons when in their hearts they knew themselves to be simply acting in self-interest. They said it because they thought it through and believed it.

Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand. The language of the Founders—particularly the equality rhetoric—has been weaponized by the left, and increasingly by the house-broken right. They use equality as a justification or even demand for redistribution and levelling. They use “proposition” (Lincoln’s word from the Gettysburg Address) to insist on open borders. It’s gotten so bad that one leading West Coast Straussian has said to me, more than once, that he thinks it’s counter-productive today to speak in the Founder’s terms. Their language has been so saddled by wrong-headed leftist spin that any invocation of the Founders just plays to the left, in the current context.

I get that. But it still doesn’t mean the Founders were wrong.

Take but one issue, but one important to this blog and to the 2016 election: immigration. West Coast Straussians have been working on this issue in all its aspects—the Founder’s views, birthright citizenship, etc.—for decades. They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.

I say all this to make the case that the knee-jerk rejection of Strauss, Straussians, Jaffa, Lincoln, the Declaration, etc. on the right is not merely unhelpful. All of that is a source of STRENGTH, or could be, if we would use them.

OK, by all means forget Strauss, Jaffa and all their students. Pretend they never lived. But what good comes of dumping Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al? The Declaration, the Constitution, and the whole political philosophy that informed the Founding? Is ditching all that supposed to help make America great again? I don’t see how dumping the core American principles, documents and heroes is in any way good for America. ESPECIALLY when those principles can inform practical policy TODAY that is in line with what so many of us want. (Like I said, we can fight over Lincoln later. I know there will be some who would prefer to secede again, if only in speech, from anyone who claims to be pro-Lincoln. I can only hope they are outnumbered by those anti-Lincolnites who would prefer to win today’s political fights, even with Lincolnites as allies.)

By the way, Anne Norton’s book is garbage. Here is a review by an East-Coaster, published in the West Coast organ, the CRB. East and West agree on the worthlessness of this book:

https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-straussians-are-coming/ 

 
Hide 169 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today.”

    Shorter version:

    “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-occasion-of-the-one-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Obviously, Silent Cal was a secret (esoteric?) Straussian! Of course, there is a bit of a problem of chronology: so, can we conclude that it was the Eastern or Western Straussians who built a time machine and got to Silent Cal? (And, is it the Eastern or Western Straussians who believe that one should crack an egg on the little end or the big end? Ah, what Jonathan Swift could have done with these guys!)

    Seriously, thanks for helping me with my point that the supposed "discoveries" of the Straussians were simply the common sense of the matter among ordinary Americans through much of the last century.

    Let's face it: the Straussians are academic clowns (anyone who doubts that, read Anne Norton's book: the eagerness of the Straussians to discourage people from reading it really says it all).
    , @AnotherDad
    A nation having "propositions" does not make it a "proposition nation".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. a Straussian polka:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/photos-sanctuary-state-signs-pop-california-highways-new-year-felons-illegals-ms13-welcome/

    More creative highway signs in CA. Welcome to the sanctuary state MS13, felons & illegals the DNC needs voters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    I pegged Efron as gay the first time I saw him. One shudders to think of the things these kids have to do to get roles.
    , @Anonymous
    I was just swooning to Zac Efron in the Greatest Showman. How dare you spoil my fantasy with a horrific, depressing rumor (not him being gay, but him being horribly abused)?

    ***

    Anyway, thank you, Steve, for posting this exchange. I knew of Straussianism in general terms, but learned a lot from reading the exchanges and responses.

    The Machievellians also sounds very interesting and I got an epub copy at archive.org.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Actually, I would be quite happy to relitigate Lincoln and the Civil War and I do think it’s worth doing. Just not right now. That’s both for reasons of time and space, but also because those of us who disagree about it have more pressing priorities (or at least we should). For the time being at least, we face a common enemy. I recall, many years ago, visiting a site in China which the Chinese government alleged to have been the place where Mao and Chiang formally agreed (actually Chiang was kidnapped, but that aside) to put aside their differences and focus (for the time being) on the Japanese. Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln?

    Sound stuff. LARPing has no place in a crisis. Once the danger to Anglo-America is over, we can go back to tilting at windmills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The ideological descendants of the abolitionists are the danger to Anglo-America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. OT: Any bets on whether Al Franken will actually resign tomorrow, January 2nd, as promised? In polls, slightly more than half of Minnesotans said that he should not resign.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Your writer misplaces the corrective “IN” six words back, in front of the first “that” instead of the second. You might want to correct that for him. (And feel free to delete this comment.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. A few random comments:

    The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today.

    I rather like The Clean Food and Drug Act….

    Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings.

    Indeed. One rather doubts that Jefferson thought that all men are as intelligent as, say, Dr Franklin:

    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html

    To some extent that work had been accomplished organically in the ~150 years from the establishment of the first colonies until the Revolution. But 150 years is a short time compared the many centuries that the European nations formed. Also, people’s origins—in part because more recent—were simply much better KNOWN that the average European’s were known. Nationhood lost in the mists of time generally has a great psychological hold. Someone born in England of English parents ad English ancestors going back 1,000 years “knows” he is English even if he does not know how or why. Someone whose grandparents came to the colonies as an indentured servant only 50 years prior—what does he think of himself as? English? American? Pennsylvanian (or whatever)? Not so easy.

    Dunno. Men like John Jay (himself of Huguenot) origins seemed to think that that America was organic in nature:

    With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

    https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-2

    Read More
    • Replies: @Louis Renault

    "....an indentured servant only 50 years prior—what does he think of himself as? English?"
     
    The good professor may not know where indentured servants came from but I'm rather certain the person who paid his fare over and the individual who signed the contract both knew who they were and where they were from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Well, it’s grief, anyway.

    Off-topic: Dave Chappelle says Louis CK’s accuser has “a brittle ass spirit.” No doubt there are those among us that will say this implies the existence of an “ass-spirit” in Black culture, and that the quote should be written “a brittle ass-spirit,” referring to the poltergeist that inhabits her ass as brittle…

    Read More
    • LOL: IHTG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. West Coast Straussian…

    East Coast Straussians…

    So Berns and Jaffa were the Tupac and Biggie of Straussianism?

    Could you call it “Strauss music”?

    Or “Burning Down the Strauss”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Nina Persson is much cuter and presumably less crazy than Tina Weymouth, but man that cover was like reading 20,000 words about Strauss.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBUe_v6Mi70
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. East Coast Straussians still speak highly of this book because it begins from one of their core assumptions (America is fundamentally low and flawed) and because it elevates Lincoln to a kind of philosopher-prophet-statesman.

    I’ve been reading up on Narcissism; my comments are in Andrew Joyce’s new piece on The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews. Long story short, is closely related to narcissism:

    People matching the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defence mechanism. Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize their sense of self positivity in order to preserve their self-esteem, by perceiving themselves as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to their will or values as purely wicked or contemptible.[13]

    The cognitive habit of splitting also implies the use of other related defence mechanisms, namely idealization and devaluation, which are preventive attitudes or reactions to narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury.[11]

    Idealization and Devaluation

    Lincoln and Blacks are targets of Jewish idealization, while Whites, especially White Christians, are targets of their devaluation. All of it goes back to Jewish ethnocentrism (perhaps better thought of as ethnic narcissism, given how much informative Wikipedia’s articles on the latter are).

    Vis-a-vis Blacks:

    Otto Kernberg has provided an extensive discussion of idealization, both in its defensive and adaptive aspects. He conceptualised idealization as involving a denial of unwanted characteristics of an object, then enhancing the object by projecting one’s own libido or omnipotence on it.

    Sound familiar?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lincoln and Blacks are targets of Jewish idealization,
     
    You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that's the same "sin" that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802

    But that's been cast aside;nowadays, they abominate Jefferson as one of the architects of "White Supremacy."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Whups, that should read Splitting is closely related to narcissism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings. So is Lincoln, who is most maligned for “propositionism.” He says over and over that the American notion of equality is limited to natural rights only. His rightist enemies just glide right past all that.

    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase “all men are created equal” are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.

    Jefferson, and the rest of the Founders, were Lockean “social contract” theorists highly influenced by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and by Locke’s Second Treatise. Indeed, Locke’s natural rights are “life, liberty and property” (not the “pursuit of happiness”) and these three rights are specifically protected from deprivation without due process in the Fifth Amendment.

    Now… let’s get to the rest of Jefferson’s paragraph. He writes that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” but the next, often forgotten phrase is crucially important: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

    So the purpose of this whole endeavor is to create a social contract, instituting a government to secure natural rights. By definition, contracts are between specific parties, and there are many different social contracts and different governments to secure the rights of different peoples. Indeed Jefferson alludes to this: “…when… it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

    So there are many peoples and many social contracts which are (interesting phrase here, given Plessy v. Ferguson) “separate and equal.”

    In other words, the “equality” referenced in Jefferson’s famous phrase is merely the equality to institute various governments by which separate peoples may equally seek to secure their natural rights. The social contract he was creating in 1776 was to “secure” the natural rights of white colonists in rebellion against Britain. Other peoples have the natural right to institute governments to secure their natural rights as they see fit — Indian tribes, who were regarded as foreign nations, and Africans too — in Africa, not in America. That’s why every single president from Washington to Lincoln favored repatriation — so that Africans could forge their own social contract to secure their natural rights in their own land.

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.
     
    Thanks Dr. X.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality. Men are obviously not equal in virtue, talent, intelligence, strength, etc. West proves that this was the consensus view of the Founders, among other ways, by looking a vast variety of their public statements: state and national (pre- and post-Constitution) laws; the state constitutions, public pamphlets and sermons, and so on.
     
    Yeah, my issue with this tract is this idea that Straussians somehow "discovered" or "rediscovered" the true meaning of the Declaration. That we rubes were all banging about clueless as to what our own ancestors had written in plain English until ... Strauss! I'm no historian. And sure, i'm aware of leftist lying and hijacking attempts--that's "who they are!". But i understood what was being said in the Declaration when i was taking US history at 11 or 12 and it didn't require Leo Strauss to discover it.

    "Created equal"--we all have the same natural rights and are equal under law; no king, no hereditary lords, none of all that faggy parasitic garbage that's glommed onto productive men since the neolithic. In short, we're creating a republic of free men, capable of and entitled to govern themselves. Man, i wish we still had it!
    , @guest
    "if it is properly read"

    It is properly read as political rhetoric. Taking its arguments a basis for philosophical analysis, unless you're off on a flight of fancy, is useless. Useless!

    Jefferson perhaps could've been a philosopher, and maybe was in some cases. But not here. And the Declaration was the work of a committee , anyway. This is like looking for meaning in a press release on the awesomeness of New Coke.

    Lincoln, on the other hand, was just a backwoodsman who rose up as legal hack, and as a politician was pure rhetorician. Nothing of the serious thinker about him.

    Straussians are often off on flights of fancy. But they take it all so seriously. I wouldn't mind if they were saying, "Hey,this is all wrong, but let's use Jefferson and Lincoln as an excuse to talk about natural rights. Because I want to talk about natural rights, that's why." They write in the manner of academics who use bubblegum pop to air their feelings on semiotics, or whatever. There's not much difference. Except that Straussians at least reach back to better disciplines, and they have better conclusions.

    Obviously, Jefferson and Lincoln, and all politicians for that matter, are informed by background philosophy. As am I, and you, and everyone who's not a true vulgarian. But there's something massively dishonest about using the "close reading" method to explore things that have almost nothing to do with the text you're supposedly analyzing.

    That's one of the major reasons people despise Straussians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. The “West Coast Straussian” gets as close to reality as he dares. He loves to fly — but he is always sure to be Daedalus, never Icarus. This is optimal for both donations and offices. Intellectually, though, it means his work is never more than evanescent. He is Ausonius pretending to be a peer of Virgil. If you compromise with the era in which you happen to be born, you can never write _sub specie aeternitas_.

    For instance: the Claremonsters / Jaffaites, though certainly better than the East Coasters, will never, ever tell you to read the Tories, the Confederates, etc. They want you to learn American history, even judge its players, with only one side of the story. Like a jury who only gets to hear from the prosecutor. You can tell a real historian because he does everything possible to leave you understanding both sides of the story.

    So all of the above is very elegantly worded and not completely untrue. One could even regard it as a modified limited hangout. But the reality is much simpler.

    Reading and interpreting history on the basis of the _words_ of historical actors means taking their statements, opinions, perspectives and motivations at face value. It is assuming their sincerity. When we study history not as political hagiography but as history, _wie es eigentlich gewesen_ in Ranke’s terms, we assume that human beings in the past are like those in the present. Very few are sincere. And those who are both sincere, and in power, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

    Evidence of Lincoln’s sincerity is nowhere. Evidence of his political sagacity is everywhere. Therefore, a real historian — not a Straussian hagiographer playing some kind of esoteric triple-bank-shot pool — will evaluate Lincoln as a politician. This means paying only a small amount of attention to his verbiage and/or philosophy, and instead trying to understand his motivations from his actions.

    This is what Masters does, and what Jaffa doesn’t do. This is why Masters produced a work of historical literature that will be read for centuries, whereas Jaffa produced a work of philosophical polemic that feels dated already. (The Beveridge bio, which Masters relied on, is also great. Unfortunately Beveridge died when he was only at 1858.)

    Similarly, as Adams wrote to Jefferson in one of the late letters, “who could ever tell the history of the Revolution?” This may be taken as a sort of private admission that the _public_ story of the Revolution, ie the Founders, the Declaration and all that jazz, had very little to do with the _private_ story — what actually happened. Though of course, the Tories are pretty good at sussing out that private story. Forget the Founders — read America’s best 18th-century writers, Peter Oliver or Thomas Hutchinson.

    We dissidents have no option but to tell the deepest, most powerful version of the truth we know. You can’t beat bullshit with bullshit. That’s why Burnham’s _The Machiavellians_ is worth more than the whole Straussian compendium put together.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman, snorlax
    • Replies: @Thoughtdeviant
    What's your opinion on moldbug's work?

    http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. To some extent that work had been accomplished organically in the ~150 years from the establishment of the first colonies until the Revolution. But 150 years is a short time compared the many centuries that the European nations formed.

    That depends on what you mean by “nation”. The nation-states of Italy and Germany aren’t yet 150 years old. There are places like Alsace, the Carpathians, and White Russia that have bounced back-and-forth between this and that major power. Few of the members of the EU or Warsaw Pact were nations in the political sense until long after 1776.

    There’s a nice little paradox in that the New World states and “provinces” of the US, Canada, and Australia have more sovereignty and powers than the ancient counties, departments, cantons, prefectures, etc, that make up European and Asian countries– actually, that European countries are divided into. As, say, New Jersey is divided into counties, Louisiana into parishes, and all but a handful of counties in New England and New York into “towns”.

    But those foreign prefectures have a much longer cultural history and identity, like Texas, but ever so much more so. Perhaps that’s why some of them can be traded back-and-forth without it being a big deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @Svigor

    East Coast Straussians still speak highly of this book because it begins from one of their core assumptions (America is fundamentally low and flawed) and because it elevates Lincoln to a kind of philosopher-prophet-statesman.
     
    I've been reading up on Narcissism; my comments are in Andrew Joyce's new piece on The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews. Long story short, is closely related to narcissism:

    People matching the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defence mechanism. Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize their sense of self positivity in order to preserve their self-esteem, by perceiving themselves as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to their will or values as purely wicked or contemptible.[13]

    The cognitive habit of splitting also implies the use of other related defence mechanisms, namely idealization and devaluation, which are preventive attitudes or reactions to narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury.[11]
     
    Idealization and Devaluation

    Lincoln and Blacks are targets of Jewish idealization, while Whites, especially White Christians, are targets of their devaluation. All of it goes back to Jewish ethnocentrism (perhaps better thought of as ethnic narcissism, given how much informative Wikipedia's articles on the latter are).

    Vis-a-vis Blacks:

    Otto Kernberg has provided an extensive discussion of idealization, both in its defensive and adaptive aspects. He conceptualised idealization as involving a denial of unwanted characteristics of an object, then enhancing the object by projecting one's own libido or omnipotence on it.
     
    Sound familiar?

    Lincoln and Blacks are targets of Jewish idealization,

    You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that’s the same “sin” that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802

    But that’s been cast aside;nowadays, they abominate Jefferson as one of the architects of “White Supremacy.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Gigantic word count is a Straussian subterfuge technique!

    (Jerkboy Neocon Agent 000 probably got the idea from Moby Dick.)

    Essentially what the camp followers do is mimic the old man…

    1. begin by writing a vast sea of convoluted nonsense 2. insert a brief espousal invade the world, invite the world, transmogrify the world 3. finish by adding an ocean of confusing pedagogic bloviations.

    Now that is a sh*t sandwich…

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR, Anonym, Bill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …

    I don’t have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist “conservatives” who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I’m at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.

    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that’s obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don’t recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.

    Can someone explain to me how the “IN” makes the passage all better? It isn’t obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.

    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That’s the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it’s inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.

    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov’t over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There’s a lot to like. It just isn’t ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.

    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Ah, Svigor, you just can't stop......

    And that goes double for so-called race-realist “conservatives” who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession),
     
    Well, since it is germane to the current conversation.....The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny...

    the American Nakba (Blacks),
     
    I thought that taking lands from the Amerinds was the American Babka....

    American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before),
     
    And people weren't happy about it.....cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution.....

    and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states)

     

    James Madison didn't think so...and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause....

    The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.
     
    Pot, meet Kettle....

    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that’s obvious nonsense.
     
    No, it was to preserve the Union. everyone knows that....As the war went on, though, it swiftly became apparent that the only way to end it was to end slavery. No slavery, no need to secede....

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.
     
    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding...You know, having slavery means having Black people around...

    And I don’t recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

     

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union. Really, you need to hang around more WOKE Jewish academics. They love pointing out how ending slavery was a secondary goal...

    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop.

     

    Nah, Southern Fire-Eaters. Crazy people....

    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That’s the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it’s inherently legitimate.
     
    The Founders thought that it was a natural right....Revolution in the face of tyranny....That's the problem with the South...they couldn't really invoke the right of revolution....after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant's heal in 1860-61...
    , @AndrewR
    Mass immigration itself is inherently "undemocratic" because it changes the demos.
    , @Boethiuss


    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I’m at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.
     
    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.
    , @Boethiuss


    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov’t over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There’s a lot to like. It just isn’t ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.
     
    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn't (and didn't) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern "patriots" like this guy.

    It's ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.
    , @Boethiuss

    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.
     
    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we're entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Reg Cæsar

    West Coast Straussian...

    East Coast Straussians...

     

    So Berns and Jaffa were the Tupac and Biggie of Straussianism?

    Could you call it "Strauss music"?

    Or "Burning Down the Strauss"?

    Nina Persson is much cuter and presumably less crazy than Tina Weymouth, but man that cover was like reading 20,000 words about Strauss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    At least Weymouth learned to play the bass passably well. Kim Gordon never did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that’s the same “sin” that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Maybe. The impression I get from Jews in general is that they love Lincoln. There’s always a leftist fringe for whom no one is leftist enough.

    Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Isn’t that from private correspondence? Yes – a letter to the Danbury Baptists, apparently.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    Though in fairness, while I don’t broach the subject, it isn’t always Yankees who are guilty of broaching the subject, either. E.g., shit-stirrer brings up the WoNA, Yankee spews Yankee rationalizations, then I respond to that. C’est la vie, I suppose. I will endeavor to have a word with the aforementioned instigators from now on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that’s the same “sin” that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Maybe. The impression I get from Jews in general is that they love Lincoln. There’s always a leftist fringe for whom no one is leftist enough.

     

    More like the avant-garde. Remember, as recently as the 1980s, same-sex marriage was a fringe issue, and "transsexuals " were freely mocked well into the '90s (Cf. how the show Friends is now labeled "problematic" for the way that it made fun of Chandler's m-to-f Dad). Where will Lincoln stand in 10 years? Thomas Jefferson used to be an icon to the American Left...And Andrew Jackson was seen as part of the genealogy of the New Deal...

    Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Isn’t that from private correspondence? Yes – a letter to the Danbury Baptists, apparently.
     

    Yes, and it is one of his most commonly cited writings. Cf just about any Supreme Court ruling on Church and State.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. “Tom West’s new book, mentioned before, definitively proves what the Founders really believed.”

    Except these things never permanently stay proved, if only because we forget what we (or others) have learned in the past. These conversations will go on forever, if we are lucky. Cultures do not self-transmit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. In addition to this article, I suggest it be coupled alongside of Jared Taylor’s “What the Founders Really Thought About Race”, as at the time immigration, all men are created equal, etc. were also viewed (albeit not entirely) through the prism of race.

    https://www.amren.com/videos/2017/05/founders-really-thought-race/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. More proof that Strausserians are as self-absorbed and self-referential as Marxists and Randians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. RE: Proposition Nation Arguments,

    Two options:

    1. Living in an America that has our current Constitution combined with a Black and Latinx majority .

    2. Living in an America with an Anglo-European supermajority (say, 90% Anglo-European)but no Constitution.

    I would pick option two. Constitutions can always be created, but people are permanent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    You’re right. Jews despise Lincoln because he thought of sending blacks to Africa, Haiti, Nicaragua and other Cebttal American countries.

    While campaigning for election he made statements that negroes were not the equal of Whites. Horrors !!!!!

    Feminazis also hate him because he did not issue an executive order giving women the vote at the same time he issued the emancipation proclamation.

    I’ve followed Jewish and liberal thought for 40 years. Dr Macdonald gets it right when he calls it a Culture of Critique.

    To keep themselves employed intellectuals constantly keep changing their vacuous thoughts.

    There is an old French saying, Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does.
    , @Neuday
    Given what has become of our Constitution via the sophistry of the judiciary, I posit another option:

    3. Living in a geographical space called America with effectively no constitution and without any racial majority but simply a "hodge-podge" of Mexicans and Central Americans, Asians, Blacks and Whites, with enough wealth redistribution, cheap food, and police presence to keep a lid on things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Sound stuff. LARPing has no place in a crisis. Once the danger to Anglo-America is over, we can go back to tilting at windmills.

    When you’re tilting at the anti-White regime, Southern secession seems not at all a windmill. The barriers aren’t much different.

    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase “all men are created equal” are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.

    Yeah, reading the whole thing would help clear up leftist idiocy. It’s hard to get a racial kumbayah message out of a letter that calls Amerinds “savages,” makes mention of their depravations, and lists George’s enabling of same as a reason for secession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    When you’re tilting at the anti-White regime, Southern secession seems not at all a windmill. The barriers aren’t much different.
     
    LARPers gotta LARP, eh?
    , @AndrewR
    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians' "savageness" was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. For the time being at least, we face a common enemy. I recall, many years ago, visiting a site in China which the Chinese government alleged to have been the place where Mao and Chiang formally agreed (actually Chiang was kidnapped, but that aside) to put aside their differences and focus (for the time being) on the Japanese. Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea.

    That seems like rather a fraught example, given that Mao had his fingers crossed behind his back, and Chiang was a fool to ever honor that deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Your writer misplaces the corrective “IN” six words back, in front of the first “that” instead of the second. You might want to correct that for him. (And feel free to delete this comment.)

    That answers my question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Svigor

    Sound stuff. LARPing has no place in a crisis. Once the danger to Anglo-America is over, we can go back to tilting at windmills.
     
    When you're tilting at the anti-White regime, Southern secession seems not at all a windmill. The barriers aren't much different.

    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase “all men are created equal” are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.
     
    Yeah, reading the whole thing would help clear up leftist idiocy. It's hard to get a racial kumbayah message out of a letter that calls Amerinds "savages," makes mention of their depravations, and lists George's enabling of same as a reason for secession.

    When you’re tilting at the anti-White regime, Southern secession seems not at all a windmill. The barriers aren’t much different.

    LARPers gotta LARP, eh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Svigor

    You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that’s the same “sin” that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:
     
    Maybe. The impression I get from Jews in general is that they love Lincoln. There's always a leftist fringe for whom no one is leftist enough.

    Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:
     
    Isn't that from private correspondence? Yes - a letter to the Danbury Baptists, apparently.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.
     
    Though in fairness, while I don't broach the subject, it isn't always Yankees who are guilty of broaching the subject, either. E.g., shit-stirrer brings up the WoNA, Yankee spews Yankee rationalizations, then I respond to that. C'est la vie, I suppose. I will endeavor to have a word with the aforementioned instigators from now on.

    You need to hang around WOKE Jewish academics. They despise Lincoln as a racist. Of course, that’s the same “sin” that has caused Jews to turn against Thomas Jefferson. Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Maybe. The impression I get from Jews in general is that they love Lincoln. There’s always a leftist fringe for whom no one is leftist enough.

    More like the avant-garde. Remember, as recently as the 1980s, same-sex marriage was a fringe issue, and “transsexuals ” were freely mocked well into the ’90s (Cf. how the show Friends is now labeled “problematic” for the way that it made fun of Chandler’s m-to-f Dad). Where will Lincoln stand in 10 years? Thomas Jefferson used to be an icon to the American Left…And Andrew Jackson was seen as part of the genealogy of the New Deal…

    Up until the 1960s, American Jews revered Jefferson for articulating the Wall Doctrine:

    Isn’t that from private correspondence? Yes – a letter to the Danbury Baptists, apparently.

    Yes, and it is one of his most commonly cited writings. Cf just about any Supreme Court ruling on Church and State…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. LARPers gotta LARP, eh?

    No, I meant what I said, not what you say. I have no particular interest in Southern secession; I simply see the barriers as little different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Although, if you are violently opposed to the idea of Southern secession, I would have to warm to the idea in response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Svigor

    Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    I don't have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist "conservatives" who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It's triply infuriating that "conservative" Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I'm at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.
     
    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that's obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don't recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.
     
    Can someone explain to me how the "IN" makes the passage all better? It isn't obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.
     
    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That's the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it's inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.
     
    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov't over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There's a lot to like. It just isn't ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.
     
    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    Ah, Svigor, you just can’t stop……

    And that goes double for so-called race-realist “conservatives” who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession),

    Well, since it is germane to the current conversation…..The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny…

    the American Nakba (Blacks),

    I thought that taking lands from the Amerinds was the American Babka….

    American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before),

    And people weren’t happy about it…..cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution…..

    and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states)

    James Madison didn’t think so…and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause….

    The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    Pot, meet Kettle….

    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that’s obvious nonsense.

    No, it was to preserve the Union. everyone knows that….As the war went on, though, it swiftly became apparent that the only way to end it was to end slavery. No slavery, no need to secede….

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.

    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding…You know, having slavery means having Black people around…

    And I don’t recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union. Really, you need to hang around more WOKE Jewish academics. They love pointing out how ending slavery was a secondary goal…

    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop.

    Nah, Southern Fire-Eaters. Crazy people….

    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That’s the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it’s inherently legitimate.

    The Founders thought that it was a natural right….Revolution in the face of tyranny….That’s the problem with the South…they couldn’t really invoke the right of revolution….after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant’s heal in 1860-61…

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @physicistdave
    syonredux wrote:

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union.
     
    NO, no, no -- that self-evidently was not the "primary goal": the South made no effort to destroy the Union. The South did not attempt to force Wisconsin or Massachusetts or Maine to leave the Union.

    The South simply wanted a slightly smaller Union that did not include the South. Think of it as a slimmer, leaner, more fit Union. A diet plan for a Union that even then was too big to be centrally governed in a way that represented all of its citizens.

    And since some of our local Web morons will no doubt claim I am a neo-Confederate, I will repeat for the nth time that my sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I think the free states should themselves have seceded in 1859 in response to the abomination of the Fugitive Slave Act.

    Some of us actually criticize Lincoln not because we favor the Slavocracy but because we are appalled by a war that killed over six hundred thousand Americans and are also appalled by inhuman monsters, like the Straussians, who treat that war as a good thing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Well, since it is germane to the current conversation…..The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny…

    It’s awfully easy for British/Yankees/George/Lincoln to decide (rigorously of course, and without regard for self-interest) to decide that what you think is tyranny isn’t tyranny. You think the right to secession is subject to George’s approval…

    Nope. Much more honest to say that no man has the right to govern another without his consent, and use that to conclude that the desire for secession is inherently legitimate. But that stymies the Yankee need for delusional self-regard…

    But do tell us all about the tyranny. Gulags? Death camps? Mass murder? Genocide? Invading and burning cities? What, exactly?

    I say what the Yankees did to the South fits the bill of tyranny much better than anything the British did to the colonies.

    And people weren’t happy about it…..cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution…..

    And failed. And that should’ve been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states’ business is concerned…

    Otherwise, they could’ve just stayed out of the Union, if slavery was such a deal-breaker.

    James Madison didn’t think so…and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause….

    Incorrect. The powers not in the Constitution are reserved to the States. That is a clause for much else, but it’s also a clause for secession.

    Pot, meet Kettle….

    Thin gruel in that kettle…

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.

    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding…You know, having slavery means having Black people around…

    Yes, ending slavery didn’t result in tons of blacks moving North. Go ahead, beclown yourself some more…

    The Founders thought that it was a natural right….Revolution in the face of tyranny….That’s the problem with the South…they couldn’t really invoke the right of revolution….after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant’s heal in 1860-61…

    Nor was America in the late 18th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    And failed. And that should’ve been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states’ business is concerned…
     
    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however "constitutional" the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
    , @Jake
    "I say what the Yankees did to the South fits the bill of tyranny much better than anything the British did to the colonies.:

    That is correct, with no exaggeration whatsoever.

    The end result of it was ABSOLUTELY necessary to getting us here, into this Leftist Hell hole, because it made the Negro Numinous, made the Negro the sacred pet cow of the newly centralized, imperialized, nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. “Liberals, liberals, liberals. None of you are free of liberalism!.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @syonredux
    RE: Proposition Nation Arguments,

    Two options:

    1. Living in an America that has our current Constitution combined with a Black and Latinx majority .

    2. Living in an America with an Anglo-European supermajority (say, 90% Anglo-European)but no Constitution.

    I would pick option two. Constitutions can always be created, but people are permanent.

    You’re right. Jews despise Lincoln because he thought of sending blacks to Africa, Haiti, Nicaragua and other Cebttal American countries.

    While campaigning for election he made statements that negroes were not the equal of Whites. Horrors !!!!!

    Feminazis also hate him because he did not issue an executive order giving women the vote at the same time he issued the emancipation proclamation.

    I’ve followed Jewish and liberal thought for 40 years. Dr Macdonald gets it right when he calls it a Culture of Critique.

    To keep themselves employed intellectuals constantly keep changing their vacuous thoughts.

    There is an old French saying, Don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Wow, how did Strauss ever find the time to invent blue jeans?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. >>But what good comes of dumping Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al? The Declaration, the Constitution, and the whole political philosophy that informed the Founding? Is ditching all that supposed to help make America great again?<<

    Why must America be great?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. 33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    tl dr
     
    Of course Jack would write this. And to fair, it is a long post (or three of them).

    In any event, things have been getting clearer for the Trump people recently. We can't really discuss, clarify, negotiate our actual intentions and priorities like honorable adults. That's just a license for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to play us for chumps. So that means we have to show the most reactionary, belligerent face we can and hope it carries the day.

    That's a mistake. The fundamental fact about our current political situation is that Donald Trump, the alt-right, and the people who are politically associated with them are intimidating the square root of nobody.

    Even as, is flying under the radar, Trump is having a quietly successful Presidency at least in conventional terms. The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that's a real record that any Republican could be proud of. But because Trump is Trump, with the feuds, the Twitter, the special counsels and the rest of it, we can't get any credit for it at all, and we're looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Wow, how did Strauss ever find the time to invent blue jeans?

    Or compose waltzes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Svigor

    Well, since it is germane to the current conversation…..The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny…
     
    It's awfully easy for British/Yankees/George/Lincoln to decide (rigorously of course, and without regard for self-interest) to decide that what you think is tyranny isn't tyranny. You think the right to secession is subject to George's approval...

    Nope. Much more honest to say that no man has the right to govern another without his consent, and use that to conclude that the desire for secession is inherently legitimate. But that stymies the Yankee need for delusional self-regard...

    But do tell us all about the tyranny. Gulags? Death camps? Mass murder? Genocide? Invading and burning cities? What, exactly?

    I say what the Yankees did to the South fits the bill of tyranny much better than anything the British did to the colonies.

    And people weren’t happy about it…..cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution…..
     
    And failed. And that should've been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states' business is concerned...

    Otherwise, they could've just stayed out of the Union, if slavery was such a deal-breaker.

    James Madison didn’t think so…and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause….
     
    Incorrect. The powers not in the Constitution are reserved to the States. That is a clause for much else, but it's also a clause for secession.

    Pot, meet Kettle….
     
    Thin gruel in that kettle...

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.

    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding…You know, having slavery means having Black people around…
     
    Yes, ending slavery didn't result in tons of blacks moving North. Go ahead, beclown yourself some more...

    The Founders thought that it was a natural right….Revolution in the face of tyranny….That’s the problem with the South…they couldn’t really invoke the right of revolution….after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant’s heal in 1860-61…
     
    Nor was America in the late 18th century.

    And failed. And that should’ve been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states’ business is concerned…

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital's interest at the time was to "preserve the Union" because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn't viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That's it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Abolition is like abortion. The GOP needs votes to win elections. Since their policies benefit <1% of the population, they have a problem. They solve this problem by getting a gullible, enthusiastic, religious subset of the population excited about something-or-other to win votes. That Lincoln delivered on abolition illustrates that sometimes this subset threatens to get out of control and thus gets what it "wants."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @syonredux

    Actually, I would be quite happy to relitigate Lincoln and the Civil War and I do think it’s worth doing. Just not right now. That’s both for reasons of time and space, but also because those of us who disagree about it have more pressing priorities (or at least we should). For the time being at least, we face a common enemy. I recall, many years ago, visiting a site in China which the Chinese government alleged to have been the place where Mao and Chiang formally agreed (actually Chiang was kidnapped, but that aside) to put aside their differences and focus (for the time being) on the Japanese. Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln?
     
    Sound stuff. LARPing has no place in a crisis. Once the danger to Anglo-America is over, we can go back to tilting at windmills.

    The ideological descendants of the abolitionists are the danger to Anglo-America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @snorlax
    Nina Persson is much cuter and presumably less crazy than Tina Weymouth, but man that cover was like reading 20,000 words about Strauss.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBUe_v6Mi70

    At least Weymouth learned to play the bass passably well. Kim Gordon never did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Svigor

    Sound stuff. LARPing has no place in a crisis. Once the danger to Anglo-America is over, we can go back to tilting at windmills.
     
    When you're tilting at the anti-White regime, Southern secession seems not at all a windmill. The barriers aren't much different.

    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase “all men are created equal” are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.
     
    Yeah, reading the whole thing would help clear up leftist idiocy. It's hard to get a racial kumbayah message out of a letter that calls Amerinds "savages," makes mention of their depravations, and lists George's enabling of same as a reason for secession.

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Svigor

    Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    I don't have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist "conservatives" who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It's triply infuriating that "conservative" Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I'm at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.
     
    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that's obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don't recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.
     
    Can someone explain to me how the "IN" makes the passage all better? It isn't obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.
     
    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That's the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it's inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.
     
    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov't over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There's a lot to like. It just isn't ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.
     
    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. “I say all this to make the case that the knee-jerk rejection of Strauss, Straussians, Jaffa, Lincoln, the Declaration, etc. on the right is not merely unhelpful. All of that is a source of STRENGTH, or could be, if we would use them.

    OK, by all means forget Strauss, Jaffa and all their students. Pretend they never lived. But what good comes of dumping Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al? The Declaration, the Constitution, and the whole political philosophy that informed the Founding? Is ditching all that supposed to help make America great again?”

    This more or less encompasses the confusion. “Claremonsters,” are under the mistaken impression that tortured interpretations of sacred writ yet retain some political cache. The proof is in the pudding. The left won that battle some six decades previous. What on earth would an American right-winger have to gain from continuing to prop up a propositional nation nearly overcome with militant left wing minorities? Are you under the mistaken impression that said minorities simply haven’t heard enough about the sacred constitution and your Hebraic interpretation thereof?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. I am not going to pretend that I really understand what these Straussianism debates are about exactly (can somebody summarize it in one sentence if they don’t mind?). What I can be very sure of is that every Somalian, Mexican, Pakistani and every other third worlder mass immigrating into America will absolutely not care about these debates, which makes these pointless angels on the pinhead debates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    I am not going to pretend that I really understand what these Straussianism debates are about exactly (can somebody summarize it in one sentence if they don’t mind?). What I can be very sure of is that every Somalian, Mexican, Pakistani and every other third worlder mass immigrating into America will absolutely not care about these debates, which makes these pointless angels on the pinhead debates.
     
    That's absolutely true as far as the premise goes, but not the conclusion. What is the nature of our defense against Somalis and Mexicans?

    People talk about walls, e-Verify, overturning birthright citizenship, etc. and those are useful things, but they are not really what's important in their own right. At bottom, they are an expression of the sovereignty of the American people and their desire to protect that sovereignty and the human capital contained within it. If we have that, we could have a multitude of different policies to implement it. But without it, any policy, no matter how well defined, will suffer from neglect and subterfuge.

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It's the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don't have that possibility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Svigor

    Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    I don't have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist "conservatives" who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It's triply infuriating that "conservative" Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I'm at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.
     
    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that's obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don't recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.
     
    Can someone explain to me how the "IN" makes the passage all better? It isn't obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.
     
    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That's the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it's inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.
     
    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov't over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There's a lot to like. It just isn't ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.
     
    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I’m at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Svigor

    Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    I don't have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist "conservatives" who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It's triply infuriating that "conservative" Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I'm at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.
     
    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that's obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don't recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.
     
    Can someone explain to me how the "IN" makes the passage all better? It isn't obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.
     
    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That's the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it's inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.
     
    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov't over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There's a lot to like. It just isn't ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.
     
    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov’t over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There’s a lot to like. It just isn’t ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Svigor

    Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    I don't have any need to re-fight the War of Northern Aggression. But Yankee BS on the matter sticks in my craw. And that goes double for so-called race-realist "conservatives" who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession), the American Nakba (Blacks), American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before), and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states) for the duration of the conversation. The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.

    It's triply infuriating that "conservative" Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop. And while I'm at it, all the godawful anti-White federal legislation to spew out of Washington since then? That was all enacted by Yankees, over the opposition of Southern legislators.

    If Yankees would exercise a bit of sensitivity and STFU with their nonsense about the WoNA and Lincoln, I would never talk about it.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality.
     
    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that's obvious nonsense. They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede. And I don't recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

    Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know.
     
    Can someone explain to me how the "IN" makes the passage all better? It isn't obvious.

    If the theory of natural rights which the Founders relied on is in fact untrue, then the Revolution was not merely indeed “illegal” (in the words of one commenter) but much worse than that.
     
    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That's the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it's inherently legitimate.

    Why the modern right, most of which professes to love America, is so quick to dismiss and denounce all this—their (our) rightful inheritance—I do partly understand.
     
    I am an ethnopatriot. I would take any genuine form of ethnopatriotic gov't over what we have now. That being said, I would prefer something a lot like the American system. There's a lot to like. It just isn't ethnopatriotic enough. It needs some substantial mods.

    They’ve amply proved that the case that the “propositionist” Founders believed that a sovereign state—a free people operating through a social compact—has the right to restrict immigration to any degree and for any reason it wants to. They also have a DUTY to do what is best for the existing citizenry—the people actually IN the particular social compact—and if that means restricting immigration, then doing so is not merely a right, but a duty. Claremonsters have also shown that the “propositionist” Republicans who ratified the 14th Amendment did NOT intend birthright citizenship and that “propositionism” in no way requires or even implies birthright citizenship.
     
    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    I go further and say that there is an inherent interest in restricting immigration, and if that means thwarting democracy and the will of the people, so be it. I see this as no different from tackling a suicidal person before he can go over the side of a bridge.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Others in the thread noted that men always need to believe that what they are doing (especially the big stuff) is just. I believe that is true.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. What are Straussians good for? Teaching? Hardly, even if the better alternatives are lesser-known and less influential. They certainly won’t get their hands dirty doing the real work of building communities, and their claims to the contrary, in so far as they push a progressive agenda they are part of the group trying to destroy America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @neutral
    I am not going to pretend that I really understand what these Straussianism debates are about exactly (can somebody summarize it in one sentence if they don't mind?). What I can be very sure of is that every Somalian, Mexican, Pakistani and every other third worlder mass immigrating into America will absolutely not care about these debates, which makes these pointless angels on the pinhead debates.

    I am not going to pretend that I really understand what these Straussianism debates are about exactly (can somebody summarize it in one sentence if they don’t mind?). What I can be very sure of is that every Somalian, Mexican, Pakistani and every other third worlder mass immigrating into America will absolutely not care about these debates, which makes these pointless angels on the pinhead debates.

    That’s absolutely true as far as the premise goes, but not the conclusion. What is the nature of our defense against Somalis and Mexicans?

    People talk about walls, e-Verify, overturning birthright citizenship, etc. and those are useful things, but they are not really what’s important in their own right. At bottom, they are an expression of the sovereignty of the American people and their desire to protect that sovereignty and the human capital contained within it. If we have that, we could have a multitude of different policies to implement it. But without it, any policy, no matter how well defined, will suffer from neglect and subterfuge.

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It’s the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don’t have that possibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It’s the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don’t have that possibility.
     
    Nothing is more pressing than destroying the GOP. The GOP can't help *against* immigration except in some imaginary world where immigration was a threat to capital. In that imaginary world, of course, we would not have to do anything to get the GOP to act against immigration. It would just do it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Our pseudo-anonymous poster wrote:

    By the way, Anne Norton’s book is garbage. Here is a review by an East-Coaster, published in the West Coast organ, the CRB. East and West agree on the worthlessness of this book:

    Well, of course, East and West Straussians would agree on that! She proved what con artists Straussians in general are!

    It’s like Trots and Stalinists agreeing that any critics of Marxism and Leninism are wrong.

    Having posted a favorable review of one of Strauss’s books on amazon a few years ago, I think I can fairly claim not to be “anti-Strauss.” But, the belief of the Straussian cult that all of the discoveries our poster alludes to are due to them are just utterly bizarre.

    I could name numerous authors, with no affiliation or ties to Strauss, who “discovered” the same points over the last century: Rothbard, Nock, Rand, and a host of others. Indeed, long before I had heard of Strauss (or Rand, Rothbard, Nock, etc.), I had made these “discoveries” myself, simply because they take no effort to “discover.” They are obvious possibilities to anyone who thinks for a few minutes about the Declaration, about right and wrong, etc.

    Indeed, what our poster describes as Straussian discoveries were pretty much the common sense of the subject in the lower-middle-class suburb I grew up in back in the middle of the twentieth century. This is what Americans traditionally thought.

    Our poster sounds like Scientologists talking about L. Ron Hubbard, the EST folks talking about Werner Erhard, or the Randians talking about Rand.

    As someone who finds Leo Strauss at least mildly interesting, I do not thank he deserves this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @newrouter
    "The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today."

    Shorter version:

    "About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-occasion-of-the-one-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

    Obviously, Silent Cal was a secret (esoteric?) Straussian! Of course, there is a bit of a problem of chronology: so, can we conclude that it was the Eastern or Western Straussians who built a time machine and got to Silent Cal? (And, is it the Eastern or Western Straussians who believe that one should crack an egg on the little end or the big end? Ah, what Jonathan Swift could have done with these guys!)

    Seriously, thanks for helping me with my point that the supposed “discoveries” of the Straussians were simply the common sense of the matter among ordinary Americans through much of the last century.

    Let’s face it: the Straussians are academic clowns (anyone who doubts that, read Anne Norton’s book: the eagerness of the Straussians to discourage people from reading it really says it all).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. 33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.

    It may just be down to mood, but I found this one far more readable than the previous. I was maybe 1/3 through the previous one before I tl;dr-ed it, but this one I got all the way through.

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.

    I’m fine with that take. More likely than repatriation would have been the possibility of some form of segregation. Of course, the Negro-hating Yankees put an end – over the objections and resistance of the Negro-loving Southerners – to the form of segregation that did obtain…

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.

    True, but still raciss.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.

    Not to lean too heavily on the analogy, but that’s like saying suicide isn’t a free choice because it ends a person’s life. I think the moral choice is much clearer when dealing with a population, many of whom won’t understand the consequences of demographic suicide as clearly as individuals tend to understand the consequences of their own suicide, and for the fact that there will inevitably be a sizeable number of people who do understand the consequences, and don’t deserved to be condemned for the choices of an idiotic or indoctrinated majority. And obviously the consequences of genocide are far worse than any one person committing suicide.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.

    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and – in the name of animal rights – kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals? Apparently Yankee “logic” does.

    If I make a prison, and psychotic Yankees break in and – claiming all the prisoners are innocent and were unjustly convicted – kill all the guards and release all the prisoners, do you blame the warden (for anything other than not successfully defending his prison from the psychotic Yankees) for the resulting crime spree by the former inmates? Apparently, Yankee “logic” does.

    It’s like you build a dam, and then Yankees dynamite it and say “lulz wtf why did you have all that water held back by that dam? This flood is your fault.”

    Even simple logic and plain fact are too much for Yankees to process, when it means sacrificing an erg of their delusional pride. It doesn’t matter how many times I point this out; the Yankee skull grows thicker, the more logic you use on it. And these are “conservative” and “race realist” Yankees. I can just imagine the hysterical reactions to my arguments from typical Yankees.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.

    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    You seem to be saying that Yankees started their aggressive war with the vague intention of repatriating the blacks, but were so monumentally stupid and incompetent that they really had no plan, and then so lazy and shiftless that they failed to execute the plan they didn’t have, I suppose I could agree. I think that’s being too kind to Yankees, but it’s possible.

    The reality is that the cause wasn’t the interests of Southerners of any stripe; it was the war of Northern aggression, the emancipation proclamation, and the fact that Yankees didn’t want to repatriate Blacks.

    The problem is that Yankee conservatives can’t come to grips with just how leftist Yankee history is. They can’t reconcile the Yankee delusions inculcated in them early in life, with the harsh realities conservatism has taught them. So, they dance and shuck and jive and contort instead.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.

    It’s neither here nor there; Yankees turned ‘em loose, a fact only made possible by their stupid aggressive war, in which they conquered the South.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?

    Interests don’t imply the existence of mechanisms to further or protect them. As to what I’d suggest in theory, I’d naturally go with something similar to our current, “undemocratic” Constitutional mechanisms, which protect free speech from the will of the citizenry and their representatives, also the right to bear arms, the right to practice one’s religion, etc.

    That’s how Republics work.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.

    Speaking only for some of the “ilk,” I’d say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer’s behalf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and – in the name of animal rights – kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals?
     
    Yeah, I do.

    The point being is that the animals shouldn't have been there in the first place. And given that they're here, it's the responsibility of the "zookeepers" to move them out to a place where they're not going to cause any harm.

    And that's fundamentally why this business about "animals" and "zookeepers" is so much bullshit. People are not animals. You can't bring them here to live and work and expect that the cultural, economic, and demographic impact of doing that is whatever it is you want, instead of something that's largely out of your control. That goes for chattel slave Negroes (as they were then) and lettuce picking Gautemalans both. Read Peter Brimelow.

    There's obviously gross human rights violations in the former, of course. But that doesn't have to enter into what I'm writing about above.
    , @Opinionator
    I’d say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer’s behalf.

    Let's hear you make the case. Spencer's giddy talk of ethnic cleansing, his deliberately offensive claims to racial superiority, and his naked assertions of racial self-aggrandizement don't cut it.
    , @Boethiuss

    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.
     
    That's right. Why do you think we had a Civil War in the first place? A couple of yokels bombed a fort, and fast forward a few years, there's over a half million dead Americans?

    No, the tensions leading up the war had been boiling for decades. And the main reason why those tensions were never defused is because it became increasingly clear that there never be any dialing back of the slave regime without war. The culture and economy of the Confederate states were anchored on legal slavery. And for that matter, it was iffy at best to prevent the expansion of slavery. If those things could have been finessed around, they would have. But when push came to shove, they couldn't.
    , @Boethiuss


    It’s neither here nor there;....
     
    LOL. It's neither here nor there, like there's anything else worth talking about.

    Just twenty or whatever comments ago, you said that immigration restriction was so compelling that it doesn't even need popular support. Well guess what, that's exactly what Lincoln did. He told the South that their labor and immigration policy was what he said they were, and if public opinion in Virginia or Georgia didn't like, so much the worse for them.

    "You have a low-wage illiterate labor force, you have to get rid of it. I don't care if you think it's in their best interest, I don't care if think you need the money, or really do. It's deeply corrosive of our national culture, and it has to go."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Our poster suggests:

    Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …

    Well… if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative politician who managed to get over six hundred thousand of his fellow citizens killed. It was the biggest bloodbath in American history, and it just has to be pointed out in any serious effort to teach or discuss US history.

    But, yeah, he has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years (and, yes, I agree that Booth’s assassination proved to be disastrous for both North and South). But when the Straussians and other SJWs (yeah, I know the Straussians deny that they are SJWs) insist on turning this two-bit murderous politician into some kind of god, well… they are going to incite a response.

    They do not want such a discussion? Then just admit that Harry Jaffa truly had a screw loose and move on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Well… if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative.....
     

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we're especially likely to claim them if they're ours. It's the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln's case, that goes for the North and South both.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Of course we know, with the benefit of hindsight, that things like repatriating blacks, building a wall to keep segregated blacks in an independent Dixie out of the Union, or enforcing border security in the same situation, are simply not in Yankee DNA.

    They were in Southern DNA, before the Yankees got done with us. They were in our DNA until about 50 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Over time, people do change culturally - they may even become the antithesis of their original selves. That happens two ways. One is that they are forced. The other is that they accept bribes. Imperial masters obviously play the first to force changes. The second completes the job. The pair remake people into servants of imperial lords.

    The post-Christendom leaders - including the super rich who never held a political or judicial office - of the entire Western world have been using that approach to remake their peoples into shells of what their ancestors were. Because that makes them easier to rule and pluck clean.

    All kinds of 'tough' men that most have been taught to see as heroes for 'fighting tyranny' or for 'leading their country to greatness' are in some form guilty of setting and keeping us on this path of cultural suicide.

    Abraham Lincoln is Exhibit A for America. But the process is much older than him. The Judaizing heretical Anglo-Saxon Puritans were indispensable to the long term pollution that became a death wish, a desire for cultural suicide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. But, yeah, he has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years (and, yes, I agree that Booth’s assassination proved to be disastrous for both North and South). But when the Straussians and other SJWs (yeah, I know the Straussians deny that they are SJWs) insist on turning this two-bit murderous politician into some kind of god, well… they are going to incite a response.

    The funniest is the “if Booth hadn’t killed Lincoln, Lincoln would have repatriated the Blacks.” Oy. Yankees wanted to do it, but they were so bumbling and incompetent and completely useless that they were helpless to do so without their Fuhrer. Gimme a break. How much of an effort did Yankees actually make to repatriate Blacks? I know it wasn’t much, but I honestly have no idea just how miserable and pathetic an effort they did make (I assume there were at least a couple of Yankee pens scribbling toward that end).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Yankees wanted to do it, but they were so bumbling and incompetent and completely useless that they were helpless to do so without their Fuhrer.
     
    I'm sure I've written at least three or four times on this thread that repatriating the freemen was the South's problem (and the South's failure), not the North's.

    Even you should be able to appreciate that arguments like yours above are a dead end.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. I don’t see how dumping the core American principles, documents and heroes is in any way good for America. ESPECIALLY when those principles can inform practical policy TODAY that is in line with what so many of us want.

    To play devil’s advocate here, it could be good for America if they were replaced with clearly written and more broadly relevant documents, while we still have a majority to get them passed into law. One reason America has drifted left is because its founding documents, such as the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, were poorly written. That’s true as well of later constitutional amendments, like the 14th.

    Granted, the left manages to invent rights without relying on the poor draftsmanship of the Constitution, but partly that’s due to the constitution being so dated. The common quip about the Founders’ not envisioning cars and airplanes misses the point here. They didn’t envision the trends that led to the rise of socialism, and the need for a welfare state as a counter to it. Americans care more about their Medicare than the dusty old document that never envisioned it.

    So why not write a new, clearer, more modern constitution, drawing on the examples of other successful countries, while there are enough normies to get something sane ratified? Why wait until the left finds a right to polygamy in one of our current constitution’s “penumbras”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @Jack Hanson
    33 comments posted and I'm the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.

    tl dr

    Of course Jack would write this. And to fair, it is a long post (or three of them).

    In any event, things have been getting clearer for the Trump people recently. We can’t really discuss, clarify, negotiate our actual intentions and priorities like honorable adults. That’s just a license for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to play us for chumps. So that means we have to show the most reactionary, belligerent face we can and hope it carries the day.

    That’s a mistake. The fundamental fact about our current political situation is that Donald Trump, the alt-right, and the people who are politically associated with them are intimidating the square root of nobody.

    Even as, is flying under the radar, Trump is having a quietly successful Presidency at least in conventional terms. The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that’s a real record that any Republican could be proud of. But because Trump is Trump, with the feuds, the Twitter, the special counsels and the rest of it, we can’t get any credit for it at all, and we’re looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Tldr
    , @Bill

    The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that’s a real record that any Republican could be proud of.
     
    I.e. all the signs are that Trump is yet another Atwater-style traitor.

    we’re looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.
     
    From your lips to God's ear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Granted, the left manages to invent rights without relying on the poor draftsmanship of the Constitution, but partly that’s due to the constitution being so dated. The common quip about the Founders’ not envisioning cars and airplanes misses the point here. They didn’t envision the trends that led to the rise of socialism, and the need for a welfare state as a counter to it. Americans care more about their Medicare than the dusty old document that never envisioned it.

    What’s funny is that the most outdated thing about the Constitution is the idea of representatives. We can transmit our will at the speed of light now. But you can bet your sweet ass the left doesn’t want to move to legislation by plebiscite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Svigor

    33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.
     
    It may just be down to mood, but I found this one far more readable than the previous. I was maybe 1/3 through the previous one before I tl;dr-ed it, but this one I got all the way through.

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    I'm fine with that take. More likely than repatriation would have been the possibility of some form of segregation. Of course, the Negro-hating Yankees put an end - over the objections and resistance of the Negro-loving Southerners - to the form of segregation that did obtain...

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.
     
    True, but still raciss.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.
     
    Not to lean too heavily on the analogy, but that's like saying suicide isn't a free choice because it ends a person's life. I think the moral choice is much clearer when dealing with a population, many of whom won't understand the consequences of demographic suicide as clearly as individuals tend to understand the consequences of their own suicide, and for the fact that there will inevitably be a sizeable number of people who do understand the consequences, and don't deserved to be condemned for the choices of an idiotic or indoctrinated majority. And obviously the consequences of genocide are far worse than any one person committing suicide.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.
     
    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and - in the name of animal rights - kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals? Apparently Yankee "logic" does.

    If I make a prison, and psychotic Yankees break in and - claiming all the prisoners are innocent and were unjustly convicted - kill all the guards and release all the prisoners, do you blame the warden (for anything other than not successfully defending his prison from the psychotic Yankees) for the resulting crime spree by the former inmates? Apparently, Yankee "logic" does.

    It's like you build a dam, and then Yankees dynamite it and say "lulz wtf why did you have all that water held back by that dam? This flood is your fault."

    Even simple logic and plain fact are too much for Yankees to process, when it means sacrificing an erg of their delusional pride. It doesn't matter how many times I point this out; the Yankee skull grows thicker, the more logic you use on it. And these are "conservative" and "race realist" Yankees. I can just imagine the hysterical reactions to my arguments from typical Yankees.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.
     
    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    You seem to be saying that Yankees started their aggressive war with the vague intention of repatriating the blacks, but were so monumentally stupid and incompetent that they really had no plan, and then so lazy and shiftless that they failed to execute the plan they didn't have, I suppose I could agree. I think that's being too kind to Yankees, but it's possible.

    The reality is that the cause wasn't the interests of Southerners of any stripe; it was the war of Northern aggression, the emancipation proclamation, and the fact that Yankees didn't want to repatriate Blacks.

    The problem is that Yankee conservatives can't come to grips with just how leftist Yankee history is. They can't reconcile the Yankee delusions inculcated in them early in life, with the harsh realities conservatism has taught them. So, they dance and shuck and jive and contort instead.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.
     
    It's neither here nor there; Yankees turned 'em loose, a fact only made possible by their stupid aggressive war, in which they conquered the South.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?
     
    Interests don't imply the existence of mechanisms to further or protect them. As to what I'd suggest in theory, I'd naturally go with something similar to our current, "undemocratic" Constitutional mechanisms, which protect free speech from the will of the citizenry and their representatives, also the right to bear arms, the right to practice one's religion, etc.

    That's how Republics work.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.
     
    Speaking only for some of the "ilk," I'd say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer's behalf.

    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and – in the name of animal rights – kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals?

    Yeah, I do.

    The point being is that the animals shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And given that they’re here, it’s the responsibility of the “zookeepers” to move them out to a place where they’re not going to cause any harm.

    And that’s fundamentally why this business about “animals” and “zookeepers” is so much bullshit. People are not animals. You can’t bring them here to live and work and expect that the cultural, economic, and demographic impact of doing that is whatever it is you want, instead of something that’s largely out of your control. That goes for chattel slave Negroes (as they were then) and lettuce picking Gautemalans both. Read Peter Brimelow.

    There’s obviously gross human rights violations in the former, of course. But that doesn’t have to enter into what I’m writing about above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Svigor

    33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.
     
    It may just be down to mood, but I found this one far more readable than the previous. I was maybe 1/3 through the previous one before I tl;dr-ed it, but this one I got all the way through.

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    I'm fine with that take. More likely than repatriation would have been the possibility of some form of segregation. Of course, the Negro-hating Yankees put an end - over the objections and resistance of the Negro-loving Southerners - to the form of segregation that did obtain...

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.
     
    True, but still raciss.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.
     
    Not to lean too heavily on the analogy, but that's like saying suicide isn't a free choice because it ends a person's life. I think the moral choice is much clearer when dealing with a population, many of whom won't understand the consequences of demographic suicide as clearly as individuals tend to understand the consequences of their own suicide, and for the fact that there will inevitably be a sizeable number of people who do understand the consequences, and don't deserved to be condemned for the choices of an idiotic or indoctrinated majority. And obviously the consequences of genocide are far worse than any one person committing suicide.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.
     
    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and - in the name of animal rights - kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals? Apparently Yankee "logic" does.

    If I make a prison, and psychotic Yankees break in and - claiming all the prisoners are innocent and were unjustly convicted - kill all the guards and release all the prisoners, do you blame the warden (for anything other than not successfully defending his prison from the psychotic Yankees) for the resulting crime spree by the former inmates? Apparently, Yankee "logic" does.

    It's like you build a dam, and then Yankees dynamite it and say "lulz wtf why did you have all that water held back by that dam? This flood is your fault."

    Even simple logic and plain fact are too much for Yankees to process, when it means sacrificing an erg of their delusional pride. It doesn't matter how many times I point this out; the Yankee skull grows thicker, the more logic you use on it. And these are "conservative" and "race realist" Yankees. I can just imagine the hysterical reactions to my arguments from typical Yankees.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.
     
    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    You seem to be saying that Yankees started their aggressive war with the vague intention of repatriating the blacks, but were so monumentally stupid and incompetent that they really had no plan, and then so lazy and shiftless that they failed to execute the plan they didn't have, I suppose I could agree. I think that's being too kind to Yankees, but it's possible.

    The reality is that the cause wasn't the interests of Southerners of any stripe; it was the war of Northern aggression, the emancipation proclamation, and the fact that Yankees didn't want to repatriate Blacks.

    The problem is that Yankee conservatives can't come to grips with just how leftist Yankee history is. They can't reconcile the Yankee delusions inculcated in them early in life, with the harsh realities conservatism has taught them. So, they dance and shuck and jive and contort instead.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.
     
    It's neither here nor there; Yankees turned 'em loose, a fact only made possible by their stupid aggressive war, in which they conquered the South.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?
     
    Interests don't imply the existence of mechanisms to further or protect them. As to what I'd suggest in theory, I'd naturally go with something similar to our current, "undemocratic" Constitutional mechanisms, which protect free speech from the will of the citizenry and their representatives, also the right to bear arms, the right to practice one's religion, etc.

    That's how Republics work.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.
     
    Speaking only for some of the "ilk," I'd say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer's behalf.

    I’d say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer’s behalf.

    Let’s hear you make the case. Spencer’s giddy talk of ethnic cleansing, his deliberately offensive claims to racial superiority, and his naked assertions of racial self-aggrandizement don’t cut it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Svigor

    33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.
     
    It may just be down to mood, but I found this one far more readable than the previous. I was maybe 1/3 through the previous one before I tl;dr-ed it, but this one I got all the way through.

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    I'm fine with that take. More likely than repatriation would have been the possibility of some form of segregation. Of course, the Negro-hating Yankees put an end - over the objections and resistance of the Negro-loving Southerners - to the form of segregation that did obtain...

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.
     
    True, but still raciss.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.
     
    Not to lean too heavily on the analogy, but that's like saying suicide isn't a free choice because it ends a person's life. I think the moral choice is much clearer when dealing with a population, many of whom won't understand the consequences of demographic suicide as clearly as individuals tend to understand the consequences of their own suicide, and for the fact that there will inevitably be a sizeable number of people who do understand the consequences, and don't deserved to be condemned for the choices of an idiotic or indoctrinated majority. And obviously the consequences of genocide are far worse than any one person committing suicide.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.
     
    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and - in the name of animal rights - kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals? Apparently Yankee "logic" does.

    If I make a prison, and psychotic Yankees break in and - claiming all the prisoners are innocent and were unjustly convicted - kill all the guards and release all the prisoners, do you blame the warden (for anything other than not successfully defending his prison from the psychotic Yankees) for the resulting crime spree by the former inmates? Apparently, Yankee "logic" does.

    It's like you build a dam, and then Yankees dynamite it and say "lulz wtf why did you have all that water held back by that dam? This flood is your fault."

    Even simple logic and plain fact are too much for Yankees to process, when it means sacrificing an erg of their delusional pride. It doesn't matter how many times I point this out; the Yankee skull grows thicker, the more logic you use on it. And these are "conservative" and "race realist" Yankees. I can just imagine the hysterical reactions to my arguments from typical Yankees.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.
     
    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    You seem to be saying that Yankees started their aggressive war with the vague intention of repatriating the blacks, but were so monumentally stupid and incompetent that they really had no plan, and then so lazy and shiftless that they failed to execute the plan they didn't have, I suppose I could agree. I think that's being too kind to Yankees, but it's possible.

    The reality is that the cause wasn't the interests of Southerners of any stripe; it was the war of Northern aggression, the emancipation proclamation, and the fact that Yankees didn't want to repatriate Blacks.

    The problem is that Yankee conservatives can't come to grips with just how leftist Yankee history is. They can't reconcile the Yankee delusions inculcated in them early in life, with the harsh realities conservatism has taught them. So, they dance and shuck and jive and contort instead.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.
     
    It's neither here nor there; Yankees turned 'em loose, a fact only made possible by their stupid aggressive war, in which they conquered the South.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?
     
    Interests don't imply the existence of mechanisms to further or protect them. As to what I'd suggest in theory, I'd naturally go with something similar to our current, "undemocratic" Constitutional mechanisms, which protect free speech from the will of the citizenry and their representatives, also the right to bear arms, the right to practice one's religion, etc.

    That's how Republics work.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.
     
    Speaking only for some of the "ilk," I'd say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer's behalf.

    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    That’s right. Why do you think we had a Civil War in the first place? A couple of yokels bombed a fort, and fast forward a few years, there’s over a half million dead Americans?

    No, the tensions leading up the war had been boiling for decades. And the main reason why those tensions were never defused is because it became increasingly clear that there never be any dialing back of the slave regime without war. The culture and economy of the Confederate states were anchored on legal slavery. And for that matter, it was iffy at best to prevent the expansion of slavery. If those things could have been finessed around, they would have. But when push came to shove, they couldn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Svigor

    Well, since it is germane to the current conversation…..The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny…
     
    It's awfully easy for British/Yankees/George/Lincoln to decide (rigorously of course, and without regard for self-interest) to decide that what you think is tyranny isn't tyranny. You think the right to secession is subject to George's approval...

    Nope. Much more honest to say that no man has the right to govern another without his consent, and use that to conclude that the desire for secession is inherently legitimate. But that stymies the Yankee need for delusional self-regard...

    But do tell us all about the tyranny. Gulags? Death camps? Mass murder? Genocide? Invading and burning cities? What, exactly?

    I say what the Yankees did to the South fits the bill of tyranny much better than anything the British did to the colonies.

    And people weren’t happy about it…..cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution…..
     
    And failed. And that should've been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states' business is concerned...

    Otherwise, they could've just stayed out of the Union, if slavery was such a deal-breaker.

    James Madison didn’t think so…and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause….
     
    Incorrect. The powers not in the Constitution are reserved to the States. That is a clause for much else, but it's also a clause for secession.

    Pot, meet Kettle….
     
    Thin gruel in that kettle...

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.

    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding…You know, having slavery means having Black people around…
     
    Yes, ending slavery didn't result in tons of blacks moving North. Go ahead, beclown yourself some more...

    The Founders thought that it was a natural right….Revolution in the face of tyranny….That’s the problem with the South…they couldn’t really invoke the right of revolution….after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant’s heal in 1860-61…
     
    Nor was America in the late 18th century.

    “I say what the Yankees did to the South fits the bill of tyranny much better than anything the British did to the colonies.:

    That is correct, with no exaggeration whatsoever.

    The end result of it was ABSOLUTELY necessary to getting us here, into this Leftist Hell hole, because it made the Negro Numinous, made the Negro the sacred pet cow of the newly centralized, imperialized, nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @PhysicistDave
    Our poster suggests:

    Regarding Lincoln, I make the same plea. Can’t we first defeat the people who want to destroy us all, and THEN commit mass fratricide over Lincoln? Just a suggestion …
     
    Well... if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative politician who managed to get over six hundred thousand of his fellow citizens killed. It was the biggest bloodbath in American history, and it just has to be pointed out in any serious effort to teach or discuss US history.

    But, yeah, he has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years (and, yes, I agree that Booth's assassination proved to be disastrous for both North and South). But when the Straussians and other SJWs (yeah, I know the Straussians deny that they are SJWs) insist on turning this two-bit murderous politician into some kind of god, well... they are going to incite a response.

    They do not want such a discussion? Then just admit that Harry Jaffa truly had a screw loose and move on.

    Well… if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative…..

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we’re especially likely to claim them if they’re ours. It’s the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln’s case, that goes for the North and South both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    So you are an adherent of Might Makes Right. That being the case, then you should bow to the Numinous Negro, because the powers that be have made him Numinous. You also should bow to the sacred trannies, for the powers that be have made them winners as well. And those same powers that be, they also have made the non-white immigrant almost as sacred as the Numinous Negro - so bow also to the illegals, Asians as well as Hispanics.

    Winners write the history books, and once you accept that, then the victories of those people will become your ancestors, in a metaphysical sense.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your sh*t at the courthouse.
     
    As I have stated here many, many times, my own sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I am no apologist for Jeff Davis or Bobby Lee, much less the fire-eaters. I think the free states should have seceded in 1850 in response to the Fugitive Slave Act.

    I just want to tell the truth about Lincoln, just as I want to tell the truth about the failings of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. (and, boy of boy, did they all have failings!).

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence -- i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    The good news is that pretty soon the SJWs should get around to attacking Honest Abe en masse on the grounds that he was a racist pig (which, of course, he was). Should be fun to watch the left-wing SJWs going at it with the Straussian SJWs. More fun than a circus.

    And, when the SJWs try to tear down the creepy Lincoln Memorial (that declares itself to be like a temple -- should be a red flag to any real Christians left in this country, if there are any left), I am just going to stand on the sidelines and laugh and laugh and laugh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Svigor
    Of course we know, with the benefit of hindsight, that things like repatriating blacks, building a wall to keep segregated blacks in an independent Dixie out of the Union, or enforcing border security in the same situation, are simply not in Yankee DNA.

    They were in Southern DNA, before the Yankees got done with us. They were in our DNA until about 50 years ago.

    Over time, people do change culturally – they may even become the antithesis of their original selves. That happens two ways. One is that they are forced. The other is that they accept bribes. Imperial masters obviously play the first to force changes. The second completes the job. The pair remake people into servants of imperial lords.

    The post-Christendom leaders – including the super rich who never held a political or judicial office – of the entire Western world have been using that approach to remake their peoples into shells of what their ancestors were. Because that makes them easier to rule and pluck clean.

    All kinds of ‘tough’ men that most have been taught to see as heroes for ‘fighting tyranny’ or for ‘leading their country to greatness’ are in some form guilty of setting and keeping us on this path of cultural suicide.

    Abraham Lincoln is Exhibit A for America. But the process is much older than him. The Judaizing heretical Anglo-Saxon Puritans were indispensable to the long term pollution that became a death wish, a desire for cultural suicide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Boethiuss

    Well… if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative.....
     

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we're especially likely to claim them if they're ours. It's the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln's case, that goes for the North and South both.

    So you are an adherent of Might Makes Right. That being the case, then you should bow to the Numinous Negro, because the powers that be have made him Numinous. You also should bow to the sacred trannies, for the powers that be have made them winners as well. And those same powers that be, they also have made the non-white immigrant almost as sacred as the Numinous Negro – so bow also to the illegals, Asians as well as Hispanics.

    Winners write the history books, and once you accept that, then the victories of those people will become your ancestors, in a metaphysical sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Boethiuss

    tl dr
     
    Of course Jack would write this. And to fair, it is a long post (or three of them).

    In any event, things have been getting clearer for the Trump people recently. We can't really discuss, clarify, negotiate our actual intentions and priorities like honorable adults. That's just a license for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to play us for chumps. So that means we have to show the most reactionary, belligerent face we can and hope it carries the day.

    That's a mistake. The fundamental fact about our current political situation is that Donald Trump, the alt-right, and the people who are politically associated with them are intimidating the square root of nobody.

    Even as, is flying under the radar, Trump is having a quietly successful Presidency at least in conventional terms. The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that's a real record that any Republican could be proud of. But because Trump is Trump, with the feuds, the Twitter, the special counsels and the rest of it, we can't get any credit for it at all, and we're looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.

    Tldr

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Svigor

    33 comments posted and I’m the first person to say tl dr.

    Tell Molyneaux brevity is the soul of wit before he writes you back.
     
    It may just be down to mood, but I found this one far more readable than the previous. I was maybe 1/3 through the previous one before I tl;dr-ed it, but this one I got all the way through.

    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however “constitutional” the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    I'm fine with that take. More likely than repatriation would have been the possibility of some form of segregation. Of course, the Negro-hating Yankees put an end - over the objections and resistance of the Negro-loving Southerners - to the form of segregation that did obtain...

    To use more recent terminology, the founders believed the Indians’ “savageness” was a social construct that could be changed via social engineering. And to a large extent they were right.
     
    True, but still raciss.

    Mass immigration itself is inherently “undemocratic” because it changes the demos.
     
    Not to lean too heavily on the analogy, but that's like saying suicide isn't a free choice because it ends a person's life. I think the moral choice is much clearer when dealing with a population, many of whom won't understand the consequences of demographic suicide as clearly as individuals tend to understand the consequences of their own suicide, and for the fact that there will inevitably be a sizeable number of people who do understand the consequences, and don't deserved to be condemned for the choices of an idiotic or indoctrinated majority. And obviously the consequences of genocide are far worse than any one person committing suicide.

    ROFL, like it was the Yankees who forced the South to staff their plantations with slave labor.
     
    If I make a zoo, and psychotic Yankees break in and - in the name of animal rights - kill all the zookepers and turn all the animals loose, do you blame the zookeeper for the subsequent rash of attacks by the freed animals? Apparently Yankee "logic" does.

    If I make a prison, and psychotic Yankees break in and - claiming all the prisoners are innocent and were unjustly convicted - kill all the guards and release all the prisoners, do you blame the warden (for anything other than not successfully defending his prison from the psychotic Yankees) for the resulting crime spree by the former inmates? Apparently, Yankee "logic" does.

    It's like you build a dam, and then Yankees dynamite it and say "lulz wtf why did you have all that water held back by that dam? This flood is your fault."

    Even simple logic and plain fact are too much for Yankees to process, when it means sacrificing an erg of their delusional pride. It doesn't matter how many times I point this out; the Yankee skull grows thicker, the more logic you use on it. And these are "conservative" and "race realist" Yankees. I can just imagine the hysterical reactions to my arguments from typical Yankees.

    LOL. Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, what a drooler. If we really wanted an ethnostate, the thing to do was to ban legalized slavery and dump the new freemen in Africa or Cuba or somewhere. Of course, we couldn’t (and didn’t) do that, largely because of the interest of Southern “patriots” like this guy.
     
    I see. Yankee psychos could draft and equip an army, invade the South, destroy the defending armies, and burn the cities, but repatriating Negroes was a bridge too far because [magic here]; Southern resistance was just too much.

    You seem to be saying that Yankees started their aggressive war with the vague intention of repatriating the blacks, but were so monumentally stupid and incompetent that they really had no plan, and then so lazy and shiftless that they failed to execute the plan they didn't have, I suppose I could agree. I think that's being too kind to Yankees, but it's possible.

    The reality is that the cause wasn't the interests of Southerners of any stripe; it was the war of Northern aggression, the emancipation proclamation, and the fact that Yankees didn't want to repatriate Blacks.

    The problem is that Yankee conservatives can't come to grips with just how leftist Yankee history is. They can't reconcile the Yankee delusions inculcated in them early in life, with the harsh realities conservatism has taught them. So, they dance and shuck and jive and contort instead.

    It’s ridiculous to buy into the anti-Lincoln story so hard as to ignore the obvious fact that the plantation owners were the Sheldon Adelsons of their day.
     
    It's neither here nor there; Yankees turned 'em loose, a fact only made possible by their stupid aggressive war, in which they conquered the South.

    With what, Einstein? If, we can stipulate, restricting immigration is such a positive social good that we’re entitled to do it without the will of the people, how do you propose to accomplish that?
     
    Interests don't imply the existence of mechanisms to further or protect them. As to what I'd suggest in theory, I'd naturally go with something similar to our current, "undemocratic" Constitutional mechanisms, which protect free speech from the will of the citizenry and their representatives, also the right to bear arms, the right to practice one's religion, etc.

    That's how Republics work.

    For practical purposes this is probably the most important sentence in the commentary. It is something to which Richard Spencer and many of his ilk appear to be deaf and blind to.
     
    Speaking only for some of the "ilk," I'd say we have a more enlightened understanding of what is just than the average person. But I make no claims on Spencer's behalf.

    It’s neither here nor there;….

    LOL. It’s neither here nor there, like there’s anything else worth talking about.

    Just twenty or whatever comments ago, you said that immigration restriction was so compelling that it doesn’t even need popular support. Well guess what, that’s exactly what Lincoln did. He told the South that their labor and immigration policy was what he said they were, and if public opinion in Virginia or Georgia didn’t like, so much the worse for them.

    “You have a low-wage illiterate labor force, you have to get rid of it. I don’t care if you think it’s in their best interest, I don’t care if think you need the money, or really do. It’s deeply corrosive of our national culture, and it has to go.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Svigor

    But, yeah, he has been dead for over a hundred and fifty years (and, yes, I agree that Booth’s assassination proved to be disastrous for both North and South). But when the Straussians and other SJWs (yeah, I know the Straussians deny that they are SJWs) insist on turning this two-bit murderous politician into some kind of god, well… they are going to incite a response.
     
    The funniest is the "if Booth hadn't killed Lincoln, Lincoln would have repatriated the Blacks." Oy. Yankees wanted to do it, but they were so bumbling and incompetent and completely useless that they were helpless to do so without their Fuhrer. Gimme a break. How much of an effort did Yankees actually make to repatriate Blacks? I know it wasn't much, but I honestly have no idea just how miserable and pathetic an effort they did make (I assume there were at least a couple of Yankee pens scribbling toward that end).

    Yankees wanted to do it, but they were so bumbling and incompetent and completely useless that they were helpless to do so without their Fuhrer.

    I’m sure I’ve written at least three or four times on this thread that repatriating the freemen was the South’s problem (and the South’s failure), not the North’s.

    Even you should be able to appreciate that arguments like yours above are a dead end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. OT:

    Baltimore Residents Blame Record-High Murder Rate On Lower Police Presence

    Reality residents blame lower police presence on Black behavior in general, and Black Lives Matter and their allies (e.g., Hussein) in particular.

    Some residents attribute the high murder rate to relaxed police patrols in the city following high-profile cases of police brutality. Officers have backed off in neighborhoods, like the one where Freddie Gray was arrested.

    The Rev. Kinji Scott, a pastor in Baltimore who’s held positions in local city government, says the opposite needs to happen.

    “We wanted the police there,” Scott says. “We wanted them engaged in the community. We didn’t want them beating the hell out of us, we didn’t want that.”

    Maybe you guys should have thought about that before you did that anti-cop rioting thing? Just a thought, just a thought.

    Sounds like you folks are pretty particular. Maybe Whites aren’t the best fit for policing Blacks. Maybe the city should fire all the White cops and replace them with Black residents of Baltimore. That would be perfect, right? How could it not be?

    The average age of a homicidal victim in Baltimore City right now is 31 years old.

    “Homicidal victims”; sounds like Blacks aren’t the only thing being murdered in Baltimore. The English language is suffering, too.

    No. That represented our progressives, our activists, our liberal journalists, our politicians, but it did not represent the overall community. Because we know for a fact that around the time Freddie Gray was killed, we start to see homicides increase. We had five homicides in that neighborhood while we were protesting.

    LOL. What’s the GOP share of the Black vote in the parts of B-more under discussion? I’m guessing it’s well under five percent.

    On whether the high murder rate is unique to Baltimore

    It’s not. I lost my brother in St. Louis in 2004; just lost my cousin in Chicago. No it’s not unique, and that’s the horrible thing.

    Love this stuff. No, it’s not unique to B-more; there are lots of Blacks in St. Louis and Chicago, too.

    On whether he’s optimistic for 2018

    I am not. Because I look at the conclusion of 2017, these same cities — St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans and Chicago — these same black cities are still bleeding to death and we’re still burying young men in these cities.

    Hmm, now what do all those cities have in common?

    I’m a preacher, I want to be hopeful, but not as it stands, no. Not until we really have a real conversation with our front line officers in the heart of our black communities that does not involve our people who are “leaders.”

    Hey, I know – maybe it’s time for new leadership? Just a thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Yeah, I do.

    That’s pride talking; your intellect has taken a powder.

    The point being is that the animals shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And given that they’re here, it’s the responsibility of the “zookeepers” to move them out to a place where they’re not going to cause any harm.

    For one thing, Blacks were here, so turning them loose is a great way to make a potential disaster into an actual disaster.

    For another – and this is really the take-home point – it’s kinda hard to blame the wardens when you shot and killed them all before you turned the prisoners loose; they tried their best, but your rampant stupidity and aggression was just too much.

    And that’s fundamentally why this business about “animals” and “zookeepers” is so much bullshit. People are not animals.

    That’s why I used the prisoner analogy, and the dam analogy, too, so even someone as pigheaded as you would have an analogy you couldn’t nitpick. Which is why you dodged them, proving you are more dishonest than stupid or stubborn.

    You can’t bring them here to live and work and expect that the cultural, economic, and demographic impact of doing that is whatever it is you want, instead of something that’s largely out of your control. That goes for chattel slave Negroes (as they were then) and lettuce picking Gautemalans both. Read Peter Brimelow.

    On the “you can’t do that without expecting it to turn out badly” scale of 1 to 10:

    Keeping blacks in chains: 6.
    Forcibly freeing blacks from their chains via an aggressive war that flattens the society of the men keeping them in chains: 10.

    Note that I am only rating the first as a 6 because the second is clearly a 10, and I have to keep a sense of proportion here.

    No, the tensions leading up the war had been boiling for decades. And the main reason why those tensions were never defused is because it became increasingly clear that there never be any dialing back of the slave regime without war. The culture and economy of the Confederate states were anchored on legal slavery. And for that matter, it was iffy at best to prevent the expansion of slavery. If those things could have been finessed around, they would have. But when push came to shove, they couldn’t.

    What utter nonsense. Secession would have worked just fine, and hey, whaddaya know, spared the lives of 600k White men. All the psychotic Yankees needed to do is not invade (hard thing to do, not invading, amirite?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    For one thing, Blacks were here, so turning them loose is a great way to make a potential disaster into an actual disaster.

    For another – and this is really the take-home point – it’s kinda hard to blame the wardens when you shot and killed them all before you turned the prisoners loose; they tried their best, but your rampant stupidity and aggression was just too much.
     
    I'm not having any of this: I'm not having anything about a prison, I'm not having anything about a zoo, I'm not having anything about a reservoir.

    It is absolutely unquestioned and fundamental to the whole thing that blacks were imported into American South by slave traders to satisfy the labor demand of plantation owners. That is where Humpty Dumpty fell down the wall, that is where Humpty Dumpty needed to get put back together again.

    That requires the plantation owners divesting themselves of chattel property. Optimally, that requires moving the freemen somewhere out of continental America. Fundamentally, they didn't want to do that. And, they thought they didn't have to do that. And on that score, they were the most fundamentally wrong group of people of anyone in known history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. I’m sure I’ve written at least three or four times on this thread that repatriating the freemen was the South’s problem (and the South’s failure), not the North’s.

    Even you should be able to appreciate that arguments like yours above are a dead end.

    In short, the South shouldn’t have lost the war, which prostrated them and rendered them incapable of repatriating Blacks. Barring that, they should have started another war for independence, so they could repatriate Blacks, because obviously Yankees would fight a war to prevent any such attempt. Is that about the sum of your brilliant argument?

    It’s becoming obvious that Yankeeism is a mental disorder.

    LOL. It’s neither here nor there, like there’s anything else worth talking about.

    Just twenty or whatever comments ago, you said that immigration restriction was so compelling that it doesn’t even need popular support. Well guess what, that’s exactly what Lincoln did. He told the South that their labor and immigration policy was what he said they were, and if public opinion in Virginia or Georgia didn’t like, so much the worse for them.

    “You have a low-wage illiterate labor force, you have to get rid of it. I don’t care if you think it’s in their best interest, I don’t care if think you need the money, or really do. It’s deeply corrosive of our national culture, and it has to go.”

    No, the importation of slaves was long over by 1860, having been banned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    In short, the South shouldn’t have lost the war,....
     
    That's right, they shouldn't, because they shouldn't have fought it in the first place.

    There's an old navy joke about an aircraft carrier and a lighthouse. The aircraft carrier can bluster all she wants, but she has to change course.

    No, the importation of slaves was long over by 1860, having been banned.
     
    Well yeah, we should be aware as good little iSteve readers that the negative knock-on effects of immigration can occur well past the point where someone enters the country, and that was certainly the case here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. And the importation of slaves is immigration only in the deranged mind of Yankeeists who like to pretend the North had no agency, when it serves their purposes (preserving their precious egos).

    It de facto becomes immigration when Yankees invade and turn ‘em loose, though…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Dear Straussians, I have a sacred text for you to deconstruct, it’s called Winne The F*ing Pooh

    Specifically, Chapter 3 of this sacred A.A. Milne text, “In which Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle”. See, Winnie and side-kick Piglet start following tracks left in snow believing they are the tracks of a Woozle. Unfortunately, the tracks keep multiplying until a robin on a branch finally explains to them that they’ve actually just been following their own tracks in circles around a tree.

    [What's a woozle? A woozle is to actual thinking what a 'widget' is to actual business. Nobody knows and nobody cares. Only, woozle hunters are too dumb and too arrogant to understand this. Hence, 'the hunt'.]

    And for those commenters block-quoting the email from this ‘West Coast Straussian’, please stop. It was bad enough the first time. It was awful. Really, I’m embarrassed for this insufferable idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. P.S., people are animals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. “You have a low-wage illiterate labor force, you have to get rid of it. I don’t care if you think it’s in their best interest, I don’t care if think you need the money, or really do. It’s deeply corrosive of our national culture, and it has to go.”

    You break it, you bought it. The North broke the South, and so Blacks became the North’s problem to deal with (reminds me of Iraq and terrorism). Of course, they didn’t see any problem, so they didn’t deal with anything.

    Lincoln didn’t want Blacks to go. The North didn’t want Blacks to go. If they did, they would’ve made some effort in that direction. What they wanted to do is what they did; conquer the South to prevent it seceding, free the Blacks, “Reconstruct” the South (including a mighty effort to put Blacks in charge of Southern Whites – those sly, pro-White Yankees!), end Segregation, push Civil Rights, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. I’m not saying Southerners’ hands were clean. I’m certainly not defending the slaveholding class*. I’m saying Yankees were a lot worse. Clearly the Yankee is the villain (and the idiot) of this story: under his tender ministrations, problems become disasters, and hundreds of thousands of White men die. And he did it all to make a buck.

    *: Though I think there’s a strong case to be made that there wouldn’t really have been a South up to that point without slavery; it was too malarial. It would have been pretty much a wilderness until antibiotics. It’s really easy to criticize others’ hard choices from afar, and I’m not sure anyone is fonder of doing just that than the glorious Yankee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "It’s really easy to criticize others’ hard choices from afar, and I’m not sure anyone is fonder of doing just that than the glorious Yankee."

    This is lapidary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Yankee logic: “oh, here I am a Southerner; the North is invading my home. I would defend my homeland, but goshdarnit, slavery. I don’t own any slaves, and I think slavery is wrong. So I have to sit back and let Yankees invade, burn, and kill. Dagnabbit.”

    Yeah, that works:

    “Oh, here I am a Yankee. The [whomever] are invading my home. I would defend my homeland, but goshdarnit, racial inequality. The way we treat Blacks is WRONG! The way we treat homosexuals is WRONG! The way we deny women the franchise is WRONG! So I’m just gonna sit back and let [whomever] invade.”

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we’re especially likely to claim them if they’re ours. It’s the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln’s case, that goes for the North and South both.

    Yankees are getting their asses kicked in this here history book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    Yankees are getting their asses kicked in this here history book.
     
    LOL. I think you wrote a few comments back that Yankeeism was a mental disorder, but I don't anybody is going to be topping this in this thread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Svigor

    I’m sure I’ve written at least three or four times on this thread that repatriating the freemen was the South’s problem (and the South’s failure), not the North’s.

    Even you should be able to appreciate that arguments like yours above are a dead end.
     
    In short, the South shouldn't have lost the war, which prostrated them and rendered them incapable of repatriating Blacks. Barring that, they should have started another war for independence, so they could repatriate Blacks, because obviously Yankees would fight a war to prevent any such attempt. Is that about the sum of your brilliant argument?

    It's becoming obvious that Yankeeism is a mental disorder.

    LOL. It’s neither here nor there, like there’s anything else worth talking about.

    Just twenty or whatever comments ago, you said that immigration restriction was so compelling that it doesn’t even need popular support. Well guess what, that’s exactly what Lincoln did. He told the South that their labor and immigration policy was what he said they were, and if public opinion in Virginia or Georgia didn’t like, so much the worse for them.

    “You have a low-wage illiterate labor force, you have to get rid of it. I don’t care if you think it’s in their best interest, I don’t care if think you need the money, or really do. It’s deeply corrosive of our national culture, and it has to go.”
     
    No, the importation of slaves was long over by 1860, having been banned.

    In short, the South shouldn’t have lost the war,….

    That’s right, they shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t have fought it in the first place.

    There’s an old navy joke about an aircraft carrier and a lighthouse. The aircraft carrier can bluster all she wants, but she has to change course.

    No, the importation of slaves was long over by 1860, having been banned.

    Well yeah, we should be aware as good little iSteve readers that the negative knock-on effects of immigration can occur well past the point where someone enters the country, and that was certainly the case here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. You got the IN in the wrong place dude: We hold these truths to be self-evident, IN(strikethrough) that all men are created equal, **IN** that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Svigor

    Yeah, I do.
     
    That's pride talking; your intellect has taken a powder.

    The point being is that the animals shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And given that they’re here, it’s the responsibility of the “zookeepers” to move them out to a place where they’re not going to cause any harm.
     
    For one thing, Blacks were here, so turning them loose is a great way to make a potential disaster into an actual disaster.

    For another - and this is really the take-home point - it's kinda hard to blame the wardens when you shot and killed them all before you turned the prisoners loose; they tried their best, but your rampant stupidity and aggression was just too much.

    And that’s fundamentally why this business about “animals” and “zookeepers” is so much bullshit. People are not animals.
     
    That's why I used the prisoner analogy, and the dam analogy, too, so even someone as pigheaded as you would have an analogy you couldn't nitpick. Which is why you dodged them, proving you are more dishonest than stupid or stubborn.

    You can’t bring them here to live and work and expect that the cultural, economic, and demographic impact of doing that is whatever it is you want, instead of something that’s largely out of your control. That goes for chattel slave Negroes (as they were then) and lettuce picking Gautemalans both. Read Peter Brimelow.
     
    On the "you can't do that without expecting it to turn out badly" scale of 1 to 10:

    Keeping blacks in chains: 6.
    Forcibly freeing blacks from their chains via an aggressive war that flattens the society of the men keeping them in chains: 10.

    Note that I am only rating the first as a 6 because the second is clearly a 10, and I have to keep a sense of proportion here.

    No, the tensions leading up the war had been boiling for decades. And the main reason why those tensions were never defused is because it became increasingly clear that there never be any dialing back of the slave regime without war. The culture and economy of the Confederate states were anchored on legal slavery. And for that matter, it was iffy at best to prevent the expansion of slavery. If those things could have been finessed around, they would have. But when push came to shove, they couldn’t.
     
    What utter nonsense. Secession would have worked just fine, and hey, whaddaya know, spared the lives of 600k White men. All the psychotic Yankees needed to do is not invade (hard thing to do, not invading, amirite?).

    For one thing, Blacks were here, so turning them loose is a great way to make a potential disaster into an actual disaster.

    For another – and this is really the take-home point – it’s kinda hard to blame the wardens when you shot and killed them all before you turned the prisoners loose; they tried their best, but your rampant stupidity and aggression was just too much.

    I’m not having any of this: I’m not having anything about a prison, I’m not having anything about a zoo, I’m not having anything about a reservoir.

    It is absolutely unquestioned and fundamental to the whole thing that blacks were imported into American South by slave traders to satisfy the labor demand of plantation owners. That is where Humpty Dumpty fell down the wall, that is where Humpty Dumpty needed to get put back together again.

    That requires the plantation owners divesting themselves of chattel property. Optimally, that requires moving the freemen somewhere out of continental America. Fundamentally, they didn’t want to do that. And, they thought they didn’t have to do that. And on that score, they were the most fundamentally wrong group of people of anyone in known history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Svigor

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we’re especially likely to claim them if they’re ours. It’s the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln’s case, that goes for the North and South both.
     
    Yankees are getting their asses kicked in this here history book.

    Yankees are getting their asses kicked in this here history book.

    LOL. I think you wrote a few comments back that Yankeeism was a mental disorder, but I don’t anybody is going to be topping this in this thread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. OK, by all means forget Strauss, Jaffa and all their students. Pretend they never lived. But what good comes of dumping Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al? The Declaration, the Constitution, and the whole political philosophy that informed the Founding? Is ditching all that supposed to help make America great again? I don’t see how dumping the core American principles, documents and heroes is in any way good for America. ESPECIALLY when those principles can inform practical policy TODAY that is in line with what so many of us want. 

    Straussians, of both the West Coast and the East Coast, are duplicitous scoundrels of the worst sort.

    This perfidious creature who sent this crap to Sailer says if you reject the “proposition nation” horseshirt of the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the GOP you must then have to “dump” or “ditch” the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and the whole “political philosophy that informed the founding.”

    This reminds me of the famous Jew joke:

    Son of Jew: Dad, can I borrow 50 bucks?

    Jew: 40 dollars! What are you gonna do with 30 dollars anyway? I can’t imagine what you need 20 dollars for! I don’t even know if I have 10 bucks!

    The battle is between dead Harvard guy SAM HUNTINGTON and PAT BUCHANAN. Huntington said we are a British Protestant settler nation-state and Pat Buchanan says we are a European Christian nation-state. I side with Buchanan.

    The Straussian Jews are untrustworthy scum who wish to distract and befuddle the European Christian ancestral core of the United States with mumbo jumbo.

    BRITISH PROTESTANT or EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN

    First Thing We Do, Deport All The Straussians!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @syonredux
    A few random comments:

    The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today.
     
    I rather like The Clean Food and Drug Act....

    Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings.
     
    Indeed. One rather doubts that Jefferson thought that all men are as intelligent as, say, Dr Franklin:

    Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

    28 Oct. 1813

    For I agree with you [John Adams] that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.

     

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html

    To some extent that work had been accomplished organically in the ~150 years from the establishment of the first colonies until the Revolution. But 150 years is a short time compared the many centuries that the European nations formed. Also, people’s origins—in part because more recent—were simply much better KNOWN that the average European’s were known. Nationhood lost in the mists of time generally has a great psychological hold. Someone born in England of English parents ad English ancestors going back 1,000 years “knows” he is English even if he does not know how or why. Someone whose grandparents came to the colonies as an indentured servant only 50 years prior—what does he think of himself as? English? American? Pennsylvanian (or whatever)? Not so easy.

     

    Dunno. Men like John Jay (himself of Huguenot) origins seemed to think that that America was organic in nature:

    With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

     

    https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-2

    “….an indentured servant only 50 years prior—what does he think of himself as? English?”

    The good professor may not know where indentured servants came from but I’m rather certain the person who paid his fare over and the individual who signed the contract both knew who they were and where they were from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Yes, yes and yes, but no, no and no. All well and good to ponder on the real meaning of equality but where the tire meets the road…..

    Who do you trust to fix your car when it breaks down? To pilot your commercial airplane? To teach your daughter ballet?.

    An expert, of course. The least-equal person you can find. A talented person who displays a disposition for his trade and one who has exercised that disposition assiduously in honing his skill.

    All of you pass over the discussion of equality with a nod to the generalized Ideal Equality we should grant to one another and you pay lip service to actual inequality but in doing so you–and I mean every one of you–pull up just where you need to forge ahead.

    In our daily lives none of us behaves as though we believe in equality. Every act we take is, as the author of the original piece above noted in quoting Aristotle, designed to secure some good. In other words, to move the outcome above the flat-line average. And to do that we employ an expert or apply ourselves diligently and conscientiously.

    The only real question worthy of debate here is whether wise deliberation and good governance are skills that can be transmitted and learned just as any other technical skills are learned.

    Well, are they?

    Can fairness be taught? Acquired? Is there a body of habits and rules that can be inculcated in potential rulers and judges that would tend to make them impartial? To elevate them above the narrow self interestedness that taints the beliefs and behavior of the general run of men?

    We acknowledge experts in every domain but are we willing to do so in those to whom we look to govern interpersonal affairs?

    Not really. Just the opposite. We tend to look at office seekers as irredeemably corrupt, self-seeking, nest-padding degenerates like the Clintons or Obama. Masters at speaking out of both sides of their mouths while plotting how best to advance their personal interests.

    So, just a question. Why don’t we believe that impartial virtue can be taught?

    Does this not suggest that we all (subconsciously at any rate) believe in original sin? Then would it not make sense to construct government so as to restrain this tendency?

    We cannot understand the motivations of the Founders without taking into account their solution to this, which was imposition of negative freedoms. The proverbial checks and balances. Checks on freedom expressed in formulations reformulated by e.g. Rawls who says basically, “Thou shalt not do anything which thou wouldst not suffer thy neighbor to do to you.”

    Not “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.” but don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.

    Ultimately, all this comes down to the notion that we can’t trust the fellow with whom we are dealing to take only as much as he is entitled to. He will take more than his share either because he is greedy or because he just plain can’t see that he is not worth as much as he credits himself. Either is a sin. But sin in this sense doesn’t mean shameful, it means an act that fouls up the works, is ultimately self defeating because it destroys the very mechanism that makes intercourse possible and profitable. As Kant observed, if a person reneges on his debts and that becomes a general rule, the ultimate effect will be that no one loans anyone money. Such behavior undermines the very conditions that made such behavior possible. Kant thought that he had discovered an irreducible, unchallengeable basis for morality.

    We need an impartial arbiter to weigh the contending claims.

    Again, can impartiality be taught? Can we cultivate impartiality like any other skill and create a special class of experts? Americans, as Americans, say “No”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. OT, but of note in the Sailer-sphere – coalition of the fringes eroding in Canada as black member of Canadian anti-racism agency thrown overboard to appease Muslim critics:

    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/21/board-member-of-anti-racism-agency-fired-amid-accusations-of-islamophobic-commentary.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Consent is first established through the social compact—formally, in our case, by the Revolution and the Constitution.

    Not all Americans assented to those things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Well, he did say "formally" (as in "that's just a formality.") Meaning in this case revolution and the Constitution represent the form of a social compact, which can't ever exist in reality. But we have to pretend...because.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. I’m begging you: when you get the urge to invoke Strauss (unless it be the great composer), please instead write us all another quirky piece about the architecture of golf-courses.

    I kid; I kid. (Not really.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I made the same joke (maybe about 5% joke) and then like a rat desperately tapping on a lever in the hope of more cocaine I thought I would see if the comments were less eye stabbingly boring in the thread itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @syonredux
    RE: Proposition Nation Arguments,

    Two options:

    1. Living in an America that has our current Constitution combined with a Black and Latinx majority .

    2. Living in an America with an Anglo-European supermajority (say, 90% Anglo-European)but no Constitution.

    I would pick option two. Constitutions can always be created, but people are permanent.

    Given what has become of our Constitution via the sophistry of the judiciary, I posit another option:

    3. Living in a geographical space called America with effectively no constitution and without any racial majority but simply a “hodge-podge” of Mexicans and Central Americans, Asians, Blacks and Whites, with enough wealth redistribution, cheap food, and police presence to keep a lid on things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Guys, I’m hardly a snowflake of Great Racial Sensitivity. I’ve been reading Steve for years; I read The Bell Curve when it came out, and I’ve even read J. Phillipe Rushton. I thought Derbyshire’s “The Talk” was simple common sense.

    I’m willing to accept that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, and that they are also more violent and have impulse control problems.

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn’t mean I’m entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly. We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    I think you're forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    For most blacks born in the United States, I think you'd have to walk back about 7 generations to reach a point wherein half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    "The problem" to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn't a horribly intractable problem. It's just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or 'inequality').
    , @iffen
    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    It is not proven that "the" problem is low IQ people.

    The higher IQ people running the show are the ones screwing it up.

    I do agree that we need an immigration hiatus. (Except for Einsteins and beauty queens.)
    , @jb
    Yes. Exactly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Way too long a post, but a very good post nonetheless (especially since we readers are free to skim). The author should cut it in half and repost somewhere else on the web too, with a comment pointer from here. It’s excusable, of course— my method, too, is to start by rambling and then, if I have time, to chop and tighten.

    On substance: I disagree that we shouldn’t fight about the nuances of Abraham Lincoln’s thought because currently we need to fight the barbarians. I like the Straussian (East Coast Straussian?) idea that it’s more important for intelligent people to talk about what exactly Plato meant than to engage with dimwits whose current popularity won’t last for more than a century or so. That’s hyperbole, but it’s true that we mustn’t lose track of the really hard and important questions, and betting down dimwits like people who say men and women are innately identical ought’t to distract too much. It should distract a little, though,a nd it’s awfully fun to go after the pompous and the self-righteous. And I don’t want to discourage you, Steve, or Mark Steyn, from doing it, because it can product wonderful humorous writing. We still read Swift and Mencken even though their dimwits flitted away to Hades a long time ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Regular Joe Dude Guy
    You got the IN in the wrong place dude: We hold these truths to be self-evident, IN(strikethrough) that all men are created equal, **IN** that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Wow, reading all the back and forth LARP arguments over the freaking Civil War and Lincoln and whose fault the blacks are, complete with role play name calling like Yankee! it makes me both despair of Alt-Right paleos whatevers ever doing anything but have dumbass debates… and makes me so full of disgust that I think maybe the Lib/ NeoCon elite is no worse. Can’t imagine turning actual government or anything practical over to people who rant on about the crucial need to unseat Lincoln from his throne at the end of the national mall, instead of moving on and dealing with facts on the ground as they lay in 2017. 1776 and 1865 were a while back, and we have issues to deal with now for Pete’s sake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    1776 and 1865 were a while back, and we have issues to deal with now for Pete’s sake.

     

    1775 or 1776 and 1865 were just the other day. 1066 when the Normans -- along with the Bretons and Flemings and French -- conquered England was last month.

    I would advise people to disregard the opinions of anyone who diminishes the importance of history.

    , @Bill
    Ideas are important. Which things count as problems and which things count as solutions, for example, are determined by ideas. Is inequality a problem? Is inequality before the law a problem? Is institutional racism a problem? Or are these things solutions? Or are they neutral? There is really no way to pursue the good unless you have an idea of what the good is. Similarly, which civic gods we worship and how we worship them are important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. We’ve successfully taken people from many different nations and made them Americans. This was true from the beginning.

    Many? We have successfully taken in immigrants from perhaps a few or some different nations, but not many.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    And the making Americans of them took a century and a World War. It’s hard to imagine that it won’t take twice that to assimilate a Pakistani or Guatemalan Amerind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. The alternatives would have been 1) accept no immigrants or 2) accept them, but make a cut-off of who counts as “American” at July 4th, 1776 (or whenever) and make every later entrant some kind of resident alien. #2 leads to a lot of problems, as we know from (for instance) the ancient city and modern Germany, And our own situation. If you are going to accept immigrants, some sense of a legitimate belonging to the nation through common citizenship makes a lot more sense.

    You left out option 3 which our First Congress and Founder/first President eventually chose. See the First Naturalization Act of 1790 for details.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. @Dr. X

    Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings. So is Lincoln, who is most maligned for “propositionism.” He says over and over that the American notion of equality is limited to natural rights only. His rightist enemies just glide right past all that.
     
    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase "all men are created equal" are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.

    Jefferson, and the rest of the Founders, were Lockean "social contract" theorists highly influenced by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and by Locke's Second Treatise. Indeed, Locke's natural rights are "life, liberty and property" (not the "pursuit of happiness") and these three rights are specifically protected from deprivation without due process in the Fifth Amendment.

    Now... let's get to the rest of Jefferson's paragraph. He writes that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" but the next, often forgotten phrase is crucially important: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

    So the purpose of this whole endeavor is to create a social contract, instituting a government to secure natural rights. By definition, contracts are between specific parties, and there are many different social contracts and different governments to secure the rights of different peoples. Indeed Jefferson alludes to this: "...when... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

    So there are many peoples and many social contracts which are (interesting phrase here, given Plessy v. Ferguson) "separate and equal."

    In other words, the "equality" referenced in Jefferson's famous phrase is merely the equality to institute various governments by which separate peoples may equally seek to secure their natural rights. The social contract he was creating in 1776 was to "secure" the natural rights of white colonists in rebellion against Britain. Other peoples have the natural right to institute governments to secure their natural rights as they see fit -- Indian tribes, who were regarded as foreign nations, and Africans too -- in Africa, not in America. That's why every single president from Washington to Lincoln favored repatriation -- so that Africans could forge their own social contract to secure their natural rights in their own land.

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.

    Thanks Dr. X.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality. Men are obviously not equal in virtue, talent, intelligence, strength, etc. West proves that this was the consensus view of the Founders, among other ways, by looking a vast variety of their public statements: state and national (pre- and post-Constitution) laws; the state constitutions, public pamphlets and sermons, and so on.

    Yeah, my issue with this tract is this idea that Straussians somehow “discovered” or “rediscovered” the true meaning of the Declaration. That we rubes were all banging about clueless as to what our own ancestors had written in plain English until … Strauss! I’m no historian. And sure, i’m aware of leftist lying and hijacking attempts–that’s “who they are!”. But i understood what was being said in the Declaration when i was taking US history at 11 or 12 and it didn’t require Leo Strauss to discover it.

    “Created equal”–we all have the same natural rights and are equal under law; no king, no hereditary lords, none of all that faggy parasitic garbage that’s glommed onto productive men since the neolithic. In short, we’re creating a republic of free men, capable of and entitled to govern themselves. Man, i wish we still had it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "'Created equal'-we all have the same natural rights [if you say so] and are equal under law [no, we aren't]; no king, no hereditary lords, none of all that faggy parasitic garbage [we have our own faggy parasitic garbage, thanks] that's glommed onto productive men since the neolithic. [what kind of fools think they can solve a problem that old?] In short, we're creating a republic of free men [not counting all the unfree ones], capable of [wishful thinking] and entitled to govern themselves [that is, be governed by Tom instead of George]. Man, I wish we still had it! [If we ever had it, it was for like three seconds. Then politics happened. But they always do.]"

    "When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less. "

    -Humpty Dumpty

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @newrouter
    "The Claremont school has studied the Progressive Era with more care than anyone and found that all the major opponents of Progressivism (e.g., Coolidge) had the same understanding of the Founding that the West Coast school does today."

    Shorter version:

    "About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-occasion-of-the-one-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-declaration-of-independence/

    A nation having “propositions” does not make it a “proposition nation”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    Also even if a nation is a 'proposition nation' how does that automatically mean that nation must allow in the whole world? For example, Israel is a proposition nation. Its proposition is that it is the homeland of the Jews. As such it is widely accepted that Jews are favored entry into Israel over all others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @AnotherDad
    A nation having "propositions" does not make it a "proposition nation".

    Also even if a nation is a ‘proposition nation’ how does that automatically mean that nation must allow in the whole world? For example, Israel is a proposition nation. Its proposition is that it is the homeland of the Jews. As such it is widely accepted that Jews are favored entry into Israel over all others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Dr. X

    Most of those documents are clearer than the Declaration on the extent and limit of natural equality. Why the Declaration lacks that word “IN” I do not know. But I am confident that it was not to preach a form of equality that the Founders knew did not exist and could not exist. Jefferson is quite clear on this in many of his other writings. So is Lincoln, who is most maligned for “propositionism.” He says over and over that the American notion of equality is limited to natural rights only. His rightist enemies just glide right past all that.
     
    The Declaration of Independence is clear as a bell. People who emphasize the phrase "all men are created equal" are guilty of deliberately misreading it and taking it out of context; by contrast, an objective, comprehensive reading of the document itself and the intellectual influences behind it could easily resolve all issues.

    Jefferson, and the rest of the Founders, were Lockean "social contract" theorists highly influenced by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and by Locke's Second Treatise. Indeed, Locke's natural rights are "life, liberty and property" (not the "pursuit of happiness") and these three rights are specifically protected from deprivation without due process in the Fifth Amendment.

    Now... let's get to the rest of Jefferson's paragraph. He writes that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" but the next, often forgotten phrase is crucially important: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

    So the purpose of this whole endeavor is to create a social contract, instituting a government to secure natural rights. By definition, contracts are between specific parties, and there are many different social contracts and different governments to secure the rights of different peoples. Indeed Jefferson alludes to this: "...when... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

    So there are many peoples and many social contracts which are (interesting phrase here, given Plessy v. Ferguson) "separate and equal."

    In other words, the "equality" referenced in Jefferson's famous phrase is merely the equality to institute various governments by which separate peoples may equally seek to secure their natural rights. The social contract he was creating in 1776 was to "secure" the natural rights of white colonists in rebellion against Britain. Other peoples have the natural right to institute governments to secure their natural rights as they see fit -- Indian tribes, who were regarded as foreign nations, and Africans too -- in Africa, not in America. That's why every single president from Washington to Lincoln favored repatriation -- so that Africans could forge their own social contract to secure their natural rights in their own land.

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.

    “if it is properly read”

    It is properly read as political rhetoric. Taking its arguments a basis for philosophical analysis, unless you’re off on a flight of fancy, is useless. Useless!

    Jefferson perhaps could’ve been a philosopher, and maybe was in some cases. But not here. And the Declaration was the work of a committee , anyway. This is like looking for meaning in a press release on the awesomeness of New Coke.

    Lincoln, on the other hand, was just a backwoodsman who rose up as legal hack, and as a politician was pure rhetorician. Nothing of the serious thinker about him.

    Straussians are often off on flights of fancy. But they take it all so seriously. I wouldn’t mind if they were saying, “Hey,this is all wrong, but let’s use Jefferson and Lincoln as an excuse to talk about natural rights. Because I want to talk about natural rights, that’s why.” They write in the manner of academics who use bubblegum pop to air their feelings on semiotics, or whatever. There’s not much difference. Except that Straussians at least reach back to better disciplines, and they have better conclusions.

    Obviously, Jefferson and Lincoln, and all politicians for that matter, are informed by background philosophy. As am I, and you, and everyone who’s not a true vulgarian. But there’s something massively dishonest about using the “close reading” method to explore things that have almost nothing to do with the text you’re supposedly analyzing.

    That’s one of the major reasons people despise Straussians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Zippy
    Guys, I'm hardly a snowflake of Great Racial Sensitivity. I've been reading Steve for years; I read The Bell Curve when it came out, and I've even read J. Phillipe Rushton. I thought Derbyshire's "The Talk" was simple common sense.

    I'm willing to accept that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, and that they are also more violent and have impulse control problems.

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn't mean I'm entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it's a bit much to talk of "repatriating" the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    We're stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can't have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly. We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    I think you’re forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    For most blacks born in the United States, I think you’d have to walk back about 7 generations to reach a point wherein half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    “The problem” to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or ‘inequality’).

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen, Desiderius
    • Replies: @iffen
    Except for this part:

    This isn’t a horribly intractable problem.
    , @AnotherDad

    “The problem” to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or ‘inequality’).
     
    This strikes me as ridiculously sanguine.

    Without going book length the "black problem" is more than "slum crime and school disorder". There's a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability of the nation to maintain an economically prosperous and self-governing republic with rule-of-law. All these problems have been made much worse with the now reigning ideology of minoritarianism. (Which since you expect it from iSteve commenters, i'll lay for the most part--not all--at the feet of the Jews.)

    But even excepting your very narrow "slum crime and school disorder" definition, where's the evidence for your "isn't a horribly intractable problem." I'll grant there might be some police state style solutions, but those are very hard to successfully launch precisely in the specific context of the overall black problem and minoritarianism and generally run afoul of running a the sort of rule of law republic we want to live in. As Steve has pointed out numerous times the "solutions" that our rich elites have actually been implementing have been simply to push blacks out of some of their major cities-- either through gentrifying some of the more prime real estate or importing a much less violently crime prone brown servant class--and dump them and their crime and dysfunction on more downscale whites in marginal suburbs or 2nd tier cities. I.e. moving and dispersing black dysfunction so the sheer concentration and scale of it is reduced where these rich whites want to live and play.

    If you have actual "tractable" solutions, you should just state what they are.
    , @vinteuil
    "This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests."

    I.e., it's horribly intractable.

    We know perfectly well what needs to be done. But it can't be done - because of "conventional mindsets and vested interests."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Art Deco
    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly. We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    I think you're forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    For most blacks born in the United States, I think you'd have to walk back about 7 generations to reach a point wherein half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    "The problem" to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn't a horribly intractable problem. It's just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or 'inequality').

    Except for this part:

    This isn’t a horribly intractable problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Zippy
    Guys, I'm hardly a snowflake of Great Racial Sensitivity. I've been reading Steve for years; I read The Bell Curve when it came out, and I've even read J. Phillipe Rushton. I thought Derbyshire's "The Talk" was simple common sense.

    I'm willing to accept that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, and that they are also more violent and have impulse control problems.

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn't mean I'm entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it's a bit much to talk of "repatriating" the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    We're stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can't have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    It is not proven that “the” problem is low IQ people.

    The higher IQ people running the show are the ones screwing it up.

    I do agree that we need an immigration hiatus. (Except for Einsteins and beauty queens.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    If left alone, Americans are capable of breeding both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @ben tillman

    Consent is first established through the social compact—formally, in our case, by the Revolution and the Constitution.
     
    Not all Americans assented to those things.

    Well, he did say “formally” (as in “that’s just a formality.”) Meaning in this case revolution and the Constitution represent the form of a social compact, which can’t ever exist in reality. But we have to pretend…because.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    I guess we're on the same page.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @regular Joe dude guy
    Wow, reading all the back and forth LARP arguments over the freaking Civil War and Lincoln and whose fault the blacks are, complete with role play name calling like Yankee! it makes me both despair of Alt-Right paleos whatevers ever doing anything but have dumbass debates... and makes me so full of disgust that I think maybe the Lib/ NeoCon elite is no worse. Can't imagine turning actual government or anything practical over to people who rant on about the crucial need to unseat Lincoln from his throne at the end of the national mall, instead of moving on and dealing with facts on the ground as they lay in 2017. 1776 and 1865 were a while back, and we have issues to deal with now for Pete's sake.

    1776 and 1865 were a while back, and we have issues to deal with now for Pete’s sake.

    1775 or 1776 and 1865 were just the other day. 1066 when the Normans — along with the Bretons and Flemings and French — conquered England was last month.

    I would advise people to disregard the opinions of anyone who diminishes the importance of history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @AnotherDad

    Should be no conflict over the Declaration at all if it is properly read.
     
    Thanks Dr. X.

    No West Coast Straussian would disagree with that sentiment. Men are equal in being all born by nature equally free and independent. No man may justly rule any other man without that other man’s consent. That is the extent—and limit—of natural equality. Men are obviously not equal in virtue, talent, intelligence, strength, etc. West proves that this was the consensus view of the Founders, among other ways, by looking a vast variety of their public statements: state and national (pre- and post-Constitution) laws; the state constitutions, public pamphlets and sermons, and so on.
     
    Yeah, my issue with this tract is this idea that Straussians somehow "discovered" or "rediscovered" the true meaning of the Declaration. That we rubes were all banging about clueless as to what our own ancestors had written in plain English until ... Strauss! I'm no historian. And sure, i'm aware of leftist lying and hijacking attempts--that's "who they are!". But i understood what was being said in the Declaration when i was taking US history at 11 or 12 and it didn't require Leo Strauss to discover it.

    "Created equal"--we all have the same natural rights and are equal under law; no king, no hereditary lords, none of all that faggy parasitic garbage that's glommed onto productive men since the neolithic. In short, we're creating a republic of free men, capable of and entitled to govern themselves. Man, i wish we still had it!

    “‘Created equal’-we all have the same natural rights [if you say so] and are equal under law [no, we aren't]; no king, no hereditary lords, none of all that faggy parasitic garbage [we have our own faggy parasitic garbage, thanks] that’s glommed onto productive men since the neolithic. [what kind of fools think they can solve a problem that old?] In short, we’re creating a republic of free men [not counting all the unfree ones], capable of [wishful thinking] and entitled to govern themselves [that is, be governed by Tom instead of George]. Man, I wish we still had it! [If we ever had it, it was for like three seconds. Then politics happened. But they always do.]”

    “When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less. ”

    -Humpty Dumpty

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @iffen
    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    It is not proven that "the" problem is low IQ people.

    The higher IQ people running the show are the ones screwing it up.

    I do agree that we need an immigration hiatus. (Except for Einsteins and beauty queens.)

    If left alone, Americans are capable of breeding both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. North versus South:

    Syonredux and Svigor are both right about different things.

    Svigor is right that the Yankees in effect were at best disastrously agnostic about the folly of ‘freeing’ in place, rather than banishing, the slaves—and more pathetically, ultimately prideful and vain about their presumed role as saviors of the benighted Negro. And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.

    But syonredux is also correct that bringing slaves to what was to become the United States of America, and wanting to expand that institution, was impassably stupid, and that slavery’s existence, at the time of the Founding, was necessarily a future threat to the new Union, and a bane on the continent. Forget, for a moment, considerations of the general morality of slavery—Southern planters and Yankee slave ship captains certainly did not invent the ancient, universal practice. However, the hypocrisy of also espousing lofty Enlightenment ideals, as mutually agreed upon in the mission statement of the Declaration, was untenable—future secession or not.

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men” and thus, at the Founding, put to lie any sincere acknowledgement of basic unalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. When members of a ruling group affix a huge asterisk to a bedrock statement of humanity—to the extent that they transported particular humans from afar and bred them to be no more than farm equipment and imprisoned as domestics, that ruling group is morally compromised, and likely dangerous—to outsiders and to its own members. (That is not to say that later holier-than-thou Northern Abolitionists weren’t treacherous in their own ways, but at least regarding the ‘peculiar institution’ their deeds matched their moral creed, even if prideful or naive.)

    Much corrupting moral hazard flows from hypocrisy, and the alt-timeline scenario of having two proud, ascendant post-peaceable-Secession nations sharing the same (developing) continent would inevitably have lead to war. Slaves would still escape, the Confederate States would demand return of wayward property, and there would continue to be ‘bleeding’ disputed territories west of the Mississippi.

    And beyond fraternal rivalry and overblown alleged grudges amongst Saxons, Normans, and Celts, there would still be the issue of the melanin-rich facts on the ground. To make a Priss Factor-style cinematic analogy, I’m reminded of the disputes between parties in the first two Alien movies. Southern slavers wanted to keep hordes of blacks around to exploit for profit and utility (and a basis for aristocracy) — no matter the danger to others or themselves, much like the corporate officers in the movies who wanted to preserve and control the Aliens to develop as profitable bioweapons.

    There were no Alien-friendly ‘abolitionists’ in those two movies, but there were plenty of anti-Alien ‘species-ists’ like Ripley. Blacks in today’s America aren’t as uniformly, immediately dangerous as the Aliens, and some may be worthy citizens, but the Southern slavers’ goal of keeping and expanding the amount of dangerous chattel on the continent was morally and irresponsibly wrong, and not just in hindsight. And the blithe Yankees were dead wrong in proclaiming Emancipation—and after military victory, wrong in failing to confiscate the chattel, aka men, and repatriating them to Africa (the Caribbean and Latin America are much too close to CONUS)—even if it would have taken until the year 1900 or later to fully do so.

    Importing, breeding, freeing, and granting citizenship to African slaves in the New World were crimes of moral miscegenation that both Planters and Puritans have much to repent for and much to amend. But there’s no need to wallow in gloom and sling counter-accusations amongst friends. JOIN OR DIE. The future is a living, throbbing Gordian Knot—a tangle of twisted, engorged veins and arteries daring a razor sharper than Occam’s to burst forth the yearning gore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    Thank you! There was no shortage of stupidity on both sides of the Civil war. Like WWI a pointless, bloody fratricidal mess, with the winners botching the denouement.

    If we could sit all parties down and show them our world today I think they would have all quietly agreed to gradually repatriate with compensation paid to slave owners, particularly as advances in agricultural machinery made the institution unnecessary.
    , @AnotherDad
    Well said, JIE.

    I'll just toss in--and i'm a "yankee" of the Midwestern stripe with a couple GAR veterans among my maternal ancestors--that the southerners I've met seem to be in a pretty good place: slavery was wrong and a disaster while maintaining pride in their ancestors' honor, bravery and military prowess.

    This is not to excuse the fire eaters nor the overall vile slave power faction that created the crisis. (And continues in its modern form to exacerbate the current crisis. The "cheap labor" shills are the scum of the earth in whatever form they take.) But your typical southern patriot has moved beyond it.

    In contrast ...

    And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.
     
    the moral preening puritans up north are even bigger assholes now than they were then! Then they were at least targeting a real moral blot. Now they are just preening for show and destroying not just a million lives but cheering on the genocide of Western civilization and the white race.
    , @boomstick

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men”
     
    Argh. The "all other persons" in the Constitution (Black slaves in effect) were handled in the 3/5 rule to have a greater population count for Southern states and less influence by Northerners. Counting the Blacks as population members gave the Southern states more Congressmen, but gave zero votes on Congressmen to Blacks in those states. It would have been better for Blacks in the South to have zero percent population percentage, which would have resulted in less power for the slave holder states due to fewer Congressmen.

    If the South had moral authority to fight a war to keep slavery, did the slaves have a moral right to fight it? Fight it literally? Maybe that's an interesting Straussian question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Autochthon
    I'm begging you: when you get the urge to invoke Strauss (unless it be the great composer), please instead write us all another quirky piece about the architecture of golf-courses.

    I kid; I kid. (Not really.)

    I made the same joke (maybe about 5% joke) and then like a rat desperately tapping on a lever in the hope of more cocaine I thought I would see if the comments were less eye stabbingly boring in the thread itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Too late! "West Coast Straussianism" has become an entrenched iSteve meme, like golf course architecture and sabermetrics. For better or worse, lol!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Boethiuss

    Well… if the Straussian cultists and all of their soulmates would just shut up about Lincoln, there would be many fewer criticisms of the old tyrant.

    Lincoln was an unprincipled, manipulative.....
     

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your shit at the courthouse.

    Winners write the history books, we're especially likely to claim them if they're ours. It's the same reasons why (up until PC at least starting say 25 years ago), we also claimed Washington, Columbus, Jefferson, Gouvenor Morris, etc without all the usual carping. They are our antecedents, in a metaphorical sense they are our ancestors.

    And in Lincoln's case, that goes for the North and South both.

    Boethius wrote to me:

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your sh*t at the courthouse.

    As I have stated here many, many times, my own sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I am no apologist for Jeff Davis or Bobby Lee, much less the fire-eaters. I think the free states should have seceded in 1850 in response to the Fugitive Slave Act.

    I just want to tell the truth about Lincoln, just as I want to tell the truth about the failings of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. (and, boy of boy, did they all have failings!).

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence — i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

    The good news is that pretty soon the SJWs should get around to attacking Honest Abe en masse on the grounds that he was a racist pig (which, of course, he was). Should be fun to watch the left-wing SJWs going at it with the Straussian SJWs. More fun than a circus.

    And, when the SJWs try to tear down the creepy Lincoln Memorial (that declares itself to be like a temple — should be a red flag to any real Christians left in this country, if there are any left), I am just going to stand on the sidelines and laugh and laugh and laugh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence — i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.
     
    Well in our case, I think the focus of our disagreement is Lincoln, not Strauss. In terms of the actual Straussian narrative (as explained by our comment-poster), I don't know what I think about that really. I suspect I would be less harsh than you, but that may be a really low bar. In any event, I really haven't had cause to form a strong opinion on the matter.

    Lincoln is a much simpler case for me. Whatever else can be said about him, he's our guy. We fought a war with Lincoln as President of the United States, and he won that war. Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash. The rebels surrendered, they were brought back in as Americans, and everybody lived happily ever after. If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can't be bothered. I'm certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:

    But he won. General Lee surrendered your sh*t at the courthouse.
     
    As I have stated here many, many times, my own sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I am no apologist for Jeff Davis or Bobby Lee, much less the fire-eaters. I think the free states should have seceded in 1850 in response to the Fugitive Slave Act.

    I just want to tell the truth about Lincoln, just as I want to tell the truth about the failings of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. (and, boy of boy, did they all have failings!).

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence -- i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    The good news is that pretty soon the SJWs should get around to attacking Honest Abe en masse on the grounds that he was a racist pig (which, of course, he was). Should be fun to watch the left-wing SJWs going at it with the Straussian SJWs. More fun than a circus.

    And, when the SJWs try to tear down the creepy Lincoln Memorial (that declares itself to be like a temple -- should be a red flag to any real Christians left in this country, if there are any left), I am just going to stand on the sidelines and laugh and laugh and laugh.

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence — i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.

    Well in our case, I think the focus of our disagreement is Lincoln, not Strauss. In terms of the actual Straussian narrative (as explained by our comment-poster), I don’t know what I think about that really. I suspect I would be less harsh than you, but that may be a really low bar. In any event, I really haven’t had cause to form a strong opinion on the matter.

    Lincoln is a much simpler case for me. Whatever else can be said about him, he’s our guy. We fought a war with Lincoln as President of the United States, and he won that war. Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash. The rebels surrendered, they were brought back in as Americans, and everybody lived happily ever after. If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can’t be bothered. I’m certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:.

    Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash.
     
    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual "hillbillies," as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.

    Boethisu admitted, however, that truth is not on his agenda:

    If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can’t be bothered.
     
    Uh, I guess that really does say it all.

    Finally, our Bo-boy confounded his dishonesty by saying:

    I’m certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading
     
    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts. I hope you have never been on a jury. If you ever do come up for jury duty, please, please do openly confess your disdain for the facts: might save an innocent person's life, you know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Art Deco
    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly. We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    I think you're forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    For most blacks born in the United States, I think you'd have to walk back about 7 generations to reach a point wherein half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    "The problem" to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn't a horribly intractable problem. It's just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or 'inequality').

    “The problem” to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or ‘inequality’).

    This strikes me as ridiculously sanguine.

    Without going book length the “black problem” is more than “slum crime and school disorder”. There’s a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability of the nation to maintain an economically prosperous and self-governing republic with rule-of-law. All these problems have been made much worse with the now reigning ideology of minoritarianism. (Which since you expect it from iSteve commenters, i’ll lay for the most part–not all–at the feet of the Jews.)

    But even excepting your very narrow “slum crime and school disorder” definition, where’s the evidence for your “isn’t a horribly intractable problem.” I’ll grant there might be some police state style solutions, but those are very hard to successfully launch precisely in the specific context of the overall black problem and minoritarianism and generally run afoul of running a the sort of rule of law republic we want to live in. As Steve has pointed out numerous times the “solutions” that our rich elites have actually been implementing have been simply to push blacks out of some of their major cities– either through gentrifying some of the more prime real estate or importing a much less violently crime prone brown servant class–and dump them and their crime and dysfunction on more downscale whites in marginal suburbs or 2nd tier cities. I.e. moving and dispersing black dysfunction so the sheer concentration and scale of it is reduced where these rich whites want to live and play.

    If you have actual “tractable” solutions, you should just state what they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There isn't much point in discussing anything with you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @AnotherDad

    “The problem” to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or ‘inequality’).
     
    This strikes me as ridiculously sanguine.

    Without going book length the "black problem" is more than "slum crime and school disorder". There's a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability of the nation to maintain an economically prosperous and self-governing republic with rule-of-law. All these problems have been made much worse with the now reigning ideology of minoritarianism. (Which since you expect it from iSteve commenters, i'll lay for the most part--not all--at the feet of the Jews.)

    But even excepting your very narrow "slum crime and school disorder" definition, where's the evidence for your "isn't a horribly intractable problem." I'll grant there might be some police state style solutions, but those are very hard to successfully launch precisely in the specific context of the overall black problem and minoritarianism and generally run afoul of running a the sort of rule of law republic we want to live in. As Steve has pointed out numerous times the "solutions" that our rich elites have actually been implementing have been simply to push blacks out of some of their major cities-- either through gentrifying some of the more prime real estate or importing a much less violently crime prone brown servant class--and dump them and their crime and dysfunction on more downscale whites in marginal suburbs or 2nd tier cities. I.e. moving and dispersing black dysfunction so the sheer concentration and scale of it is reduced where these rich whites want to live and play.

    If you have actual "tractable" solutions, you should just state what they are.

    There isn’t much point in discussing anything with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    There isn’t much point in discussing anything with you.
     
    Great. But maybe some of the other folks on the thread might want to know what the tractable solutions are.
    , @vinteuil
    Big fail, Art Deco. Another Dad's comment was well thought & well written. It deserved a better response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    North versus South:

    Syonredux and Svigor are both right about different things.

    Svigor is right that the Yankees in effect were at best disastrously agnostic about the folly of ‘freeing’ in place, rather than banishing, the slaves—and more pathetically, ultimately prideful and vain about their presumed role as saviors of the benighted Negro. And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.

    But syonredux is also correct that bringing slaves to what was to become the United States of America, and wanting to expand that institution, was impassably stupid, and that slavery’s existence, at the time of the Founding, was necessarily a future threat to the new Union, and a bane on the continent. Forget, for a moment, considerations of the general morality of slavery—Southern planters and Yankee slave ship captains certainly did not invent the ancient, universal practice. However, the hypocrisy of also espousing lofty Enlightenment ideals, as mutually agreed upon in the mission statement of the Declaration, was untenable—future secession or not.

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men” and thus, at the Founding, put to lie any sincere acknowledgement of basic unalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. When members of a ruling group affix a huge asterisk to a bedrock statement of humanity—to the extent that they transported particular humans from afar and bred them to be no more than farm equipment and imprisoned as domestics, that ruling group is morally compromised, and likely dangerous—to outsiders and to its own members. (That is not to say that later holier-than-thou Northern Abolitionists weren’t treacherous in their own ways, but at least regarding the ‘peculiar institution’ their deeds matched their moral creed, even if prideful or naive.)

    Much corrupting moral hazard flows from hypocrisy, and the alt-timeline scenario of having two proud, ascendant post-peaceable-Secession nations sharing the same (developing) continent would inevitably have lead to war. Slaves would still escape, the Confederate States would demand return of wayward property, and there would continue to be ‘bleeding’ disputed territories west of the Mississippi.

    And beyond fraternal rivalry and overblown alleged grudges amongst Saxons, Normans, and Celts, there would still be the issue of the melanin-rich facts on the ground. To make a Priss Factor-style cinematic analogy, I’m reminded of the disputes between parties in the first two Alien movies. Southern slavers wanted to keep hordes of blacks around to exploit for profit and utility (and a basis for aristocracy) — no matter the danger to others or themselves, much like the corporate officers in the movies who wanted to preserve and control the Aliens to develop as profitable bioweapons.

    There were no Alien-friendly ‘abolitionists’ in those two movies, but there were plenty of anti-Alien ‘species-ists’ like Ripley. Blacks in today’s America aren’t as uniformly, immediately dangerous as the Aliens, and some may be worthy citizens, but the Southern slavers’ goal of keeping and expanding the amount of dangerous chattel on the continent was morally and irresponsibly wrong, and not just in hindsight. And the blithe Yankees were dead wrong in proclaiming Emancipation—and after military victory, wrong in failing to confiscate the chattel, aka men, and repatriating them to Africa (the Caribbean and Latin America are much too close to CONUS)—even if it would have taken until the year 1900 or later to fully do so.

    Importing, breeding, freeing, and granting citizenship to African slaves in the New World were crimes of moral miscegenation that both Planters and Puritans have much to repent for and much to amend. But there’s no need to wallow in gloom and sling counter-accusations amongst friends. JOIN OR DIE. The future is a living, throbbing Gordian Knot—a tangle of twisted, engorged veins and arteries daring a razor sharper than Occam’s to burst forth the yearning gore.

    Thank you! There was no shortage of stupidity on both sides of the Civil war. Like WWI a pointless, bloody fratricidal mess, with the winners botching the denouement.

    If we could sit all parties down and show them our world today I think they would have all quietly agreed to gradually repatriate with compensation paid to slave owners, particularly as advances in agricultural machinery made the institution unnecessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    North versus South:

    Syonredux and Svigor are both right about different things.

    Svigor is right that the Yankees in effect were at best disastrously agnostic about the folly of ‘freeing’ in place, rather than banishing, the slaves—and more pathetically, ultimately prideful and vain about their presumed role as saviors of the benighted Negro. And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.

    But syonredux is also correct that bringing slaves to what was to become the United States of America, and wanting to expand that institution, was impassably stupid, and that slavery’s existence, at the time of the Founding, was necessarily a future threat to the new Union, and a bane on the continent. Forget, for a moment, considerations of the general morality of slavery—Southern planters and Yankee slave ship captains certainly did not invent the ancient, universal practice. However, the hypocrisy of also espousing lofty Enlightenment ideals, as mutually agreed upon in the mission statement of the Declaration, was untenable—future secession or not.

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men” and thus, at the Founding, put to lie any sincere acknowledgement of basic unalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. When members of a ruling group affix a huge asterisk to a bedrock statement of humanity—to the extent that they transported particular humans from afar and bred them to be no more than farm equipment and imprisoned as domestics, that ruling group is morally compromised, and likely dangerous—to outsiders and to its own members. (That is not to say that later holier-than-thou Northern Abolitionists weren’t treacherous in their own ways, but at least regarding the ‘peculiar institution’ their deeds matched their moral creed, even if prideful or naive.)

    Much corrupting moral hazard flows from hypocrisy, and the alt-timeline scenario of having two proud, ascendant post-peaceable-Secession nations sharing the same (developing) continent would inevitably have lead to war. Slaves would still escape, the Confederate States would demand return of wayward property, and there would continue to be ‘bleeding’ disputed territories west of the Mississippi.

    And beyond fraternal rivalry and overblown alleged grudges amongst Saxons, Normans, and Celts, there would still be the issue of the melanin-rich facts on the ground. To make a Priss Factor-style cinematic analogy, I’m reminded of the disputes between parties in the first two Alien movies. Southern slavers wanted to keep hordes of blacks around to exploit for profit and utility (and a basis for aristocracy) — no matter the danger to others or themselves, much like the corporate officers in the movies who wanted to preserve and control the Aliens to develop as profitable bioweapons.

    There were no Alien-friendly ‘abolitionists’ in those two movies, but there were plenty of anti-Alien ‘species-ists’ like Ripley. Blacks in today’s America aren’t as uniformly, immediately dangerous as the Aliens, and some may be worthy citizens, but the Southern slavers’ goal of keeping and expanding the amount of dangerous chattel on the continent was morally and irresponsibly wrong, and not just in hindsight. And the blithe Yankees were dead wrong in proclaiming Emancipation—and after military victory, wrong in failing to confiscate the chattel, aka men, and repatriating them to Africa (the Caribbean and Latin America are much too close to CONUS)—even if it would have taken until the year 1900 or later to fully do so.

    Importing, breeding, freeing, and granting citizenship to African slaves in the New World were crimes of moral miscegenation that both Planters and Puritans have much to repent for and much to amend. But there’s no need to wallow in gloom and sling counter-accusations amongst friends. JOIN OR DIE. The future is a living, throbbing Gordian Knot—a tangle of twisted, engorged veins and arteries daring a razor sharper than Occam’s to burst forth the yearning gore.

    Well said, JIE.

    I’ll just toss in–and i’m a “yankee” of the Midwestern stripe with a couple GAR veterans among my maternal ancestors–that the southerners I’ve met seem to be in a pretty good place: slavery was wrong and a disaster while maintaining pride in their ancestors’ honor, bravery and military prowess.

    This is not to excuse the fire eaters nor the overall vile slave power faction that created the crisis. (And continues in its modern form to exacerbate the current crisis. The “cheap labor” shills are the scum of the earth in whatever form they take.) But your typical southern patriot has moved beyond it.

    In contrast …

    And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.

    the moral preening puritans up north are even bigger assholes now than they were then! Then they were at least targeting a real moral blot. Now they are just preening for show and destroying not just a million lives but cheering on the genocide of Western civilization and the white race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Art Deco
    There isn't much point in discussing anything with you.

    There isn’t much point in discussing anything with you.

    Great. But maybe some of the other folks on the thread might want to know what the tractable solutions are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Well it's very simple you see: we just get TOUGH policing with LOTS of police and FIRM DISCIPLINE in the schools and, in sum, just order the whole country about like a Benedictine priory. But still be secular. And the 14th Amendment. And who would put up with it and pay for it. Somehow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Zippy
    Guys, I'm hardly a snowflake of Great Racial Sensitivity. I've been reading Steve for years; I read The Bell Curve when it came out, and I've even read J. Phillipe Rushton. I thought Derbyshire's "The Talk" was simple common sense.

    I'm willing to accept that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, and that they are also more violent and have impulse control problems.

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn't mean I'm entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it's a bit much to talk of "repatriating" the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    We're stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can't have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    Yes. Exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    North versus South:

    Syonredux and Svigor are both right about different things.

    Svigor is right that the Yankees in effect were at best disastrously agnostic about the folly of ‘freeing’ in place, rather than banishing, the slaves—and more pathetically, ultimately prideful and vain about their presumed role as saviors of the benighted Negro. And of course, the preening continues to this day—see the asinine Black Lives Matter banners outside of Unitarian, Congregational, and Episcopal churches in ‘lily-white’ WASP-dom around New England, for example.

    But syonredux is also correct that bringing slaves to what was to become the United States of America, and wanting to expand that institution, was impassably stupid, and that slavery’s existence, at the time of the Founding, was necessarily a future threat to the new Union, and a bane on the continent. Forget, for a moment, considerations of the general morality of slavery—Southern planters and Yankee slave ship captains certainly did not invent the ancient, universal practice. However, the hypocrisy of also espousing lofty Enlightenment ideals, as mutually agreed upon in the mission statement of the Declaration, was untenable—future secession or not.

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men” and thus, at the Founding, put to lie any sincere acknowledgement of basic unalienable Rights endowed to men by their Creator. When members of a ruling group affix a huge asterisk to a bedrock statement of humanity—to the extent that they transported particular humans from afar and bred them to be no more than farm equipment and imprisoned as domestics, that ruling group is morally compromised, and likely dangerous—to outsiders and to its own members. (That is not to say that later holier-than-thou Northern Abolitionists weren’t treacherous in their own ways, but at least regarding the ‘peculiar institution’ their deeds matched their moral creed, even if prideful or naive.)

    Much corrupting moral hazard flows from hypocrisy, and the alt-timeline scenario of having two proud, ascendant post-peaceable-Secession nations sharing the same (developing) continent would inevitably have lead to war. Slaves would still escape, the Confederate States would demand return of wayward property, and there would continue to be ‘bleeding’ disputed territories west of the Mississippi.

    And beyond fraternal rivalry and overblown alleged grudges amongst Saxons, Normans, and Celts, there would still be the issue of the melanin-rich facts on the ground. To make a Priss Factor-style cinematic analogy, I’m reminded of the disputes between parties in the first two Alien movies. Southern slavers wanted to keep hordes of blacks around to exploit for profit and utility (and a basis for aristocracy) — no matter the danger to others or themselves, much like the corporate officers in the movies who wanted to preserve and control the Aliens to develop as profitable bioweapons.

    There were no Alien-friendly ‘abolitionists’ in those two movies, but there were plenty of anti-Alien ‘species-ists’ like Ripley. Blacks in today’s America aren’t as uniformly, immediately dangerous as the Aliens, and some may be worthy citizens, but the Southern slavers’ goal of keeping and expanding the amount of dangerous chattel on the continent was morally and irresponsibly wrong, and not just in hindsight. And the blithe Yankees were dead wrong in proclaiming Emancipation—and after military victory, wrong in failing to confiscate the chattel, aka men, and repatriating them to Africa (the Caribbean and Latin America are much too close to CONUS)—even if it would have taken until the year 1900 or later to fully do so.

    Importing, breeding, freeing, and granting citizenship to African slaves in the New World were crimes of moral miscegenation that both Planters and Puritans have much to repent for and much to amend. But there’s no need to wallow in gloom and sling counter-accusations amongst friends. JOIN OR DIE. The future is a living, throbbing Gordian Knot—a tangle of twisted, engorged veins and arteries daring a razor sharper than Occam’s to burst forth the yearning gore.

    African slaves, while officially counting in aggregate as 2/5 lesser, still existed as human, or “men”

    Argh. The “all other persons” in the Constitution (Black slaves in effect) were handled in the 3/5 rule to have a greater population count for Southern states and less influence by Northerners. Counting the Blacks as population members gave the Southern states more Congressmen, but gave zero votes on Congressmen to Blacks in those states. It would have been better for Blacks in the South to have zero percent population percentage, which would have resulted in less power for the slave holder states due to fewer Congressmen.

    If the South had moral authority to fight a war to keep slavery, did the slaves have a moral right to fight it? Fight it literally? Maybe that’s an interesting Straussian question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @istevefan

    We’ve successfully taken people from many different nations and made them Americans. This was true from the beginning.
     
    Many? We have successfully taken in immigrants from perhaps a few or some different nations, but not many.

    And the making Americans of them took a century and a World War. It’s hard to imagine that it won’t take twice that to assimilate a Pakistani or Guatemalan Amerind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/pachkacigaret/status/947605497397555200

    I pegged Efron as gay the first time I saw him. One shudders to think of the things these kids have to do to get roles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/pachkacigaret/status/947605497397555200

    I was just swooning to Zac Efron in the Greatest Showman. How dare you spoil my fantasy with a horrific, depressing rumor (not him being gay, but him being horribly abused)?

    ***

    Anyway, thank you, Steve, for posting this exchange. I knew of Straussianism in general terms, but learned a lot from reading the exchanges and responses.

    The Machievellians also sounds very interesting and I got an epub copy at archive.org.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Well yeah, we should be aware as good little iSteve readers that the negative knock-on effects of immigration can occur well past the point where someone enters the country, and that was certainly the case here.

    Yes, a potential problem, indeed. The actual disaster? The knock on effects of aggressive wars that, if successful, will obviously turn loose the American Nakba (Blacks).

    That’s right, they shouldn’t, because they shouldn’t have fought it in the first place.

    More leftist Yankee “logic.” As I said:

    Yankee logic: “oh, here I am a Southerner; the North is invading my home. I would defend my homeland, but goshdarnit, slavery. I don’t own any slaves, and I think slavery is wrong. So I have to sit back and let Yankees invade, burn, and kill. Dagnabbit.”

    Yeah, that works:

    “Oh, here I am a Yankee. The [whomever] are invading my home. I would defend my homeland, but goshdarnit, racial inequality. The way we treat Blacks is WRONG! The way we treat homosexuals is WRONG! The way we deny women the franchise is WRONG! So I’m just gonna sit back and let [whomever] invade.”

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    LOL. I think you wrote a few comments back that Yankeeism was a mental disorder, but I don’t anybody is going to be topping this in this thread.

    Like I said, a mental disorder.

    I’m not having any of this: I’m not having anything about a prison, I’m not having anything about a zoo, I’m not having anything about a reservoir.

    Because your goal is ego preservation. The leftism is probably incidental.

    It is absolutely unquestioned and fundamental to the whole thing that blacks were imported into American South by slave traders to satisfy the labor demand of plantation owners. That is where Humpty Dumpty fell down the wall, that is where Humpty Dumpty needed to get put back together again.

    Manifestly wrong. Yankees pushed Humpty off the wall.

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn’t mean I’m entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    This is a historical retcon. Yankees wedded themselves to this “monstrous evil” all the way up until secession, then suddenly “discovered” this “evil.”

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    Problem, sure. Potential disaster, even. Yankees forced that reality from potentiality to reality, in a rather spectacular way.

    We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves

    Because Yankees.

    Wow, reading all the back and forth LARP arguments over the freaking Civil War and Lincoln and whose fault the blacks are, complete with role play name calling like Yankee!

    Role-play? You must be FOB. “Yankees” is not role-play. It’s what they are, and it’s why they’re so full of shit: their patriotism is Yankeeism. Another parallel with Jews, though not to the same extent; Yankees think of Yankeeism as Americanism, of their Yankee Patriotism as American Patriotism, etc. The longer you pay attention to Yankees, the more you’ll realize I am right.

    I think you’re forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    Which clashes with at least one of your political raisons d’etre…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. Yankees are like a guy who starts beating his wife of 20 years claiming she abused the help, on the same day he finds out she’s filed for divorce.

    Some perspective: slavery was a far less monstrous evil than Lincoln’s leading role in the death of 600K White Americans.

    Give me a number: how many black slaves’ lives did Lincoln save with those deaths? Are we even talking three zeroes?

    It’s amazing how quickly the leftist emerges, when you scratch a Yankee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. Yankees forced that reality from potentiality to reality, in a rather spectacular way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. If the South had moral authority to fight a war to keep slavery, did the slaves have a moral right to fight it? Fight it literally? Maybe that’s an interesting Straussian question.

    Everyone has the moral authority to fight off an aggressive war. I don’t understand your question, so I can’t answer it.

    Did the Soviets have the moral authority fight a war to keep the gulags, the Holodomor, the regime that murdered many millions of its own civilians before Hitler even became chancellor?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn’t mean I’m entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.

    Whites did not enslave Blacks. They came to us in chains. It was Blacks who where almost wholly responsible for enslaving the Blacks to came to us in chains. It was Blacks who corrupted Europeans with the practice of slavery, not the other way around.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.

    Nonsense. Part of the great crime we are accused of is bringing them here. Can’t call it a crime if reversing it is also a crime…

    We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.

    Reciprocity is the heart of morality. Blacks (I mean this to include the African sort) can, would, or will reciprocate none of this.

    it makes me both despair of Alt-Right paleos whatevers ever doing anything but have dumbass debates…

    There’s genuine freedom of inquiry and thought in the dissident right, something I welcome, and suggest newbies get used to. The ideological straitjacket of the left is a big recruiting tool.

    the moral preening puritans up north are even bigger assholes now than they were then! Then they were at least targeting a real moral blot.

    600K dead to save pretty much 0 lives is the moral blot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    "It was Blacks who were almost wholly responsible for enslaving the Blacks to came to us in chains. It was Blacks who corrupted Europeans with the practice of slavery, not the other way around."

    I would say, rather, "re-corrupted."

    Slavery was endemic in the ancient world. Saint Paul, notoriously, took the practice for granted.

    But, over the course of hundreds of years, The Church very nearly eliminated it - until the age of exploration, and contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Boethiuss

    But the Straussians are whiny little babies who want to go on and on and on about the god-like Lincoln, and, then, when anyone interrupts with the truth, suddenly they want peaceful coexistence — i.e., the people telling the truth about Lincoln should just shut up.
     
    Well in our case, I think the focus of our disagreement is Lincoln, not Strauss. In terms of the actual Straussian narrative (as explained by our comment-poster), I don't know what I think about that really. I suspect I would be less harsh than you, but that may be a really low bar. In any event, I really haven't had cause to form a strong opinion on the matter.

    Lincoln is a much simpler case for me. Whatever else can be said about him, he's our guy. We fought a war with Lincoln as President of the United States, and he won that war. Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash. The rebels surrendered, they were brought back in as Americans, and everybody lived happily ever after. If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can't be bothered. I'm certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading.

    Boethius wrote to me:.

    Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash.

    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual “hillbillies,” as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.

    Boethisu admitted, however, that truth is not on his agenda:

    If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can’t be bothered.

    Uh, I guess that really does say it all.

    Finally, our Bo-boy confounded his dishonesty by saying:

    I’m certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading

    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts. I hope you have never been on a jury. If you ever do come up for jury duty, please, please do openly confess your disdain for the facts: might save an innocent person’s life, you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual “hillbillies,” as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.
     
    Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Like I said, I can't be bothered about it.

    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.
     
    Yeah, the neo-Confederate special pleading wasn't you, it was the other guy I've been corresponding with.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts.
     
    Not at all, I'm completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I'm an American. The United States winning is a good thing. Lincoln also freed the slaves and preserved the Union. The end.

    Other "facts" which might be facts and might not be facts, are simply less important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. How many White men, Union and Confederate, who might have become someone great, or been the ancestor of someone great, were killed because of the Yankees’ disastrous war of choice?

    I’m struggling to think of a Black population I could ask the same question of with a straight face – pretending for a moment that the WoNA had actually saved any lives, of any race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. @syonredux
    Ah, Svigor, you just can't stop......

    And that goes double for so-called race-realist “conservatives” who suddenly forget the realities of the American Founding (accomplished by an illegal war/secession),
     
    Well, since it is germane to the current conversation.....The Founders believed that their actions were justified via the natural right of revolution against tyranny...

    the American Nakba (Blacks),
     
    I thought that taking lands from the Amerinds was the American Babka....

    American history (Slavery was in at the founding, and around long before),
     
    And people weren't happy about it.....cf how Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts took steps to abolish slavery during the Revolution.....

    and the Constitution (the power of secession is reserved to the individual states)

     

    James Madison didn't think so...and one of the key arguments of the Anti-Federalists involved the fact that the Constitution lacked a unilateral exit clause....

    The Yankee position is, in its entirety, rationalization aimed at preserving their overweening, misplaced pride.
     
    Pot, meet Kettle....

    That kinda puts an end to the Civil War discussion, then. Yankees can claim that they invaded the South solely to free the Blacks, but that’s obvious nonsense.
     
    No, it was to preserve the Union. everyone knows that....As the war went on, though, it swiftly became apparent that the only way to end it was to end slavery. No slavery, no need to secede....

    They had plenty of time to force the issue, but never did until the South tried to secede.
     
    No, they were just trying to keep slavery from expanding...You know, having slavery means having Black people around...

    And I don’t recall the Yankees withdrawing and recognizing Southern secession after emancipation was achieved, either.

     

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union. Really, you need to hang around more WOKE Jewish academics. They love pointing out how ending slavery was a secondary goal...

    It’s triply infuriating that “conservative” Yankees blame the South for the Black Nakba, as if it was the South that unleashed that disaster. No. It was Yankees, full stop.

     

    Nah, Southern Fire-Eaters. Crazy people....

    It was illegal, regardless. Obviously. Legitimate, yes. Legal, no. That’s the thing about secession; if the sentiment is genuinely held, it’s inherently legitimate.
     
    The Founders thought that it was a natural right....Revolution in the face of tyranny....That's the problem with the South...they couldn't really invoke the right of revolution....after all, the South was hardly groaning under the tyrant's heal in 1860-61...

    syonredux wrote:

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union.

    NO, no, no — that self-evidently was not the “primary goal”: the South made no effort to destroy the Union. The South did not attempt to force Wisconsin or Massachusetts or Maine to leave the Union.

    The South simply wanted a slightly smaller Union that did not include the South. Think of it as a slimmer, leaner, more fit Union. A diet plan for a Union that even then was too big to be centrally governed in a way that represented all of its citizens.

    And since some of our local Web morons will no doubt claim I am a neo-Confederate, I will repeat for the nth time that my sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I think the free states should themselves have seceded in 1859 in response to the abomination of the Fugitive Slave Act.

    Some of us actually criticize Lincoln not because we favor the Slavocracy but because we are appalled by a war that killed over six hundred thousand Americans and are also appalled by inhuman monsters, like the Straussians, who treat that war as a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    There was zero chance of the Confederacy winning that war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. I don’t see how dumping the core American principles, documents and heroes is in any way good for America.

    In order to make way for a Stuart Restoration.

    This dude is so old, he’s not responding to any arguments made after 2005, e.g. Moldbug. He’s irrelevant to the new right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Don't be disrespectful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @bartok

    I don’t see how dumping the core American principles, documents and heroes is in any way good for America.
     
    In order to make way for a Stuart Restoration.

    This dude is so old, he's not responding to any arguments made after 2005, e.g. Moldbug. He's irrelevant to the new right.

    Don’t be disrespectful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:.

    Therefore, upshot is pretty clear: there were a few hillbilly yokels in rebellion against the United States, but then Lincoln came in and very definitively settled their hash.
     
    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual "hillbillies," as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.

    Boethisu admitted, however, that truth is not on his agenda:

    If one or two particulars of this happen to not be true, I can’t be bothered.
     
    Uh, I guess that really does say it all.

    Finally, our Bo-boy confounded his dishonesty by saying:

    I’m certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading
     
    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts. I hope you have never been on a jury. If you ever do come up for jury duty, please, please do openly confess your disdain for the facts: might save an innocent person's life, you know.

    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual “hillbillies,” as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.

    Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Like I said, I can’t be bothered about it.

    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

    Yeah, the neo-Confederate special pleading wasn’t you, it was the other guy I’ve been corresponding with.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts.

    Not at all, I’m completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m an American. The United States winning is a good thing. Lincoln also freed the slaves and preserved the Union. The end.

    Other “facts” which might be facts and might not be facts, are simply less important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Boethisu wrote to me:

    Not at all, I’m completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m an American. The United States winning is a good thing.
     
    Just replace "United States" with "Germany" and "Lincoln" with "Hitler" and see how that sounds.

    You really are completely amoral, aren't you?

    I do not think the real Boethius was like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Svigor
    I'm not saying Southerners' hands were clean. I'm certainly not defending the slaveholding class*. I'm saying Yankees were a lot worse. Clearly the Yankee is the villain (and the idiot) of this story: under his tender ministrations, problems become disasters, and hundreds of thousands of White men die. And he did it all to make a buck.

    *: Though I think there's a strong case to be made that there wouldn't really have been a South up to that point without slavery; it was too malarial. It would have been pretty much a wilderness until antibiotics. It's really easy to criticize others' hard choices from afar, and I'm not sure anyone is fonder of doing just that than the glorious Yankee.

    “It’s really easy to criticize others’ hard choices from afar, and I’m not sure anyone is fonder of doing just that than the glorious Yankee.”

    This is lapidary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Art Deco
    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly. We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    I think you're forgetting the persistent feature of Unz discussions: all topics are a point of departure for people to flash their middle finger at (1) blacks or (2) Jews.

    For most blacks born in the United States, I think you'd have to walk back about 7 generations to reach a point wherein half their pedigree was born in Africa.

    "The problem" to be managed is slum crime and school disorder (and crime in general in some non-metropolitan counties in the Deep South). This isn't a horribly intractable problem. It's just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests. And, of course, you have constituencies distracting policy-makers with discussions of pseudo-problems (e.g. police violence or 'inequality').

    “This isn’t a horribly intractable problem. It’s just that addressing it irritates conventional mindsets and vested interests.”

    I.e., it’s horribly intractable.

    We know perfectly well what needs to be done. But it can’t be done – because of “conventional mindsets and vested interests.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. I’m certainly not going to entertain any neo-Confederate special pleading

    Yes, let’s invert the meaning of special pleading in service of Yankee ego-preservation. Beclown yourself further, sir, it is a spectacle.

    Special pleading:

    Illegal secession is great when colonies do it, but legal secession is bad when the South does it.
    Aggressive wars are bad except when Yankees are ‘splaining the glorious Yankee cause(s).
    That the South held slaves renders illegitimate the South’s secession, but the Colonies’ slave-holding is just fine.
    Blacks are the American Nakba until Civil War Story Time at Yankee House, then they’re moral props again.
    Yankee leftism is glorious some times (WoNA story time), and bad the rest of the time (post-bellum American history).
    Raising taxes on tea is tyranny when England does it to the colonies, but invading burning and killing (and Reconstructing and turning Blacks loose on the population) isn’t tyranny when Yankees do it to the South.

    I ran a search for abolitionism in England. Get this, here’s the quote from their top result:

    In 1783, an anti-slavery movement began among the British population. … Africans played an important part in the abolition movement. In Britain, Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography was published in nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade.

    Hmm, wow, 1783, now THERE’S a random year for ya. If they’d only come to God ten years earlier, they could make the exact same bullshit claims about slavery invalidating the American Revolution that Yankees make about it invalidating Southern secession.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @Art Deco
    There isn't much point in discussing anything with you.

    Big fail, Art Deco. Another Dad’s comment was well thought & well written. It deserved a better response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    He doesn't have one.
    , @Art Deco
    His precise argument is this:


    There’s a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability

    The essence of his complaint is that blacks breathe in and out, perform metabolic processes, don't do well in school, tend to fill service sector wage jobs, Jedi mind-trick school administrators into behaving like fools, Jedi mind trick Korean students into cheating on tests, are somehow responsible for economic performance deficits in a country more affluent than nearly every lily-white European country, etc. Guess what, vineuil. There isn't a country in the world where people don't work as bus drivers and home health aides 'dragging down' everyone else. 'AnotherDad' fancies that if it weren't for the damn niggaz, we'd all live in Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. You fancy this is 'well thought out and well written'. You need to raise your sights.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. That the South held slaves renders illegitimate the South’s secession, but the Colonies’ slave-holding is just fine.

    Meant to include the fact that the Colonies’ secession while being slavers was just fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. I mean, listen to the outright lunacy that “race-realist” Yankeeists cling to; “oh, yeah, Southerners inflicted this black disaster on us, those bastards. OF COURSE we couldn’t let them leave the Union and take all the blacks with ‘em!”

    It’s bloody obvious these people can’t reconcile their conflicting beliefs. Drastic case of cognitive dissonance. These discussions are useful in highlighting that fact, if for nothing else.

    Yankeeism is a mental disease.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @Svigor

    But . . . they are still human beings, with some inherent rights. Slavery was and is a monstrous evil. Just because somebody is less intelligent than my racial group (on average) doesn’t mean I’m entitled to enslave them, any more than, say, Jews would be entitled to enslave whites because Jews are (on average) more intelligent.
     
    Whites did not enslave Blacks. They came to us in chains. It was Blacks who where almost wholly responsible for enslaving the Blacks to came to us in chains. It was Blacks who corrupted Europeans with the practice of slavery, not the other way around.

    Once negroes were imported to the United States, they became an American problem, and it’s a bit much to talk of “repatriating” the great-grandchildren of people who came her unwillingly.
     
    Nonsense. Part of the great crime we are accused of is bringing them here. Can't call it a crime if reversing it is also a crime...

    We’re stuck with the descendants of those slaves, and we have to manage that problem. A task which would be easier if our elites could be honest, at least among themselves. But you can’t have everything.

    What we can do is refrain from adding to the problem by importing even more low-IQ persons.
     
    Reciprocity is the heart of morality. Blacks (I mean this to include the African sort) can, would, or will reciprocate none of this.

    it makes me both despair of Alt-Right paleos whatevers ever doing anything but have dumbass debates…
     
    There's genuine freedom of inquiry and thought in the dissident right, something I welcome, and suggest newbies get used to. The ideological straitjacket of the left is a big recruiting tool.

    the moral preening puritans up north are even bigger assholes now than they were then! Then they were at least targeting a real moral blot.
     
    600K dead to save pretty much 0 lives is the moral blot.

    “It was Blacks who were almost wholly responsible for enslaving the Blacks to came to us in chains. It was Blacks who corrupted Europeans with the practice of slavery, not the other way around.”

    I would say, rather, “re-corrupted.”

    Slavery was endemic in the ancient world. Saint Paul, notoriously, took the practice for granted.

    But, over the course of hundreds of years, The Church very nearly eliminated it – until the age of exploration, and contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonym
    I made the same joke (maybe about 5% joke) and then like a rat desperately tapping on a lever in the hope of more cocaine I thought I would see if the comments were less eye stabbingly boring in the thread itself.

    Too late! “West Coast Straussianism” has become an entrenched iSteve meme, like golf course architecture and sabermetrics. For better or worse, lol!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Boethiuss

    tl dr
     
    Of course Jack would write this. And to fair, it is a long post (or three of them).

    In any event, things have been getting clearer for the Trump people recently. We can't really discuss, clarify, negotiate our actual intentions and priorities like honorable adults. That's just a license for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to play us for chumps. So that means we have to show the most reactionary, belligerent face we can and hope it carries the day.

    That's a mistake. The fundamental fact about our current political situation is that Donald Trump, the alt-right, and the people who are politically associated with them are intimidating the square root of nobody.

    Even as, is flying under the radar, Trump is having a quietly successful Presidency at least in conventional terms. The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that's a real record that any Republican could be proud of. But because Trump is Trump, with the feuds, the Twitter, the special counsels and the rest of it, we can't get any credit for it at all, and we're looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.

    The tax cut, ISIS, mild immigration restrictions, possible regime change in Iran, that’s a real record that any Republican could be proud of.

    I.e. all the signs are that Trump is yet another Atwater-style traitor.

    we’re looking at substantial losses in the midterms, in the House at least.

    From your lips to God’s ear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Reg Cæsar

    And failed. And that should’ve been the end of it, insofar as butting their noses into other states’ business is concerned…
     
    Something they borrowed from the fugitive slave policies. And however "constitutional" the Dred Scott decision was, it made a total mockery of state sovereignty. That was the cue for the free states to secede from the multicultural diversicrats to their south and their marginally tamed African pets.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.

    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital’s interest at the time was to “preserve the Union” because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn’t viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That’s it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Abolition is like abortion. The GOP needs votes to win elections. Since their policies benefit <1% of the population, they have a problem. They solve this problem by getting a gullible, enthusiastic, religious subset of the population excited about something-or-other to win votes. That Lincoln delivered on abolition illustrates that sometimes this subset threatens to get out of control and thus gets what it "wants."

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital’s interest at the time was to “preserve the Union” because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn’t viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That’s it. Boring, but reality usually is.
     
    Historically questionable as this is, capital is absolutely a legitimate political interest in a free society. If you have traveled anywhere in the post-Communist world, you'd know what the world looks like when the political establishment tries to run an economy without capital. The results aren't pretty.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    That Lincoln delivered on abolition...
     
    No, he didn't. He was dead when it came.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The GOP exists to serve capital.
     
    So did the fugitive slave laws, which the GOP had nothing to do with.

    Fining Ohio farm hands the equivalent of twelve years' wages for simply showing tourists the way to Upper Canada is not a good advertisement for federalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Boethiuss

    I am not going to pretend that I really understand what these Straussianism debates are about exactly (can somebody summarize it in one sentence if they don’t mind?). What I can be very sure of is that every Somalian, Mexican, Pakistani and every other third worlder mass immigrating into America will absolutely not care about these debates, which makes these pointless angels on the pinhead debates.
     
    That's absolutely true as far as the premise goes, but not the conclusion. What is the nature of our defense against Somalis and Mexicans?

    People talk about walls, e-Verify, overturning birthright citizenship, etc. and those are useful things, but they are not really what's important in their own right. At bottom, they are an expression of the sovereignty of the American people and their desire to protect that sovereignty and the human capital contained within it. If we have that, we could have a multitude of different policies to implement it. But without it, any policy, no matter how well defined, will suffer from neglect and subterfuge.

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It's the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don't have that possibility.

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It’s the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don’t have that possibility.

    Nothing is more pressing than destroying the GOP. The GOP can’t help *against* immigration except in some imaginary world where immigration was a threat to capital. In that imaginary world, of course, we would not have to do anything to get the GOP to act against immigration. It would just do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    Why not? For the vast majority of them, the way anti-immigration Americans express themselves in the public sphere is to vote Republican and support Republicans. To the extent that you do these things as well, you can be in solidarity with them. Otherwise, you just suck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @regular Joe dude guy
    Wow, reading all the back and forth LARP arguments over the freaking Civil War and Lincoln and whose fault the blacks are, complete with role play name calling like Yankee! it makes me both despair of Alt-Right paleos whatevers ever doing anything but have dumbass debates... and makes me so full of disgust that I think maybe the Lib/ NeoCon elite is no worse. Can't imagine turning actual government or anything practical over to people who rant on about the crucial need to unseat Lincoln from his throne at the end of the national mall, instead of moving on and dealing with facts on the ground as they lay in 2017. 1776 and 1865 were a while back, and we have issues to deal with now for Pete's sake.

    Ideas are important. Which things count as problems and which things count as solutions, for example, are determined by ideas. Is inequality a problem? Is inequality before the law a problem? Is institutional racism a problem? Or are these things solutions? Or are they neutral? There is really no way to pursue the good unless you have an idea of what the good is. Similarly, which civic gods we worship and how we worship them are important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @physicistdave
    syonredux wrote:

    That goes back to the primary goal, preserving the Union.
     
    NO, no, no -- that self-evidently was not the "primary goal": the South made no effort to destroy the Union. The South did not attempt to force Wisconsin or Massachusetts or Maine to leave the Union.

    The South simply wanted a slightly smaller Union that did not include the South. Think of it as a slimmer, leaner, more fit Union. A diet plan for a Union that even then was too big to be centrally governed in a way that represented all of its citizens.

    And since some of our local Web morons will no doubt claim I am a neo-Confederate, I will repeat for the nth time that my sympathies are with the radical abolitionists: I think the free states should themselves have seceded in 1859 in response to the abomination of the Fugitive Slave Act.

    Some of us actually criticize Lincoln not because we favor the Slavocracy but because we are appalled by a war that killed over six hundred thousand Americans and are also appalled by inhuman monsters, like the Straussians, who treat that war as a good thing.

    There was zero chance of the Confederacy winning that war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Sean wrote to me:

    There was zero chance of the Confederacy winning that war
     
    Well... perhaps "zero" is a bit extreme! But, in essence, I think we agree: once it became clear that it was "total war" on the part of the North, the South had almost no chance.

    I think the secessionists believed the dissidents in the North would have more effect than they actually did. That seemed reasonable early on, partly because no one anticipated the lengths to which Lincoln would go to suppress civil liberties.

    After all, there was "zero chance" the North Vietnamese would beat the USA. And, militarily they did not. But the antiwar movement in the States allowed the North Vietnamese to win in the end.

    I hope it is clear that I do not think the South should have fought: it was obviously disastrous for the South and also destructive of the North, if more subtly. And just as a matter of principle, fighting to preserve slavery was morally wrong (yes, everyone, I know it was much more complicated than that -- but preserving slavery was part of the motivation of the South).

    I.e., I believe both sides should have refrained from war in the 1860s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @AnotherDad

    There isn’t much point in discussing anything with you.
     
    Great. But maybe some of the other folks on the thread might want to know what the tractable solutions are.

    Well it’s very simple you see: we just get TOUGH policing with LOTS of police and FIRM DISCIPLINE in the schools and, in sum, just order the whole country about like a Benedictine priory. But still be secular. And the 14th Amendment. And who would put up with it and pay for it. Somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The police department's budget in the City of New York is $5.6 bn. You can finance that with a general sales tax of 1.7%. The jail service in the City of New York has a budget of $1.4 bn. This can be financed with a sales tax of 0.35%. The state prison budget is currently $3.2 bn. Financing that requires a sales tax of 0.43%. Public employee retirement benefits are currently running at $10 bn of annual payments. Roughly 6% of the flow is attributable to the NYPD, the jail service in New York City, and pro-rated shares of those employed by the state police and state prison service. That can be financed with a sales tax of 0.17%. Fringe benefits for public employees (and retirees) in New York I think average $40,000 per FTE. For the corps of employees in question, that can be financed with a sales tax of 0.78%. A sales tax of about 3.5% can finance the consequential components of law enforcement in the City of New York. The City of New York has a homicide rate which is precisely the national mean, which is less than 1/3d Chicago's rate and 1/7th Baltimore's rate. It has an index crime rate running about 20% below national means. Btw, fully 1/3 of the population in the City of New York is black or Puerto Rican.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @vinteuil
    Big fail, Art Deco. Another Dad's comment was well thought & well written. It deserved a better response.

    He doesn’t have one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Oldmug
    The "West Coast Straussian" gets as close to reality as he dares. He loves to fly -- but he is always sure to be Daedalus, never Icarus. This is optimal for both donations and offices. Intellectually, though, it means his work is never more than evanescent. He is Ausonius pretending to be a peer of Virgil. If you compromise with the era in which you happen to be born, you can never write _sub specie aeternitas_.

    For instance: the Claremonsters / Jaffaites, though certainly better than the East Coasters, will never, ever tell you to read the Tories, the Confederates, etc. They want you to learn American history, even judge its players, with only one side of the story. Like a jury who only gets to hear from the prosecutor. You can tell a real historian because he does everything possible to leave you understanding both sides of the story.

    So all of the above is very elegantly worded and not completely untrue. One could even regard it as a modified limited hangout. But the reality is much simpler.

    Reading and interpreting history on the basis of the _words_ of historical actors means taking their statements, opinions, perspectives and motivations at face value. It is assuming their sincerity. When we study history not as political hagiography but as history, _wie es eigentlich gewesen_ in Ranke's terms, we assume that human beings in the past are like those in the present. Very few are sincere. And those who are both sincere, and in power, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

    Evidence of Lincoln's sincerity is nowhere. Evidence of his political sagacity is everywhere. Therefore, a real historian -- not a Straussian hagiographer playing some kind of esoteric triple-bank-shot pool -- will evaluate Lincoln as a politician. This means paying only a small amount of attention to his verbiage and/or philosophy, and instead trying to understand his motivations from his actions.

    This is what Masters does, and what Jaffa doesn't do. This is why Masters produced a work of historical literature that will be read for centuries, whereas Jaffa produced a work of philosophical polemic that feels dated already. (The Beveridge bio, which Masters relied on, is also great. Unfortunately Beveridge died when he was only at 1858.)

    Similarly, as Adams wrote to Jefferson in one of the late letters, "who could ever tell the history of the Revolution?" This may be taken as a sort of private admission that the _public_ story of the Revolution, ie the Founders, the Declaration and all that jazz, had very little to do with the _private_ story -- what actually happened. Though of course, the Tories are pretty good at sussing out that private story. Forget the Founders -- read America's best 18th-century writers, Peter Oliver or Thomas Hutchinson.

    We dissidents have no option but to tell the deepest, most powerful version of the truth we know. You can't beat bullshit with bullshit. That's why Burnham's _The Machiavellians_ is worth more than the whole Straussian compendium put together.

    What’s your opinion on moldbug’s work?

    http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Well it's very simple you see: we just get TOUGH policing with LOTS of police and FIRM DISCIPLINE in the schools and, in sum, just order the whole country about like a Benedictine priory. But still be secular. And the 14th Amendment. And who would put up with it and pay for it. Somehow.

    The police department’s budget in the City of New York is $5.6 bn. You can finance that with a general sales tax of 1.7%. The jail service in the City of New York has a budget of $1.4 bn. This can be financed with a sales tax of 0.35%. The state prison budget is currently $3.2 bn. Financing that requires a sales tax of 0.43%. Public employee retirement benefits are currently running at $10 bn of annual payments. Roughly 6% of the flow is attributable to the NYPD, the jail service in New York City, and pro-rated shares of those employed by the state police and state prison service. That can be financed with a sales tax of 0.17%. Fringe benefits for public employees (and retirees) in New York I think average $40,000 per FTE. For the corps of employees in question, that can be financed with a sales tax of 0.78%. A sales tax of about 3.5% can finance the consequential components of law enforcement in the City of New York. The City of New York has a homicide rate which is precisely the national mean, which is less than 1/3d Chicago’s rate and 1/7th Baltimore’s rate. It has an index crime rate running about 20% below national means. Btw, fully 1/3 of the population in the City of New York is black or Puerto Rican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @vinteuil
    Big fail, Art Deco. Another Dad's comment was well thought & well written. It deserved a better response.

    His precise argument is this:

    There’s a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability

    The essence of his complaint is that blacks breathe in and out, perform metabolic processes, don’t do well in school, tend to fill service sector wage jobs, Jedi mind-trick school administrators into behaving like fools, Jedi mind trick Korean students into cheating on tests, are somehow responsible for economic performance deficits in a country more affluent than nearly every lily-white European country, etc. Guess what, vineuil. There isn’t a country in the world where people don’t work as bus drivers and home health aides ‘dragging down’ everyone else. ‘AnotherDad’ fancies that if it weren’t for the damn niggaz, we’d all live in Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. You fancy this is ‘well thought out and well written’. You need to raise your sights.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad's argument, and you know it. Shame on you.
    , @PV van der Byl
    Those are tremendously useful stats, Art Deco--thanks! I can't commit all to memory but the 3.5% for all LEO related obligations is a great way to frame debates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Bill

    As things stand right this minute, this means supporting Republicans and the Republican party. It’s the Republicans who represent the possibility of Americans acting with purpose for the greater good of America. Without the Republicans, we don’t have that possibility.
     
    Nothing is more pressing than destroying the GOP. The GOP can't help *against* immigration except in some imaginary world where immigration was a threat to capital. In that imaginary world, of course, we would not have to do anything to get the GOP to act against immigration. It would just do it.

    Why not? For the vast majority of them, the way anti-immigration Americans express themselves in the public sphere is to vote Republican and support Republicans. To the extent that you do these things as well, you can be in solidarity with them. Otherwise, you just suck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Bill

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital's interest at the time was to "preserve the Union" because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn't viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That's it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Abolition is like abortion. The GOP needs votes to win elections. Since their policies benefit <1% of the population, they have a problem. They solve this problem by getting a gullible, enthusiastic, religious subset of the population excited about something-or-other to win votes. That Lincoln delivered on abolition illustrates that sometimes this subset threatens to get out of control and thus gets what it "wants."

    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital’s interest at the time was to “preserve the Union” because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn’t viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That’s it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Historically questionable as this is, capital is absolutely a legitimate political interest in a free society. If you have traveled anywhere in the post-Communist world, you’d know what the world looks like when the political establishment tries to run an economy without capital. The results aren’t pretty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Art Deco
    His precise argument is this:


    There’s a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability

    The essence of his complaint is that blacks breathe in and out, perform metabolic processes, don't do well in school, tend to fill service sector wage jobs, Jedi mind-trick school administrators into behaving like fools, Jedi mind trick Korean students into cheating on tests, are somehow responsible for economic performance deficits in a country more affluent than nearly every lily-white European country, etc. Guess what, vineuil. There isn't a country in the world where people don't work as bus drivers and home health aides 'dragging down' everyone else. 'AnotherDad' fancies that if it weren't for the damn niggaz, we'd all live in Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. You fancy this is 'well thought out and well written'. You need to raise your sights.

    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad’s argument, and you know it. Shame on you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No, that's what he said, and you know it.
    , @PhysicistDave
    vinteuil wrote:

    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad’s argument, and you know it. Shame on you.
     
    I think you are starting to catch on to the fact that Art the Pathological Liar truly is a pathological liar.

    He is the kind of guy you would not like to play cards with, have as your next-door neighbor, or allow to come into your home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Re: Reperation

    White society can survive with an insanely high proportion of blacks; Rhodesia never had more then 4% of its population be white. So kicking out blacks is not necessary for the United States to survive; it just makes the country vulnerable to leftists eliminating the controls over blacks. Of course in the absence of blacks, leftists simply import them to kill you so not having slavery would not have prevented the United States from following its historical path.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. @vinteuil
    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad's argument, and you know it. Shame on you.

    No, that’s what he said, and you know it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Bill

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital's interest at the time was to "preserve the Union" because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn't viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That's it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Abolition is like abortion. The GOP needs votes to win elections. Since their policies benefit <1% of the population, they have a problem. They solve this problem by getting a gullible, enthusiastic, religious subset of the population excited about something-or-other to win votes. That Lincoln delivered on abolition illustrates that sometimes this subset threatens to get out of control and thus gets what it "wants."

    That Lincoln delivered on abolition…

    No, he didn’t. He was dead when it came.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Bill

    But no, Lincoln was insane. (Or bought.) There was no rational reason to keep the negrophiles, with their inflated vote, in the Union.
     
    The GOP exists to serve capital. Capital's interest at the time was to "preserve the Union" because Northern industry could not compete and required the tariff which, itself, wasn't viable without Southern exports. Northern capital wanted to continue to be subsidized by Southern agriculture. That's it. Boring, but reality usually is.

    Abolition is like abortion. The GOP needs votes to win elections. Since their policies benefit <1% of the population, they have a problem. They solve this problem by getting a gullible, enthusiastic, religious subset of the population excited about something-or-other to win votes. That Lincoln delivered on abolition illustrates that sometimes this subset threatens to get out of control and thus gets what it "wants."

    The GOP exists to serve capital.

    So did the fugitive slave laws, which the GOP had nothing to do with.

    Fining Ohio farm hands the equivalent of twelve years’ wages for simply showing tourists the way to Upper Canada is not a good advertisement for federalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Bill wrote:

    The GOP exists to serve capital.
     
    to which Reg Caesar replied:

    So did the fugitive slave laws, which the GOP had nothing to do with.
     
    Two groups there, historically. The Fugitive Slave Act was written to prop up the Southern Slavocracy. The GOP was founded to prop up Northern manufacturing interests.

    In a sense, both examples of "Crony Capitalism." Certainly, neither was an example of genuine, laissez-faire, free-market capitalism, for those few among us who still support free markets.

    I doubt any historian would deny that this distinction was relevant and pretty basic.

    (For the record, I despise both the Slavocracy and the Northern plutocrats. I actually like genuine free markets.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Boethiuss

    Well, if truth mattered to you, you might like to know that the actual “hillbillies,” as in Western Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, tended to be pro-Union, largely because you really could not do plantation agriculture in the mountains.
     
    Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Like I said, I can't be bothered about it.

    As I have said multiple times, my sympathies are not with the Confederates, for whom I have no use, but with the radical abolitionists: as I keep saying, I think the free states should have seceded in response to the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.
     
    Yeah, the neo-Confederate special pleading wasn't you, it was the other guy I've been corresponding with.

    But, of course, you have already openly admitted that you cannot be bothered by little things like facts.
     
    Not at all, I'm completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I'm an American. The United States winning is a good thing. Lincoln also freed the slaves and preserved the Union. The end.

    Other "facts" which might be facts and might not be facts, are simply less important.

    Boethisu wrote to me:

    Not at all, I’m completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m an American. The United States winning is a good thing.

    Just replace “United States” with “Germany” and “Lincoln” with “Hitler” and see how that sounds.

    You really are completely amoral, aren’t you?

    I do not think the real Boethius was like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    Just replace “United States” with “Germany” and “Lincoln” with “Hitler” and see how that sounds.
     
    Well yeah, it sounds quite a bit different doesn't it? Those aren't exactly arbitrary substitutions, are they? Among other things, the result is obviously now untrue.

    Hitler was President of the Germany. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m a German. The Germany winning is a good thing.
     
    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won. Assuming there was no Hitler (ie, Germany still had it's legitimate national consciousness), how should Germans think of Kaiser Wilhelm?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @vinteuil
    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad's argument, and you know it. Shame on you.

    vinteuil wrote:

    Art Deco, that is a ridiculous caricature of Another Dad’s argument, and you know it. Shame on you.

    I think you are starting to catch on to the fact that Art the Pathological Liar truly is a pathological liar.

    He is the kind of guy you would not like to play cards with, have as your next-door neighbor, or allow to come into your home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Reg Cæsar

    The GOP exists to serve capital.
     
    So did the fugitive slave laws, which the GOP had nothing to do with.

    Fining Ohio farm hands the equivalent of twelve years' wages for simply showing tourists the way to Upper Canada is not a good advertisement for federalism.

    Bill wrote:

    The GOP exists to serve capital.

    to which Reg Caesar replied:

    So did the fugitive slave laws, which the GOP had nothing to do with.

    Two groups there, historically. The Fugitive Slave Act was written to prop up the Southern Slavocracy. The GOP was founded to prop up Northern manufacturing interests.

    In a sense, both examples of “Crony Capitalism.” Certainly, neither was an example of genuine, laissez-faire, free-market capitalism, for those few among us who still support free markets.

    I doubt any historian would deny that this distinction was relevant and pretty basic.

    (For the record, I despise both the Slavocracy and the Northern plutocrats. I actually like genuine free markets.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Art Deco
    His precise argument is this:


    There’s a huge dragging down effect across the society in culture, behavior, welfare, public finances, education, academic discourse and honesty, economic performance, social cohesion, etc. etc. including genetics and overall capability

    The essence of his complaint is that blacks breathe in and out, perform metabolic processes, don't do well in school, tend to fill service sector wage jobs, Jedi mind-trick school administrators into behaving like fools, Jedi mind trick Korean students into cheating on tests, are somehow responsible for economic performance deficits in a country more affluent than nearly every lily-white European country, etc. Guess what, vineuil. There isn't a country in the world where people don't work as bus drivers and home health aides 'dragging down' everyone else. 'AnotherDad' fancies that if it weren't for the damn niggaz, we'd all live in Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average. You fancy this is 'well thought out and well written'. You need to raise your sights.

    Those are tremendously useful stats, Art Deco–thanks! I can’t commit all to memory but the 3.5% for all LEO related obligations is a great way to frame debates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @PhysicistDave
    Boethisu wrote to me:

    Not at all, I’m completely down with the facts. Such as, Lincoln was President of the United States. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m an American. The United States winning is a good thing.
     
    Just replace "United States" with "Germany" and "Lincoln" with "Hitler" and see how that sounds.

    You really are completely amoral, aren't you?

    I do not think the real Boethius was like that.

    Just replace “United States” with “Germany” and “Lincoln” with “Hitler” and see how that sounds.

    Well yeah, it sounds quite a bit different doesn’t it? Those aren’t exactly arbitrary substitutions, are they? Among other things, the result is obviously now untrue.

    Hitler was President of the Germany. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m a German. The Germany winning is a good thing.

    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won. Assuming there was no Hitler (ie, Germany still had it’s legitimate national consciousness), how should Germans think of Kaiser Wilhelm?

    Read More
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:

    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won.
     
    Can we just agree that your belief that "most importantly" Hitler lost is a somewhat eccentric view of what is most relevant in judging Herr Hitler?

    I.e., most of us think his mass murders are relevant.

    And, while Lincoln did not run Dachau or Buchenwald, he certainly got an awful lot of Americans killed, more than any other President.

    Just maybe, both of those facts are relevant?

    In all honesty, I rather think (or at least hope) that you are just playing devil's advocate here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Sean
    There was zero chance of the Confederacy winning that war.

    Sean wrote to me:

    There was zero chance of the Confederacy winning that war

    Well… perhaps “zero” is a bit extreme! But, in essence, I think we agree: once it became clear that it was “total war” on the part of the North, the South had almost no chance.

    I think the secessionists believed the dissidents in the North would have more effect than they actually did. That seemed reasonable early on, partly because no one anticipated the lengths to which Lincoln would go to suppress civil liberties.

    After all, there was “zero chance” the North Vietnamese would beat the USA. And, militarily they did not. But the antiwar movement in the States allowed the North Vietnamese to win in the end.

    I hope it is clear that I do not think the South should have fought: it was obviously disastrous for the South and also destructive of the North, if more subtly. And just as a matter of principle, fighting to preserve slavery was morally wrong (yes, everyone, I know it was much more complicated than that — but preserving slavery was part of the motivation of the South).

    I.e., I believe both sides should have refrained from war in the 1860s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Boethiuss


    Just replace “United States” with “Germany” and “Lincoln” with “Hitler” and see how that sounds.
     
    Well yeah, it sounds quite a bit different doesn't it? Those aren't exactly arbitrary substitutions, are they? Among other things, the result is obviously now untrue.

    Hitler was President of the Germany. As President, he fought a war and won. I’m a German. The Germany winning is a good thing.
     
    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won. Assuming there was no Hitler (ie, Germany still had it's legitimate national consciousness), how should Germans think of Kaiser Wilhelm?

    Boethius wrote to me:

    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won.

    Can we just agree that your belief that “most importantly” Hitler lost is a somewhat eccentric view of what is most relevant in judging Herr Hitler?

    I.e., most of us think his mass murders are relevant.

    And, while Lincoln did not run Dachau or Buchenwald, he certainly got an awful lot of Americans killed, more than any other President.

    Just maybe, both of those facts are relevant?

    In all honesty, I rather think (or at least hope) that you are just playing devil’s advocate here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Can we just agree that your belief that “most importantly” Hitler lost is a somewhat eccentric view of what is most relevant in judging Herr Hitler?
     
    Most important in terms of your imputation to me regarding the equivalence of Hitler and Lincoln.

    In the bigger picture, I don't think your view of Lincoln can hold without stealing a few bases pertaining to the "natural" right to secession, which I'm agnostic on, at least for this purpose.

    And in consequence, I think you have to take the blame for undercutting one of our powerful common symbols that all Americans ought to be able to hold in common. This is especially important for Lincoln, who's existence allows us to understand that slavery is part of our history but not at the essential core of our nation-ness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @PhysicistDave
    Boethius wrote to me:

    Most importantly, Hitler fought 70 years ago and lost, Lincoln fought 150 years ago and won.
     
    Can we just agree that your belief that "most importantly" Hitler lost is a somewhat eccentric view of what is most relevant in judging Herr Hitler?

    I.e., most of us think his mass murders are relevant.

    And, while Lincoln did not run Dachau or Buchenwald, he certainly got an awful lot of Americans killed, more than any other President.

    Just maybe, both of those facts are relevant?

    In all honesty, I rather think (or at least hope) that you are just playing devil's advocate here.

    Can we just agree that your belief that “most importantly” Hitler lost is a somewhat eccentric view of what is most relevant in judging Herr Hitler?

    Most important in terms of your imputation to me regarding the equivalence of Hitler and Lincoln.

    In the bigger picture, I don’t think your view of Lincoln can hold without stealing a few bases pertaining to the “natural” right to secession, which I’m agnostic on, at least for this purpose.

    And in consequence, I think you have to take the blame for undercutting one of our powerful common symbols that all Americans ought to be able to hold in common. This is especially important for Lincoln, who’s existence allows us to understand that slavery is part of our history but not at the essential core of our nation-ness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @guest
    Well, he did say "formally" (as in "that's just a formality.") Meaning in this case revolution and the Constitution represent the form of a social compact, which can't ever exist in reality. But we have to pretend...because.

    I guess we’re on the same page.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored