The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"The American Experiment"
🔊 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

David Brooks writes in the NYT:

Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment to draw people from around the world …

Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble, or Washington’s Farewell Address to support his assumption that “the American experiment” was about immigration rather than self-government?

 
Hide 168 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tiny Duck says:

    That’s what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    Read More
    • LOL: Malcolm X-Lax
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is
     


    Oh Tinys , dey iz aints nebba gon lissin tu us . Dem beez teh raysis but we does don got duh powuz to take dems ovahs. Jus membaz Obamas and all da greats he don did and membaz , da fyutahs dooz dons belongs to those dats beez slandrin islams and da holy karizzos.
     
    Lenahd
    , @Redneck farmer
    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don't really like.
    , @Brutusale
    Someone should tell ol' Leonard that white guys hate cleaning, but when their wives get on them about cleaning an area, the preferred method is to throw away everything not essential.

    Which, in this case, is you and Lenny.
    , @Kyle
    "whether white men confront their past present and future evil"

    I love it. Does that qualify as a straw man attack?
    , @Briny Schmuck
    The mere existence of pale-skinned monkey-human hybrids originating from the tundras of Europe, which creatures we falsely call white "people," is by its very nature white supremacist. White people using the resources of this earth all of which rightfully belong to everybody else living in communion with nature is absolutely reprehensible and unforgivable. Oxygen and water belong to PoC alone. Only an idiot would deny that whiteness is the origin of all oppression and suffering from the dawn of the universe to the present day and beyond. No soul has ever been exploited, unfairly treated, or killed except in the name of the socially constructed toxic ideological hegemony known as Whiteness. Just read history, just glance at statistics, and you will find that every single atrocity was either committed by white people as a result of their irresistible innate predilection for evil, or if committed by brown bodies of color was so committed under the white man's duress or ultimate control and influence. And to rectify the world's misery, to quote Leonard Pitts, to redeem the world from the monstrosities of European pale maleness and Western Uncivilization, pale stale whitey males must confront their ineluctable evil with sterilization or the noose. America and the entire world will only what they should be and not what they are once white people vanish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Didn’t you once claim that Brooks read what your wrote and got a lot of ideas from you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Luke Lea says:

    Obviously, Brooks is just trying to take over. To re-invent America in his own image of what he thinks it ought to be, no matter how naive and regardless of the consequences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Luke Lea says:

    Obviously, Mr.Brooks is just trying to take over. He and a lot of others want to re-invent America in their own image of what they think it “ought” to be, no matter how naive and regardless of the consequences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    That's what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    Oh Tinys , dey iz aints nebba gon lissin tu us . Dem beez teh raysis but we does don got duh powuz to take dems ovahs. Jus membaz Obamas and all da greats he don did and membaz , da fyutahs dooz dons belongs to those dats beez slandrin islams and da holy karizzos.

    Lenahd

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

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment

    That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment.

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux, Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Thomas O. Meehan
    If our country is (((Brooks))) experiment, what does that make us, lab rats?
    , @ben tillman

    That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment.
     
    Let's think about this:

    https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Informed-Consent


    As an ethical doctrine, informed consent is a process of communication whereby a patient is enabled to make an informed and voluntary decision about accepting or declining medical care.
     
    https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2017/04/Informed-Consent-Booklet-4.4.13.pdf

    Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. It is not merely a form that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks.
     

    https://research.uncc.edu/departments/office-research-compliance-orc/human-subjects/informed-consent

    Informed consent means the knowing consent of an individual or their legally authorized representative without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, duress or any other form of constraint or coercion. Sufficient information that a reasonable person would want to have in order to make an informed decision about whether to participate must be presented in understandable language such that the potential subject can make an informed judgment about participation.

    To discern the key components of informed consent, you need to understand the ethical issues of research involving human subjects. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice are basic to these ethical issues and merit your consideration.
     

    The American people never consented to this experiment, and we sure as hell were never informed of any of the risks or even the experiment itself.

    It's fascinating to see that this concept retains vitality in medical and research contexts but is completely forgotten in politics. Apparently, the purpose of the "free press" is to manufacture consent by disseminating disnformation.

    , @Rod1963
    The elites do not care what we think because we have made ourselves irrelevant to them. We may be armed to the teeth, but as a group you couldn't motivate whites to pay a visit to Brooks home and tar and feather the SOB. You don't a horde of angry whites descending upon the Hamptons or any of the other pits where the elite dwell.

    Until the average white begins to stand up to the elites and their tools like Brooks, it's going to get progressively worse for us. We will end up like Zimbabwe's white farmers - nearly extinct.
    , @ThreeCranes
    "That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment."

    In college debates with my Jewish friend when I pointed out to him the disastrous effects the Soviet Jew's adoption of Pavlov's Psychology had upon Soviet social science by positing that humans were a blank slate, putty to be molded by the State into perfected humanity, he very sheepishly--and that was the one and only time I saw him sheepish about anything--replied "At least we tried".
    , @AndrewR
    I don't think you realize how radical, revolutionary and - yes - experimental the American system of government was and, in some ways, continues to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. tanabear says:

    Brining in people from around the world is not an experiment, it is a process. The “process of transformation” to be exact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. “Whitman ….. American soldiers showed more fortitude, religious devotion and grandeur than all the storybook heroes, he wrote. They died not for glory, nor even to repel invasion, but out of gratitude to have been included in the American experiment. They died “for an emblem, a mere abstraction — for the life, the safety of the flag.”

    “Brooks graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in history.” (wiki bio) So David, it wasn’t to free the slaves? Better not tell Colin Kaepernick. Or mention that to the readers of the NYT. Oh, and that flag. Better not tell Colin Kapernick.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It’s in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Except for the fact that immigrants are, in the main, neither virtuous, nor persecuted. And BTW equality before the law precludes standing for your claim.

    But hey, let us house 25 of them in your home. And let us make you responsible for them. Yes, you will vouchsafe their character, and if not, you will pay for all harm they do.

    How about that Spanky?
    , @Robert Hume

    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It’s in the declaration of independence.
     
    “...in that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

    it does not say that they are equally intelligent or industrious or law abiding or tall or as fast as we are in running the hundred meter dash.

    So once they are citizens we have to respect those rights, but that does not mean that we have to invite them here in the first place if they are not, for example, intelligent or industrious or law abiding.
    , @Hibernian
    "...the proposition that all men are created equal."

    And after that you're on your own, baby.

    h/t WSJ ad circa 1985-1995
    , @Forbes
    And read in context with the rest of the document--a document that was a declaration to dissolve the political bonds with the British Crown, denying the royal prerogative of the Monarch to rule other men.
    , @Sarah Toga
    Context.
    The rights of Englishmen, colonists creating civilization out of wilderness, asking their King back in England to recognize their rights equal to Englishmen in the Mother Country.
    To read universalism into TJ's phrase is not valid.
    We are English by blood, language, culture. We are settlers, colonists, homesteaders, pioneers.
    The "proposition nation" is a modern rumor. Check the web tool for word use through time. Americans self identified as pioneers, settlers, homesteaders since the beginning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    “… to ourselves and our Posterity”. Not to everyone else and everyone else’s posterity.

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. What? It is written right there in the Talmud.

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Celerity says:

    The Multicultural Republic came into being well after the founding. The category error of old white guys like Steve is to assume there is an almost biblical legitimacy in quoting a dead member of Genus White Guy to prove a point. Look around you Steve. As the British say, “the proof is in the pudding.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The left (and I count David Brooks among them, despite his protestations to the contrary), acts as if the U.S. was always about the elite consensus of the last ~50 years; the right acts as if we haven't been running hard away from most of the founders' intents for the last ~150 years.
    , @MBlanc46
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can’t you get anything right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I can actually argue Brook’s case to some extent here. Augstine’s City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop’s sermon A Model of Christian Charity:

    …we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There doesn't appear to be anything about diversity or immigration in the City on the Hill stuff. The Puritans, of course, were extremely exclusionary and anti-diversity.
    , @J.Ross
    What Steve said, but also, as far as hypotheticals bend, you are coming to the shining city on a hill to completely submit to a conformist totalitarian lifestyle, not to worship the gods of your ancestors, not to speak a different language, not to do the vile filth that Khazr Khan does on a tour with Carl Reiner.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Oh please, how do you cucksuckers come up with such overbaked and underdeveloped delusions. Augustine was not describing endorsement of an immigration invasion, nor would he. He witnessed what happens when you are overrun by barbarians. And the City of God was never meant to be realized this side of the Millennial Reign of Christ.

    Maybe you could stop patting yourself on the back long enough to read the text, then consider context, trajectory and placement, and repent of your perfidy.

    I won't hold my breath.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous:

    The City upon a Hill is a shining role model for others to imitate, not for others to dwell there.
    , @syonredux

    I can actually argue Brook’s case to some extent here. Augstine’s City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop’s sermon A Model of Christian Charity:

     

    John Winthrop's "we" was highly exclusionary in character. He is speaking to a community of Englishmen, not to mankind in general:

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with.
     

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
     
    Men are free to imitate New England, but there is no suggestion in Winthrop's speech that New England should be open to all....
    , @Louis Renault
    The Puritans weren't in Virginia, or any of the other colonies; or most of the rest of Massachusetts either.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Sounds like you’re trying to pull a “New Colossus” vs. Liberty Enlightening the World retcon subversion against Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Shining a metaphorical light unto outgroup benighted beings didn’t mean “come here,” it meant “follow our example where you are, if you’ve got it in you.” The Puritan colonists were not down with the accommodation of Quakers, let alone falling into a state of creolizaton.

    Local aboriginal converts also had it rough. Despite the efforts of Puritan missionary John Eliot, Praying Indians were segregated and later forcibly resettled and died in large numbers on Deer Island, Massachusetts during King Philip’s War:

    Praying Indians offered their service as scouts to the English in Massachusetts but were rejected. Instead, Praying Indian residents were first confined to their villages (thus restricted from their farms and unable to feed themselves), and many were confined on Deer Island in Boston Harbor. John Eliot tried to prevent it, but it is reported that it became dangerous in Massachusetts to talk in favor of any Native Americans. This likely contributed to the initial successes of the Indian rebellion. The order for removal was passed in October 1675, and by December over 500 Christian Indians were brought to the island. When they were released in 1676, because of the harsh conditions only 167 had survived.
     
    , @Hibernian
    Brotherly love and witch hunting.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    we must be knit together, in this work, as one man
    ...
    ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies

     

    Fascism?
    , @AnotherDad

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.
     
    But all we Elect are here already, so we can stop now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. It seems like a talking point should be who is the “People” in “We the People of the United States…”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. I had operated with the understanding that an experiment is open to the outcome that a given theory will fail.

    In this case I suppose the theory or hypothesis being tested is that you can have an America without Americans? The early results are less than promising. The stakes of the experiment failing are existential. Naturally, we’re going to accelerate the experiment to see whether we can make up in volume the loss from each unit.

    Read More
    • LOL: Hibernian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really “the United States.” It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we’ve been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today – those old, First Republic statues aren’t really part of “American” history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    , @syonredux

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today – those old, First Republic statues aren’t really part of “American” history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.
     
    Brooks is sadly retrograde in his politics. Lincoln, as every WOKE Black will tell you, was a vile racist who wanted to deport Blacks to Africa. The Third Republic was illegitimate due to Jim Crow. And the Fourth Republic, as has been conclusively established by Ta-Nehisi Coates, was guilty of the heinous sin of redlining....
    , @ben tillman
    Good comment.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Republic's? Can't we say Reich's?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    IIRC Moldbug made a similar point -- I remember particularly FDR as a demarcation.
    , @RebelWriter
    Great comment. I agree with the analysis. The United States which existed prior to 1861 is no more, and a new republic was born in 1861. This is one of the greatest ironies of the Gettysburg Address, that the soldiers being commemorated had actually fallen in the struggle to assure that a nation, "of the people, by the people," would indeed perish from the earth, and actually two such nations did as a result of the war.

    The Old Republic was a free and voluntary one (if you were a free white man), but the New (Second) Republic enforced its will with cannon and bayonets, and was like the Mafia; you can join, but once you do, there's no getting out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @istevefan

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment
     
    That's the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don't. It's our home not an experiment.

    If our country is (((Brooks))) experiment, what does that make us, lab rats?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    And not even get a lump of cheese at the end of it.
    , @tyrone
    I'm no scientist but shouldn't there be a control , I want to live there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Daniel H says:

    “The American Experiment”. Rhetorical bullshit. I hate it. Well, at least he is showing his colors. Who would ever refer to their country as an “experiment” unless then felt inside that they really don’t have that much skin in the game.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble, or Washington’s Farewell Address to support his assumption that “the American experiment” was about immigration rather than self-government?

    Um, he doesn’t have to, because all y’all wypipo is racist. See Tiny Duck, #1.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It’s just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Giant Duck
    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That's why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship - they were "collabos" with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the "real" United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks' ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution - it isn't really part of the "real" United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.

    , @istevefan
    You'd think that Jews like Brooks could glom onto the Founding of the nation because of Haym Salomon. Of course I've heard people argue that he was either, a) the main reason we were able to fund the Revolution, or b) he was overrated and only became popular as Jews' status in the US increased.

    Given the fact that most Jews don't bring him up, or feel a connection to the Founding, maybe he wasn't as important as he has recently been made out to be.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    But wouldn't blacks and old-stock gentile American liberals mostly agree with Giant Duck on where to start the clock?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation"

    Which is invisible (at least to media/academia), if not actually verboten, when those ancestors are Dead White Males.
    , @John Gruskos

    perfectly normal ethnocentric
     
    No, it is abnormal hyper-ethnocentrism.

    Normal ethnocentrism leads to gratitude towards the benefactors of one's tribe.

    Hyper-ethnocentrism leads to intense resentment or even hatred towards the benefactors of one's tribe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. [Brooks’s] assumption that “the American experiment” was about immigration

    An oblique warning from the past for Mr. Brooks (and Mr. Unz):

    You will suffer humiliation and loss of reputation when your culinary experiments in Korean/Latin fusion blow an entire city block sky-high.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    There doesn’t appear to be anything about diversity or immigration in the City on the Hill stuff. The Puritans, of course, were extremely exclusionary and anti-diversity.

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux, midtown
    • Replies: @JimB
    The pilgrims evangelized the Indians with some success but ultimately couldn’t turn them into farmers, so the diversity experiment failed early and hard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That’s why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship – they were “collabos” with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the “real” United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks’ ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution – it isn’t really part of the “real” United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That’s why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship – they were “collabos” with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the “real” United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks’ ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution – it isn’t really part of the “real” United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.
     
    Un-WOKE, bigot. 1861-1965 America was fatally tainted by White Supremacy: wars against Amerinds, Jim Crow, Redlining (next to slavery, the most heinous sin of all).....

    Brooks' ancestors actually thought that it was "admirable" to join something that evil....
    , @Anonymous
    But the PC Mafia says that the "real" United States was post-1965. Brooks is clearly trying to delude his bigoted brain into thinking his ancestors are free from the taint of white maleness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Dr. X says:

    From Washington’s Farewell Address:

    The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

    Not exactly a multiculturalist manifesto, is it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No wonder we never see that speech being quoted..
    , @Cortes
    Here’s a timely reminder of how the all-new, multicultural singin’ and dancin’ paradise of Sweden has developed to the point where kids think it’s safer in Nairobi, Kenya:

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803201062712426-sweden-africa-ghetto/
    , @Hibernian
    The shades of difference included slaveholding vs. non-slaveholding, native born Americans who spoke German or Dutch as a first language, and a few Catholics and Jews including one Catholic signer each of the D of I and the Constitution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    What Steve said, but also, as far as hypotheticals bend, you are coming to the shining city on a hill to completely submit to a conformist totalitarian lifestyle, not to worship the gods of your ancestors, not to speak a different language, not to do the vile filth that Khazr Khan does on a tour with Carl Reiner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Classical Liberal
    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It's in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    Except for the fact that immigrants are, in the main, neither virtuous, nor persecuted. And BTW equality before the law precludes standing for your claim.

    But hey, let us house 25 of them in your home. And let us make you responsible for them. Yes, you will vouchsafe their character, and if not, you will pay for all harm they do.

    How about that Spanky?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Oh please, how do you cucksuckers come up with such overbaked and underdeveloped delusions. Augustine was not describing endorsement of an immigration invasion, nor would he. He witnessed what happens when you are overrun by barbarians. And the City of God was never meant to be realized this side of the Millennial Reign of Christ.

    Maybe you could stop patting yourself on the back long enough to read the text, then consider context, trajectory and placement, and repent of your perfidy.

    I won’t hold my breath.

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

    Unity can come only from a common dedication to this experiment. The American consciousness can be formed only by the lab reports we give one another about that experiment

    I must be part of the control group….

    One of my favorites of these lab reports is Walt Whitman’s essay “Democratic Vistas,” published in 1871. The purpose of democracy, Whitman wrote, is not wealth, or even equality; it is the full flowering of individuals. By dispersing responsibility to all adults, democracy “supplies a training school for making first class men.” It is “life’s gymnasium.” It forges “freedom’s athletes” — strong and equal women, courageous men, deep-souled people capable of governing themselves.

    Whitman, the great American gasbag…..

    Whitman had hoped that the end of the Civil War and Lincoln’s sacrificial death would bring the nation together.

    On Good Friday…..Shouldn’t that be a bit too Christian for you, Dave?

    Whitman feared economic and social feudalism, but above all he detested cultural and moral feudalism. He believed that writers, artists, musicians, poets and preachers were the real legislators of mankind, and in America they were detached from the nitty-gritty American experience. They still looked back to Europe — to the parlor, the perfumed courtier and the spirit of gentility — for their models of character, manners and education. They looked down on America’s democratic mass.

    Do you have a mirror in your house, Dave?

    Whitman was not, however, pessimistic. He had worked as a nurse during the Civil War, watching men recover and die, and the experience had given him illimitable faith in the goodness of average citizens. Average American soldiers showed more fortitude, religious devotion and grandeur than all the storybook heroes, he wrote. They died not for glory, nor even to repel invasion, but out of gratitude to have been included in the American experiment. They died “for an emblem, a mere abstraction — for the life, the safety of the flag.”

    Of course, Lincoln thought otherwise:

    We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

    So much of what he wrote rings true today: the need to see democratic life as an exhilarating adventure, the terrible damage done when you tell groups that they are of no account, the need for a unifying American mythos, the power of culture to provide that mythos

    But what mythos can unite Whites with Blacks, Anglos with Latinx? Blacks and Latinx have no love for Jamestown and Plymouth, Valley Forge, the Taming of the West…..They are deaf to Mark Twain and Willa Cather, blind to John Ford and Howard Hawks…..

    What shared mythos can unite the Washington Monument and the African American Museum…..

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    >So much of what he wrote rings true today: the need to see democratic life as an exhilarating adventure, the terrible damage done when you tell groups that they are of no account, the need for a unifying American mythos, the power of culture to provide that mythos

    I am not sure if "racism" and "white privilege" are the unifying mythos Mr. Brooks is looking for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Anonymous:

    The City upon a Hill is a shining role model for others to imitate, not for others to dwell there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    I can actually argue Brook’s case to some extent here. Augstine’s City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop’s sermon A Model of Christian Charity:

    John Winthrop’s “we” was highly exclusionary in character. He is speaking to a community of Englishmen, not to mankind in general:

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

    Men are free to imitate New England, but there is no suggestion in Winthrop’s speech that New England should be open to all….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Of course not. Many towns in other colonies were started by people driven out of Massachusetts by the Puritans over differences in theology. Roger Williams founding Providence is one of many examples.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. syonredux says:
    @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today – those old, First Republic statues aren’t really part of “American” history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Brooks is sadly retrograde in his politics. Lincoln, as every WOKE Black will tell you, was a vile racist who wanted to deport Blacks to Africa. The Third Republic was illegitimate due to Jim Crow. And the Fourth Republic, as has been conclusively established by Ta-Nehisi Coates, was guilty of the heinous sin of redlining….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @istevefan

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment
     
    That's the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don't. It's our home not an experiment.

    That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment.

    Let’s think about this:

    https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Informed-Consent

    As an ethical doctrine, informed consent is a process of communication whereby a patient is enabled to make an informed and voluntary decision about accepting or declining medical care.

    https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2017/04/Informed-Consent-Booklet-4.4.13.pdf

    Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. It is not merely a form that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks.

    https://research.uncc.edu/departments/office-research-compliance-orc/human-subjects/informed-consent

    Informed consent means the knowing consent of an individual or their legally authorized representative without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, duress or any other form of constraint or coercion. Sufficient information that a reasonable person would want to have in order to make an informed decision about whether to participate must be presented in understandable language such that the potential subject can make an informed judgment about participation.

    To discern the key components of informed consent, you need to understand the ethical issues of research involving human subjects. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice are basic to these ethical issues and merit your consideration.

    The American people never consented to this experiment, and we sure as hell were never informed of any of the risks or even the experiment itself.

    It’s fascinating to see that this concept retains vitality in medical and research contexts but is completely forgotten in politics. Apparently, the purpose of the “free press” is to manufacture consent by disseminating disnformation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    That's a good point. Consent was never sought nor given. If anything it appears WE must receive consent from them in order to curtail immigration, enforce immigration laws or even build a sufficient barrier along our border.

    As far as experimenting who would experiment with arguably the greatest nation in history? I often engage with climate alarmists who are surprised that I don't believe in man-made climate change. They often leave me with this:

    "OK, so we might be wrong, but what if we are correct? Are you willing to take the chance on destroying the planet?"

    We should be able to make a similar argument with the nation experimenters. "What if you are wrong? Why are you risking one of the greatest nations in history on an unproven experiment that cannot possibly make the the nation any better, only worse?"

    After all, we did put men on the moon pre-diversity. Even if a diversified USA is not a total disaster, the bar has been set so high there is no where to go but down.

    Of all the things you risk, you would think the last would be a functioning nation. People throughout history have continually fought and died to have countries that are favorable to them. So it makes absolutely no sense to start a crazy experiment once you have actually achieved that goal of a functioning, high-trust nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. newrouter says:

    “the American experiment to draw people from around the world … ”

    Are we an “experiment” or a Nation? I’m Pol Pot these days. Davy Brookes harvesting vegetables for vegetarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    The Puritans weren’t in Virginia, or any of the other colonies; or most of the rest of Massachusetts either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Barnard says:
    @syonredux

    I can actually argue Brook’s case to some extent here. Augstine’s City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop’s sermon A Model of Christian Charity:

     

    John Winthrop's "we" was highly exclusionary in character. He is speaking to a community of Englishmen, not to mankind in general:

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with.
     

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
     
    Men are free to imitate New England, but there is no suggestion in Winthrop's speech that New England should be open to all....

    Of course not. Many towns in other colonies were started by people driven out of Massachusetts by the Puritans over differences in theology. Roger Williams founding Providence is one of many examples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. On a slightly narrower topic, when did the common understanding of what a “refugee” is expand beyond its old meaning?

    It used to mean someone who was facing a clear and present danger of being hunted down and possibly killed, or a person whose home and town had been utterly destroyed and made unlivable. It now seems to mean, at least in Western nations, simply anyone who lives in a wide geographic area around a zone where there is some armed conflict.

    Japan, which admitted only 20 refugees last year, and China, which is very ethnically selective about the refugees it admits (basically, overseas ethnic Chinese get in, but hardly anyone else does) still seem to think about refugees the way we used to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I return to how inescapably artificial all this was. The exact same thing happening in both America and Europe, at the same time, with consistent media coverage (both news and entertainment) at a level that guarantees heavy management. How is there anyone who does not see this as planned?
    But the refugees were fleeing from circumstances
    Yeah I don't think it would be an overwhelmingly difficult sell that the same party coordinating it at one end was responsible for the other. I honestly think there was a table in the US State Department at which highly educated people chatted amicably about how to go about destroying the world.
    Maybe a useful thing to look at is a bizarre episode in The Grand Budapest Hotel, in which Ralph Fiennes more or less breaks the fourth wall to call the audience names if they dare to fail to genuflect to the all-commanding god that is the refugee. It's about as subtle and consistent with everything else as Shoshanna Dreyfus telling the audience about divine justice.
    , @International Jew
    About the same time it became unacceptable to question what people said about their gender, or claims women made about being raped. It's all part of a campaign for evidence-free self-definition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. The most important thing about “The” American Experiment is that there be no control experiments because it would be immoral to permit anything like the 1950s America to continue to exist anywhere. I mean, how are you going to tell if your treatment is effective if you have any control experiments hogging up all of your experimental subjects and reducing your statistical power over the nascent Nazis that are just about to go exterminate all the Jews any second?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Good comment.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Lurker says:
    @Thomas O. Meehan
    If our country is (((Brooks))) experiment, what does that make us, lab rats?

    And not even get a lump of cheese at the end of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. J.Ross says: • Website
    @PiltdownMan
    On a slightly narrower topic, when did the common understanding of what a "refugee" is expand beyond its old meaning?

    It used to mean someone who was facing a clear and present danger of being hunted down and possibly killed, or a person whose home and town had been utterly destroyed and made unlivable. It now seems to mean, at least in Western nations, simply anyone who lives in a wide geographic area around a zone where there is some armed conflict.

    Japan, which admitted only 20 refugees last year, and China, which is very ethnically selective about the refugees it admits (basically, overseas ethnic Chinese get in, but hardly anyone else does) still seem to think about refugees the way we used to.

    I return to how inescapably artificial all this was. The exact same thing happening in both America and Europe, at the same time, with consistent media coverage (both news and entertainment) at a level that guarantees heavy management. How is there anyone who does not see this as planned?
    But the refugees were fleeing from circumstances
    Yeah I don’t think it would be an overwhelmingly difficult sell that the same party coordinating it at one end was responsible for the other. I honestly think there was a table in the US State Department at which highly educated people chatted amicably about how to go about destroying the world.
    Maybe a useful thing to look at is a bizarre episode in The Grand Budapest Hotel, in which Ralph Fiennes more or less breaks the fourth wall to call the audience names if they dare to fail to genuflect to the all-commanding god that is the refugee. It’s about as subtle and consistent with everything else as Shoshanna Dreyfus telling the audience about divine justice.

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

    So, what is the control? Eastern Civilization?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. black sea says:

    America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.
    –Sigmund Freud

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    A Google Ngram graph of "American experiment" and a graph of the the % of the US population who are Jewish yield approximately the same curve, ...

    ... including that both have been tailing off somewhat in since the late twentieth century. So all this proposition nation stuff hasn't actually been any better for the Jews than for other whites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevertheless,_she_persisted

    Like the feminists, apparently the urge to self-destruction is unstoppable, no matter how many others they take with them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Mr. Anon says:

    The real American Experiment is just how hostile the elite can be towards the founding stock of the country.

    Needless to say: America is a country, not an experiment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Sounds like you’re trying to pull a “New Colossus” vs. Liberty Enlightening the World retcon subversion against Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Shining a metaphorical light unto outgroup benighted beings didn’t mean “come here,” it meant “follow our example where you are, if you’ve got it in you.” The Puritan colonists were not down with the accommodation of Quakers, let alone falling into a state of creolizaton.

    Local aboriginal converts also had it rough. Despite the efforts of Puritan missionary John Eliot, Praying Indians were segregated and later forcibly resettled and died in large numbers on Deer Island, Massachusetts during King Philip’s War:

    Praying Indians offered their service as scouts to the English in Massachusetts but were rejected. Instead, Praying Indian residents were first confined to their villages (thus restricted from their farms and unable to feed themselves), and many were confined on Deer Island in Boston Harbor. John Eliot tried to prevent it, but it is reported that it became dangerous in Massachusetts to talk in favor of any Native Americans. This likely contributed to the initial successes of the Indian rebellion. The order for removal was passed in October 1675, and by December over 500 Christian Indians were brought to the island. When they were released in 1676, because of the harsh conditions only 167 had survived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. syonredux says:
    @Giant Duck
    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That's why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship - they were "collabos" with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the "real" United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks' ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution - it isn't really part of the "real" United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.

    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That’s why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship – they were “collabos” with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the “real” United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks’ ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution – it isn’t really part of the “real” United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.

    Un-WOKE, bigot. 1861-1965 America was fatally tainted by White Supremacy: wars against Amerinds, Jim Crow, Redlining (next to slavery, the most heinous sin of all)…..

    Brooks’ ancestors actually thought that it was “admirable” to join something that evil….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @PiltdownMan
    On a slightly narrower topic, when did the common understanding of what a "refugee" is expand beyond its old meaning?

    It used to mean someone who was facing a clear and present danger of being hunted down and possibly killed, or a person whose home and town had been utterly destroyed and made unlivable. It now seems to mean, at least in Western nations, simply anyone who lives in a wide geographic area around a zone where there is some armed conflict.

    Japan, which admitted only 20 refugees last year, and China, which is very ethnically selective about the refugees it admits (basically, overseas ethnic Chinese get in, but hardly anyone else does) still seem to think about refugees the way we used to.

    About the same time it became unacceptable to question what people said about their gender, or claims women made about being raped. It’s all part of a campaign for evidence-free self-definition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. “…failed miserably.”

    (The American experiment did, that is; it failed so miserably, it is now so badly off the rails that jackasses are smugly wallowing in their ridiculous propaganda to the effect that the experiment was all about inviting aliens to invade the place!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. istevefan says:
    @ben tillman

    That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment.
     
    Let's think about this:

    https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Informed-Consent


    As an ethical doctrine, informed consent is a process of communication whereby a patient is enabled to make an informed and voluntary decision about accepting or declining medical care.
     
    https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2017/04/Informed-Consent-Booklet-4.4.13.pdf

    Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. It is not merely a form that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks.
     

    https://research.uncc.edu/departments/office-research-compliance-orc/human-subjects/informed-consent

    Informed consent means the knowing consent of an individual or their legally authorized representative without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, duress or any other form of constraint or coercion. Sufficient information that a reasonable person would want to have in order to make an informed decision about whether to participate must be presented in understandable language such that the potential subject can make an informed judgment about participation.

    To discern the key components of informed consent, you need to understand the ethical issues of research involving human subjects. The principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice are basic to these ethical issues and merit your consideration.
     

    The American people never consented to this experiment, and we sure as hell were never informed of any of the risks or even the experiment itself.

    It's fascinating to see that this concept retains vitality in medical and research contexts but is completely forgotten in politics. Apparently, the purpose of the "free press" is to manufacture consent by disseminating disnformation.

    That’s a good point. Consent was never sought nor given. If anything it appears WE must receive consent from them in order to curtail immigration, enforce immigration laws or even build a sufficient barrier along our border.

    As far as experimenting who would experiment with arguably the greatest nation in history? I often engage with climate alarmists who are surprised that I don’t believe in man-made climate change. They often leave me with this:

    “OK, so we might be wrong, but what if we are correct? Are you willing to take the chance on destroying the planet?”

    We should be able to make a similar argument with the nation experimenters. “What if you are wrong? Why are you risking one of the greatest nations in history on an unproven experiment that cannot possibly make the the nation any better, only worse?”

    After all, we did put men on the moon pre-diversity. Even if a diversified USA is not a total disaster, the bar has been set so high there is no where to go but down.

    Of all the things you risk, you would think the last would be a functioning nation. People throughout history have continually fought and died to have countries that are favorable to them. So it makes absolutely no sense to start a crazy experiment once you have actually achieved that goal of a functioning, high-trust nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Great way to put this, istevefan, in terms of the comparison to your GlobalClimateDisruption(TM)-admitter friend. However, I have plenty of arguments against your friends closing statement. I have heard that one many times, and, upon looking through all my posts on Global Climate Stupidity I could not now just find a refutation written out.

    Yes, I wanted to be the first to mention this, but, I saw this point in the middle of the comments: Right! When you design this kind of experiment you must have a control group. It's not just that the instigators of this immigration-invasion/population-replacement "experiment" didn't allow for a control group. They do not want one, it seems, and won't let one exist. Could not Utah at least, or Montana, or Maine, be small control groups. Lot of people can fit into those place. No, though, they want to import multiculturalism into every nook and crany.

    Along with the point of "do you really want to screw around with a whole nation, not knowing how this will turn out?!" comes the question "Couldn't you leave a control group untouched, so even if we can't back out of the experiment, we can high-tail it to the control-zone?"

    I know the answers though. This is a globalist plan - they know the results will not be to our liking. They THINK they results will be to THEIR liking, but I don't they THINK hard enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. istevefan says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    You’d think that Jews like Brooks could glom onto the Founding of the nation because of Haym Salomon. Of course I’ve heard people argue that he was either, a) the main reason we were able to fund the Revolution, or b) he was overrated and only became popular as Jews’ status in the US increased.

    Given the fact that most Jews don’t bring him up, or feel a connection to the Founding, maybe he wasn’t as important as he has recently been made out to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    I would have gone with Francis Salvador:

    Francis Salvador (1747 – 1 August 1776) was a young English plantation owner in the colony of South Carolina from the Sephardic Jewish community of London; in 1774 he was the first Jew to be elected to public office in the colonies when chosen for the Provincial Congress. He had joined the independence cause and in 1776 was the first Jew killed in the American Revolutionary War, fighting with the militia on the South Carolina frontier against Loyalists and their Cherokee allies.[1]
     
    Francis Salvador acquired 7,000 acres (28 km2) in Ninety Six District, Carolina Colony, and emigrated intending to send for his wife, Sarah, and their four children as soon as he was able. Arriving in Charleston in December 1773, Salvador quickly joined the American cause. He became close friends with the rising leaders of the Revolution in the South, including Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, William Henry Drayton, Henry Laurens, and Samuel Hammond.[5]

    Buying African slaves to work his land, In 1774 Salvador settled at Coroneka (commonly called Cornacre), joined for a while by his friend Richard A. Rapley, as neither wanted to live alone.[2] They were both elected as delegates to South Carolina's Provincial Congress; Salvador was the first Jew elected to public office in the Thirteen Colonies in North America.[1] He was re-elected to the second Provincial Congress in 1775, holding the post until his death.[4] At the time, Jews legally could neither hold office nor vote, but no colonists objected when Salvador and his friend Richard A. Rapley were elected as two among the several frontier representatives from Ninety-Six District to the Provincial Congress.[6] They were joined by Andrew Williamson, then a major in the militia.
     

    Early in 1776 the British had induced Indian allies to attack the South Carolina frontier to create a diversion in favour of British operations on the sea-coast. On 1 July 1776, the Indians began attacking frontier families in Ninety Six District. Salvador rode from his lands to the White Hall plantation of Major Andrew Williamson, 28 miles (45 km) away, to raise the alarm. Salvador took part in the engagements that followed. On 31 July, Major Williamson captured two white Loyalists. They led his 330-men militia into an ambush by their fellow Tories and Cherokee allies at the Keowee River.[9] Alexander Cameron, deputy to Captain John Stuart, led the Tory forces.[10] Salvador was shot and fell into the bushes, but was discovered and scalped by the Cherokee that night. He died from his wounds at age 29.

    Concerning his death, Colonel William Thomson wrote to William Henry Drayton, in a letter dated "Camp, two miles below Keowee[a Cherokee town], 4 August 1776, as follows:

    "Here, Mr. Salvador received three wounds; and, fell by my side. . . . I desired [Lieutenant Farar], to take care of Mr. Salvador; but, before he could find him in the dark, the enemy unfortunately got his scalp: which, was the only one taken. . . . He died, about half after two o'clock in the morning: forty-five minutes after he received the wounds, sensible to the last. When I came up to him, after dislodging the enemy, and speaking to him, he asked, whether I had beat the enemy? I told him yes. He said he was glad of it, and shook me by the hand – and bade me farewell – and said, he would die in a few minutes."[11]

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Salvador
    , @Flip
    There's a statue in Chicago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heald_Square_Monument
    , @Millennial
    The Haym Salomon "financial founding father" story is complete fiction.

    His son was pretty good at scamming Congress though.

    The most thorough expose:

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Rod1963 says:
    @istevefan

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment
     
    That's the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don't. It's our home not an experiment.

    The elites do not care what we think because we have made ourselves irrelevant to them. We may be armed to the teeth, but as a group you couldn’t motivate whites to pay a visit to Brooks home and tar and feather the SOB. You don’t a horde of angry whites descending upon the Hamptons or any of the other pits where the elite dwell.

    Until the average white begins to stand up to the elites and their tools like Brooks, it’s going to get progressively worse for us. We will end up like Zimbabwe’s white farmers – nearly extinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    We will end up like Zimbabwe’s white farmers – nearly extinct.
     
    Nope. We are better armed, with both information, and, well arms. If they make that play, we won't end up like the Rhodesians. Algeria has been duly noted, and won't be forgotten.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Republic’s? Can’t we say Reich’s?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. syonredux says:
    @istevefan
    You'd think that Jews like Brooks could glom onto the Founding of the nation because of Haym Salomon. Of course I've heard people argue that he was either, a) the main reason we were able to fund the Revolution, or b) he was overrated and only became popular as Jews' status in the US increased.

    Given the fact that most Jews don't bring him up, or feel a connection to the Founding, maybe he wasn't as important as he has recently been made out to be.

    I would have gone with Francis Salvador:

    Francis Salvador (1747 – 1 August 1776) was a young English plantation owner in the colony of South Carolina from the Sephardic Jewish community of London; in 1774 he was the first Jew to be elected to public office in the colonies when chosen for the Provincial Congress. He had joined the independence cause and in 1776 was the first Jew killed in the American Revolutionary War, fighting with the militia on the South Carolina frontier against Loyalists and their Cherokee allies.[1]

    Francis Salvador acquired 7,000 acres (28 km2) in Ninety Six District, Carolina Colony, and emigrated intending to send for his wife, Sarah, and their four children as soon as he was able. Arriving in Charleston in December 1773, Salvador quickly joined the American cause. He became close friends with the rising leaders of the Revolution in the South, including Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, William Henry Drayton, Henry Laurens, and Samuel Hammond.[5]

    Buying African slaves to work his land, In 1774 Salvador settled at Coroneka (commonly called Cornacre), joined for a while by his friend Richard A. Rapley, as neither wanted to live alone.[2] They were both elected as delegates to South Carolina’s Provincial Congress; Salvador was the first Jew elected to public office in the Thirteen Colonies in North America.[1] He was re-elected to the second Provincial Congress in 1775, holding the post until his death.[4] At the time, Jews legally could neither hold office nor vote, but no colonists objected when Salvador and his friend Richard A. Rapley were elected as two among the several frontier representatives from Ninety-Six District to the Provincial Congress.[6] They were joined by Andrew Williamson, then a major in the militia.

    Early in 1776 the British had induced Indian allies to attack the South Carolina frontier to create a diversion in favour of British operations on the sea-coast. On 1 July 1776, the Indians began attacking frontier families in Ninety Six District. Salvador rode from his lands to the White Hall plantation of Major Andrew Williamson, 28 miles (45 km) away, to raise the alarm. Salvador took part in the engagements that followed. On 31 July, Major Williamson captured two white Loyalists. They led his 330-men militia into an ambush by their fellow Tories and Cherokee allies at the Keowee River.[9] Alexander Cameron, deputy to Captain John Stuart, led the Tory forces.[10] Salvador was shot and fell into the bushes, but was discovered and scalped by the Cherokee that night. He died from his wounds at age 29.

    Concerning his death, Colonel William Thomson wrote to William Henry Drayton, in a letter dated “Camp, two miles below Keowee[a Cherokee town], 4 August 1776, as follows:

    “Here, Mr. Salvador received three wounds; and, fell by my side. . . . I desired [Lieutenant Farar], to take care of Mr. Salvador; but, before he could find him in the dark, the enemy unfortunately got his scalp: which, was the only one taken. . . . He died, about half after two o’clock in the morning: forty-five minutes after he received the wounds, sensible to the last. When I came up to him, after dislodging the enemy, and speaking to him, he asked, whether I had beat the enemy? I told him yes. He said he was glad of it, and shook me by the hand – and bade me farewell – and said, he would die in a few minutes.”[11]

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Giant Duck
    But the thing is, Brooks has to see it like this: his esteemed ancestors would never have immigrated to, and made themselves part of, an illegitimate country like the pre-Lincoln United States. That's why people like Judah P. Benjamin are excluded from the ancestor worship - they were "collabos" with the pre-Enlightenment United States.

    After the "real" United States was founded in 1861, it was safe and admirable for Brooks' ancestors to cross over and join up. Thus, it is easy to ignore, say, the preamble to the Constitution - it isn't really part of the "real" United States anyway. The effective re-write given most of the Constitution over the course of the 20th century by the Federal Government, especially but not only the judicial branch, is basically the same thing.

    But the PC Mafia says that the “real” United States was post-1965. Brooks is clearly trying to delude his bigoted brain into thinking his ancestors are free from the taint of white maleness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Giant Duck
    Yes, I think this view has some momentum now. It makes a sort of reductionist sense for the tens of millions of post 1965 immigrants. Their history starts at that time, so who cares what came before? Eventually, Lincoln will be seen as a retrograde white male racist and the founding of the "real" United States will be marked by either the 1963 Civil Rights march on Washington, or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Maybe 1964 as a compromise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Brooks holds white America in contempt. His inner ethno-warrior has really come out lately. He’s a rage head dreaming exterminationist dreams …but read the bible! It’s what the Tribe does!

    Every goyim civilization becomes Amalek.

    On twitter now there are Tribe journalists savaging any casual gatherings that happen to end up white-only. They are castigating and attempting to shame whites for simply enjoying each others company or sharing mutual interests.

    This is another step on the road to official persecution. The heated anti-white rhetoric is a precursor to violence. They essentially reject the notion that whites have the right to free speech, self-defense or freedom of assembly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X
    From Washington's Farewell Address:

    The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
     

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

     
    Not exactly a multiculturalist manifesto, is it?

    No wonder we never see that speech being quoted..

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    The latter. No one believes that it is the former.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    I would have gone with Francis Salvador:

    Francis Salvador (1747 – 1 August 1776) was a young English plantation owner in the colony of South Carolina from the Sephardic Jewish community of London; in 1774 he was the first Jew to be elected to public office in the colonies when chosen for the Provincial Congress. He had joined the independence cause and in 1776 was the first Jew killed in the American Revolutionary War, fighting with the militia on the South Carolina frontier against Loyalists and their Cherokee allies.[1]
     
    Francis Salvador acquired 7,000 acres (28 km2) in Ninety Six District, Carolina Colony, and emigrated intending to send for his wife, Sarah, and their four children as soon as he was able. Arriving in Charleston in December 1773, Salvador quickly joined the American cause. He became close friends with the rising leaders of the Revolution in the South, including Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, William Henry Drayton, Henry Laurens, and Samuel Hammond.[5]

    Buying African slaves to work his land, In 1774 Salvador settled at Coroneka (commonly called Cornacre), joined for a while by his friend Richard A. Rapley, as neither wanted to live alone.[2] They were both elected as delegates to South Carolina's Provincial Congress; Salvador was the first Jew elected to public office in the Thirteen Colonies in North America.[1] He was re-elected to the second Provincial Congress in 1775, holding the post until his death.[4] At the time, Jews legally could neither hold office nor vote, but no colonists objected when Salvador and his friend Richard A. Rapley were elected as two among the several frontier representatives from Ninety-Six District to the Provincial Congress.[6] They were joined by Andrew Williamson, then a major in the militia.
     

    Early in 1776 the British had induced Indian allies to attack the South Carolina frontier to create a diversion in favour of British operations on the sea-coast. On 1 July 1776, the Indians began attacking frontier families in Ninety Six District. Salvador rode from his lands to the White Hall plantation of Major Andrew Williamson, 28 miles (45 km) away, to raise the alarm. Salvador took part in the engagements that followed. On 31 July, Major Williamson captured two white Loyalists. They led his 330-men militia into an ambush by their fellow Tories and Cherokee allies at the Keowee River.[9] Alexander Cameron, deputy to Captain John Stuart, led the Tory forces.[10] Salvador was shot and fell into the bushes, but was discovered and scalped by the Cherokee that night. He died from his wounds at age 29.

    Concerning his death, Colonel William Thomson wrote to William Henry Drayton, in a letter dated "Camp, two miles below Keowee[a Cherokee town], 4 August 1776, as follows:

    "Here, Mr. Salvador received three wounds; and, fell by my side. . . . I desired [Lieutenant Farar], to take care of Mr. Salvador; but, before he could find him in the dark, the enemy unfortunately got his scalp: which, was the only one taken. . . . He died, about half after two o'clock in the morning: forty-five minutes after he received the wounds, sensible to the last. When I came up to him, after dislodging the enemy, and speaking to him, he asked, whether I had beat the enemy? I told him yes. He said he was glad of it, and shook me by the hand – and bade me farewell – and said, he would die in a few minutes."[11]

     

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

    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Well, I've been studying South Carolina history most of my life, with the American Revolution in the Southern Colonies being a chief focus, and this is the very first I've read of this particular fellow. I'd run across his name, but never knew he was Jewish. So, in other words, he's not a popular figure around here.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Okay, I laughed. That was a funny comment.

    But wasn't it not unusual in those days for men to live together? Lincoln and Joshua Speed in the next century, for example. Besides the benefit of mutual protection in a frontier society, there are the usual benefits of communal living: cheaper housing, heat, etc.

    , @syonredux

    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?
     
    Only after they find a way to work around the fact that he owned and slaves......plus the being scalped by Amerinds stuff would also have to be jettisoned....Maybe the musical could have him be killed by anti-Semitic Southern Protestants....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment…”

    David Brooks is so devoted to the American ‘Experiment’ that his kid served in a foreign country’s army. You don’t think these people are being disingenuous or anything, do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    57 Anon > David Brooks is so devoted to the American ‘Experiment’ that his kid served in a foreign country’s army


    I have searched - and I cannot find any written evidence that it actually happened.

    I find written evidence that he told an audience of elderly American Jewish ladies in LA that it happened.

    it's the kind of comment you would throw around if you were trying to establish yourself on the renumerated-speaker's-fee circuit of the sort of audiences that have money.

    Not money like Sheldon Adelson. Money like your dentist's wife.

    to a journalist who isn't quite smart enough to get hired by an actual business newspaper, that's good money.

    If I was bad guy, I could ask if journalist iSteve does more original investigative reporting than David Brooks does - but who's asking?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Realist says:

    Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment to draw people from around the world …

    This experiment will cause the death of America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    This experiment will cause the death of America.
     
    Not if we win. And we will win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. When did America become an “experiment” rather than a “country” (or nation, nation-state, etc.)? Am I just remembering my history classes incorrectly, because I certainly don’t remember the Revolutionary or Civil War being fought for an experiment. It’s fairly insidious how these journalists are able to make you forget America is a sovereign state rather than an open borders, immigrant sanctuary. All they do is substitute “experiment” for “nation.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Sorry, Al, I thought I'd read all the comments first, but my one just above could have been a reply to you. The experiment was in Federalism. It was in no way some kind of experiment in dieversity or multi-culturalism, per the great comments above.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Indeed, what’s that line in the ‘Naturalization Proclamation’ – one of the first laws ever passed by the nascent Republic, about limiting naturalisation to ‘free white persons only’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Celerity
    The Multicultural Republic came into being well after the founding. The category error of old white guys like Steve is to assume there is an almost biblical legitimacy in quoting a dead member of Genus White Guy to prove a point. Look around you Steve. As the British say, “the proof is in the pudding.”

    The left (and I count David Brooks among them, despite his protestations to the contrary), acts as if the U.S. was always about the elite consensus of the last ~50 years; the right acts as if we haven’t been running hard away from most of the founders’ intents for the last ~150 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    But wouldn’t blacks and old-stock gentile American liberals mostly agree with Giant Duck on where to start the clock?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    No. American blacks who think about American history probably start the clock when blacks were first “brought to the colony of Virginia in 1619,” as Ta-Nehisi Coates marks it. Even the most ‘based’ forward-looking MAGA blacks aren’t going to forget what their ancestors/racial kin went through before Emancipation and the end of Jim Crow.

    Similarly, most old-stock WASPs of liberal bent still take (quiet) pride in their ancestry and ancestors going all the way back to “when the Angles met the Saxons” as one Simpsons character playfully put it. More than a few Betsy Ross flags (and occasional various non-soccer related Flags of New England) still drape above quaint stoops in WASPy coastal New England towns that vote RINO or Democrat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OV50kdoPE&t=1m06s

    In case the clip gets pulled for copyright:

    Gruff ‘humble background’ CEO to board:
    The problem with you guys is, you’ve forgotten your ROOTS!— You! What are your roots?

    Humorously smug board member:
    Well I guess you could say they extend to when the Angles met the Saxons.

    (The mostly WASP board erupts in convivial laughter.)

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Edwhy says:

    And China is all about Asian supremacy, Africa, black supremacy, etc., etc. The point being?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    IIRC Moldbug made a similar point — I remember particularly FDR as a demarcation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Old Rightists like John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett said the same thing. But Moldbug never claimed to be saying anything new.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Cortes says:
    @Dr. X
    From Washington's Farewell Address:

    The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
     

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

     
    Not exactly a multiculturalist manifesto, is it?

    Here’s a timely reminder of how the all-new, multicultural singin’ and dancin’ paradise of Sweden has developed to the point where kids think it’s safer in Nairobi, Kenya:

    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803201062712426-sweden-africa-ghetto/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    “perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation”

    Which is invisible (at least to media/academia), if not actually verboten, when those ancestors are Dead White Males.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. tyrone says:
    @Thomas O. Meehan
    If our country is (((Brooks))) experiment, what does that make us, lab rats?

    I’m no scientist but shouldn’t there be a control , I want to live there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I’m no scientist but shouldn’t there be a control , I want to live there.
     
    Brooks control is Israel. Are you sure you want to live there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Duh! Come on Steve, it’s in the Zeroth Amendment!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. JimB says:
    @Steve Sailer
    There doesn't appear to be anything about diversity or immigration in the City on the Hill stuff. The Puritans, of course, were extremely exclusionary and anti-diversity.

    The pilgrims evangelized the Indians with some success but ultimately couldn’t turn them into farmers, so the diversity experiment failed early and hard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Classical Liberal
    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It's in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It’s in the declaration of independence.

    “…in that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

    it does not say that they are equally intelligent or industrious or law abiding or tall or as fast as we are in running the hundred meter dash.

    So once they are citizens we have to respect those rights, but that does not mean that we have to invite them here in the first place if they are not, for example, intelligent or industrious or law abiding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Tiny Duck
    That's what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don’t really like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don’t really like.
     
    I don't think they've given up on the tried-and-true strategy of corrupting their leaders for a few crumbs from the table quite yet. I think that the Obama phenomenon just unleashed outsized expectations of blacks, who tend to think that once they've won a certain political office it's theirs for eternity. Difficult perhaps but doable with enough palm-greasing and Cadillacs for Reverends on phantom leases.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don’t really like.
     
    Ethnic cleansing is already going on right now in Chicago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Yada yada says:

    He can’t find it because it isn’t there. Instead, we have allowed Jews to pretty much create another America that never existed based on what is good for the Jews and their system of government sponsored usury, called capitalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    He can’t find it because it isn’t there. Instead, we have allowed Jews to pretty much create another America that never existed based on what is good for the Jews and their system of government sponsored usury, called capitalism.
     
    We should at least insist upon a name which reflects this substantial change.

    Brooklynistan?

    New Jerusalem?

    Seinfeldtopia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection

    In the midst of rapid globalization, the peaceful coexistence of cultures requires a deeper understanding of the forces that compel prosocial behavior and thwart xenophobia. Yet, the conditions promoting such outgroup-directed altruism have not been determined. Here we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that enhanced activity of the oxytocin system paired with charitable social cues can help counter the effects of xenophobia by fostering altruism toward refugees. These findings suggest that the combination of oxytocin and peer-derived altruistic norms reduces outgroup rejection even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals, and thereby would be expected to increase the ease by which people adapt to rapidly changing social ecosystems.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9314

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Anonymous
    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    Well, I’ve been studying South Carolina history most of my life, with the American Revolution in the Southern Colonies being a chief focus, and this is the very first I’ve read of this particular fellow. I’d run across his name, but never knew he was Jewish. So, in other words, he’s not a popular figure around here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    C'mon man! Don't you know that Salvador was far more important to Revolution-period South Carolina's history than fakers like Marion and Sumter?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Hibernian says:
    @Classical Liberal
    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It's in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    “…the proposition that all men are created equal.”

    And after that you’re on your own, baby.

    h/t WSJ ad circa 1985-1995

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Brotherly love and witch hunting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Hibernian says:
    @Dr. X
    From Washington's Farewell Address:

    The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
     

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

     
    Not exactly a multiculturalist manifesto, is it?

    The shades of difference included slaveholding vs. non-slaveholding, native born Americans who spoke German or Dutch as a first language, and a few Catholics and Jews including one Catholic signer each of the D of I and the Constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @istevefan

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment
     
    That's the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don't. It's our home not an experiment.

    “That’s the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don’t. It’s our home not an experiment.”

    In college debates with my Jewish friend when I pointed out to him the disastrous effects the Soviet Jew’s adoption of Pavlov’s Psychology had upon Soviet social science by positing that humans were a blank slate, putty to be molded by the State into perfected humanity, he very sheepishly–and that was the one and only time I saw him sheepish about anything–replied “At least we tried”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @black sea

    America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.
    --Sigmund Freud
     

    A Google Ngram graph of “American experiment” and a graph of the the % of the US population who are Jewish yield approximately the same curve, …

    … including that both have been tailing off somewhat in since the late twentieth century. So all this proposition nation stuff hasn’t actually been any better for the Jews than for other whites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevertheless,_she_persisted

    Like the feminists, apparently the urge to self-destruction is unstoppable, no matter how many others they take with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Yada yada
    He can't find it because it isn't there. Instead, we have allowed Jews to pretty much create another America that never existed based on what is good for the Jews and their system of government sponsored usury, called capitalism.

    He can’t find it because it isn’t there. Instead, we have allowed Jews to pretty much create another America that never existed based on what is good for the Jews and their system of government sponsored usury, called capitalism.

    We should at least insist upon a name which reflects this substantial change.

    Brooklynistan?

    New Jerusalem?

    Seinfeldtopia?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anonymous
    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    Okay, I laughed. That was a funny comment.

    But wasn’t it not unusual in those days for men to live together? Lincoln and Joshua Speed in the next century, for example. Besides the benefit of mutual protection in a frontier society, there are the usual benefits of communal living: cheaper housing, heat, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    In my working life in the late 50s and in the 60s when two fellow workers traveled together the government and the company saved money by insisting that we rent only one hotel room. As soon as gays “came out“ publicly, it was automatically, without comment, assumed that we would have separate rooms. This reduced productivity due to a reduction in, definitely non-sexual, bonding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Redneck farmer
    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don't really like.

    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don’t really like.

    I don’t think they’ve given up on the tried-and-true strategy of corrupting their leaders for a few crumbs from the table quite yet. I think that the Obama phenomenon just unleashed outsized expectations of blacks, who tend to think that once they’ve won a certain political office it’s theirs for eternity. Difficult perhaps but doable with enough palm-greasing and Cadillacs for Reverends on phantom leases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Brutusale says:
    @Tiny Duck
    That's what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    Someone should tell ol’ Leonard that white guys hate cleaning, but when their wives get on them about cleaning an area, the preferred method is to throw away everything not essential.

    Which, in this case, is you and Lenny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. fnn says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    IIRC Moldbug made a similar point -- I remember particularly FDR as a demarcation.

    Old Rightists like John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett said the same thing. But Moldbug never claimed to be saying anything new.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Almost Missouri
    Okay, I laughed. That was a funny comment.

    But wasn't it not unusual in those days for men to live together? Lincoln and Joshua Speed in the next century, for example. Besides the benefit of mutual protection in a frontier society, there are the usual benefits of communal living: cheaper housing, heat, etc.

    In my working life in the late 50s and in the 60s when two fellow workers traveled together the government and the company saved money by insisting that we rent only one hotel room. As soon as gays “came out“ publicly, it was automatically, without comment, assumed that we would have separate rooms. This reduced productivity due to a reduction in, definitely non-sexual, bonding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A lot of ex-servicemen in the population back then. Communal sleeping arrangements were just accepted as natural by that generation. Nobody saw anything inappropriate in it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. polskijoe says:

    Its sad many Americans dont understand how Freemasonry works.

    I find this lack of knowledge more common on average with Protestant population…

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    This site is like a black hole for talking about freemasonry. Perhaps because digging into that part of history will actually compel you into looking forward.. into globalism and gender ideology. And this site is about white male identitarians arguing with each other about WWII. Rehash the past, mutter about the Jews. Nothing useful, like actual political groups, networks and current ideologies. Good for coverage of some foreign policy stuff, tho.

    Anyway, and what do you think about YPO (Young Presidents Organization)? Is it para-Masonic? I know it is 'discreet', selective/coercive, but does it have Masonic roots?

    , @Crawfurdmuir

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).
     
    Many people (including enthusiastic Freemasons) make far too much of the role of Freemasonry in the American Revolution. It should be borne in mind that English Freemasonry had lost whatever political character following the failure of the Scottish rising of 1745. Yes, indeed, Washington and Franklin were Freemasons - but so was Lord Cornwallis. Indeed, one of the principal vectors through which Freemasonry was spread throughout the British empire was the Royal Army, which had numerous military lodges.

    During the time of the Revolution there were two rival Grand Lodges in England - the Antients, whose Grand Masters were the third and fourth Dukes of Atholl, and the Moderns, whose Grand Masters were Lord Petre and the Duke of Manchester. These two bodies were merged in 1813 as the United Grand Lodge of England, the first Grand Master of which was Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex - the sixth son of George III.

    So, the claim that the English-derived Freemasonry of the American Founders was in some respect radical or revolutionary does not seem to hold water. It used to be said that the Church of England was the establishment at prayer; so, Anglo-American Freemasonry was the establishment at lodge.

    Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America. In countries without a tradition of parliamentary government, the lodges with their oaths of secrecy provided natural gathering places for political factions, especially those that happened to be in opposition to the government. Moreover, in historically Roman Catholic countries they tended to be strongly anti-clerical. This was especially so in the case of the Grand Orient of France. Poinsett, when he was U.S. minister to Mexico, reported that in that country the two systems of higher degrees had effectively become partisan entities - the yorquinas and the escoseses - rival factions in politics having adhered respectively to the York Rite and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Such a state of affairs would be inconceivable in English-speaking Freemasonry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. rogue-one says:
    @syonredux

    Unity can come only from a common dedication to this experiment. The American consciousness can be formed only by the lab reports we give one another about that experiment
     
    I must be part of the control group....

    One of my favorites of these lab reports is Walt Whitman’s essay “Democratic Vistas,” published in 1871. The purpose of democracy, Whitman wrote, is not wealth, or even equality; it is the full flowering of individuals. By dispersing responsibility to all adults, democracy “supplies a training school for making first class men.” It is “life’s gymnasium.” It forges “freedom’s athletes” — strong and equal women, courageous men, deep-souled people capable of governing themselves.
     
    Whitman, the great American gasbag.....

    Whitman had hoped that the end of the Civil War and Lincoln’s sacrificial death would bring the nation together.
     
    On Good Friday.....Shouldn't that be a bit too Christian for you, Dave?

    Whitman feared economic and social feudalism, but above all he detested cultural and moral feudalism. He believed that writers, artists, musicians, poets and preachers were the real legislators of mankind, and in America they were detached from the nitty-gritty American experience. They still looked back to Europe — to the parlor, the perfumed courtier and the spirit of gentility — for their models of character, manners and education. They looked down on America’s democratic mass.

     

    Do you have a mirror in your house, Dave?

    Whitman was not, however, pessimistic. He had worked as a nurse during the Civil War, watching men recover and die, and the experience had given him illimitable faith in the goodness of average citizens. Average American soldiers showed more fortitude, religious devotion and grandeur than all the storybook heroes, he wrote. They died not for glory, nor even to repel invasion, but out of gratitude to have been included in the American experiment. They died “for an emblem, a mere abstraction — for the life, the safety of the flag.”
     
    Of course, Lincoln thought otherwise:

    We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
     

    So much of what he wrote rings true today: the need to see democratic life as an exhilarating adventure, the terrible damage done when you tell groups that they are of no account, the need for a unifying American mythos, the power of culture to provide that mythos
     
    But what mythos can unite Whites with Blacks, Anglos with Latinx? Blacks and Latinx have no love for Jamestown and Plymouth, Valley Forge, the Taming of the West.....They are deaf to Mark Twain and Willa Cather, blind to John Ford and Howard Hawks.....

    What shared mythos can unite the Washington Monument and the African American Museum.....

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/09/22/African-American-Museum/African-American-Museum.ngsversion.1474657203685.jpg

    >So much of what he wrote rings true today: the need to see democratic life as an exhilarating adventure, the terrible damage done when you tell groups that they are of no account, the need for a unifying American mythos, the power of culture to provide that mythos

    I am not sure if “racism” and “white privilege” are the unifying mythos Mr. Brooks is looking for.

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

    I thought Len Bias conducted the original “American Experiment”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Mr. Anon says:

    Experiment. Idea. Shining City on a Hill. Melting Pot. Salad Bowl.

    They’ll call America anything,………………except a nation.

    Actually a more fitting metaphor for America is: Pinata – everyone gets a whack at it with a stick to see what goodies will drop out.

    Read More
    • LOL: Brutusale
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. AndrewR says:
    @istevefan

    we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment
     
    That's the problem. Brooks and his ilk view America as an experiment. We don't. It's our home not an experiment.

    I don’t think you realize how radical, revolutionary and – yes – experimental the American system of government was and, in some ways, continues to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    If only the experiment he is referring to was about our system of government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, American history really began when great-grandpa arrived at Ellis Island.

    It's just perfectly normal ethnocentric ancestor adulation. The problem is nobody is allowed to joke about it, so everybody takes it seriously.

    perfectly normal ethnocentric

    No, it is abnormal hyper-ethnocentrism.

    Normal ethnocentrism leads to gratitude towards the benefactors of one’s tribe.

    Hyper-ethnocentrism leads to intense resentment or even hatred towards the benefactors of one’s tribe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. I used to think the majority of white Americans were like me, but recently have had it pointed out that this isn’t true. I am 100% founding stock, meaning ALL my ancestors were here prior to the Revolution. It seems I am a much rarer bird that I thought. This is more common in the South than elsewhere, as immigration to the South stagnated after 1780, and the majority of 19th century immigrants went to the North and Midwest, with very few coming South.

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?
     
    I seem to recall reading a study once that estimated that something like half of all Americans can trace the majority of their ancestry to people who arrived in the USA prior to 1800.
    , @Celerity
    An utter irrelevance. The Multicultural Republic came into being in 1965. The most profound of all Great Society legislation was the Immigration Act. Every ethnicity, from the Hmong to the Hindu, has found a home on these shores since then. Thank you, Lyndon Johnson (it’s always a Democrat, isn’t it ?)

    Unless you played a part in this seminal event, you are not “founding stock”. The Multicultural Republic is now 53 years old.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Giant Duck
    For people like David Brooks, the United States was founded in 1861 with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Things like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are necessary precursors, but are really for background knowledge only, a sort of pre-history. The United States that existed prior to Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction (especially the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) was not really "the United States." It was a sort of beta-testing pre-United States, not yet fully formed and not yet ready for prime time.

    In reality, Brooks is onto something and it would be more clear if we would use designations like the French, e.g., the first republic, second republic, etc., instead of pretending that we've been the same country from 1776 to today. Roughly, one might say that 1789 to 1861 was the First Republic, 1861 to 1877 (Reconstruction) was the Second Republic, 1877 to 1932 was the Third Republic, 1932 (election of FDR) to 1963 was the Fourth Republic, and 1963 (assassination of Kennedy) to today is the Fifth Republic. It is not yet clear if the election of Trump is sufficiently disruptive to be the origin of a new, Sixth Republic.

    For Brooks, the First Republic was not legitimate due mostly to the existence of slavery. So he starts the American clock at the Second Republic. This construction makes it easier to understand the statue-toppling mentality we see today - those old, First Republic statues aren't really part of "American" history, since they commemorate either people from before the real founding of the country in 1861, or people from the wrong side, who resisted the transition into the Second Republic of Lincoln.

    Great comment. I agree with the analysis. The United States which existed prior to 1861 is no more, and a new republic was born in 1861. This is one of the greatest ironies of the Gettysburg Address, that the soldiers being commemorated had actually fallen in the struggle to assure that a nation, “of the people, by the people,” would indeed perish from the earth, and actually two such nations did as a result of the war.

    The Old Republic was a free and voluntary one (if you were a free white man), but the New (Second) Republic enforced its will with cannon and bayonets, and was like the Mafia; you can join, but once you do, there’s no getting out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    Only after they find a way to work around the fact that he owned and slaves……plus the being scalped by Amerinds stuff would also have to be jettisoned….Maybe the musical could have him be killed by anti-Semitic Southern Protestants….

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

    I think they already tried this experiment in Germany about a hundred years ago and they didn’t like how it turned out the last time…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Flip says:
    @istevefan
    You'd think that Jews like Brooks could glom onto the Founding of the nation because of Haym Salomon. Of course I've heard people argue that he was either, a) the main reason we were able to fund the Revolution, or b) he was overrated and only became popular as Jews' status in the US increased.

    Given the fact that most Jews don't bring him up, or feel a connection to the Founding, maybe he wasn't as important as he has recently been made out to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. I know there are not very many other die-hard Constitutionalists on. here, but I, for one, appreciate the references to the founding document and the Declaration. Kudos! Anyway, this is not to argue the main point here, but the whole idea of Federalism was to allow the states to be “experiments in democracy”. I’ve read that term many times as written by the old-time founders, Tocqueville … that whole crowd.

    The idea though, was that the States were experiments, but the citizens were not just sets of data. They were the ones running the experiments. What a great concept, and it has never been even tried in a serious manner elsewhere in history anywhere in the world! Americans have every right to call their original country EXCEPTIONAL. (I’d have another application of that word to today’s ‘Merica!)

    Don’t like the puritan oppressive style in Taxachusetts? Move down to Alabama. Don’t think it’s cool that guys can marry 2 chicks? Get the F out of Utah, maybe they don’t want you. (OK, I know, the FEDGOV wouldn’t admit them to the Union with that liberty… they were starting early to destroy Federalism).

    That kind of experimentation is my kind of experimentation… not this BS by Brooks as I’ll comment more on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    “Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence”

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.”

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson’s proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness”.

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They’re also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people’s/our people’s heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    There are no historians or contextually informed people who would accept this, and it's a pretty well-trodden ground since it takes us directly to slavery. Also, that's an axiomatic starting point, not a law or a mission statement. Also, that's a letter explaining to friendly monarchs -- created equal but surely not born or presently equal -- that we were not pirates but rational people with a limited grievance. This is the same error as the idea that the "shining city on a hill" idea has any overlap with multikulti when it has no immigration element and is violently anti-multikulti.
    , @syonredux

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.”
     
    By happiness, Jefferson meant the kind of happiness that comes from civic virtue......Carol Hamilton has a rather good essay on the topic:

    Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the pursuit of happiness,” they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to “social happiness.”

     

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/46460


    Immigration by undesirables does not promote social happiness. Hence, it can be blocked.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman. Also, the engrossed copy of the Declaration reads “and the pursuit of Happinefs.” Happinefs were a type of jackrabbit, now long since extinct, so that doesn’t apply anymore.
    , @Corvinus
    "The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes..."

    He's OK. But he did commit a major not-noticing error here.

    “Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence...”

    From my vantage point, Mr. Sailer was trying to be annoyingly cute. According to this source, the Federalist Papers indeed has quotations about immigration.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/james_madison_foresaw_illegal_immigration.html

    Here is something related to Brooks' comment. In the Federalist Papers, a gentleman under the pen name "Agrippa" opposed ratification of the Constitution. “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts", referring to their dissimilarity. “They must, therefore, legislate for themselves”. According to John Jay, however, it was the apparent homogeneity of the American people that necessitated passage, considering people of the former 13 colonies had originated from common backgrounds and held similar beliefs.

    On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin was disgusted by the Germans who settled in Pennsylvania--this ethnic group was other than seen as "similar in their manners and customs" compared to the English. There was this seemingly natural suspicion for one another among the former colonists; at the same time, there was this seemingly natural admiration for one another. But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in--the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.

    , @Crawfurdmuir

    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?
     
    You missed the part about his wife Sarah and their four children. The assumption that because he shared a house with another man, he must have been gay, is projecting 21st century assumptions back onto 18th century events.

    Of course, that wouldn't prevent someone from making a Broadway musical based on such assumptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @al-Gharaniq
    When did America become an "experiment" rather than a "country" (or nation, nation-state, etc.)? Am I just remembering my history classes incorrectly, because I certainly don't remember the Revolutionary or Civil War being fought for an experiment. It's fairly insidious how these journalists are able to make you forget America is a sovereign state rather than an open borders, immigrant sanctuary. All they do is substitute "experiment" for "nation."

    Sorry, Al, I thought I’d read all the comments first, but my one just above could have been a reply to you. The experiment was in Federalism. It was in no way some kind of experiment in dieversity or multi-culturalism, per the great comments above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @istevefan
    That's a good point. Consent was never sought nor given. If anything it appears WE must receive consent from them in order to curtail immigration, enforce immigration laws or even build a sufficient barrier along our border.

    As far as experimenting who would experiment with arguably the greatest nation in history? I often engage with climate alarmists who are surprised that I don't believe in man-made climate change. They often leave me with this:

    "OK, so we might be wrong, but what if we are correct? Are you willing to take the chance on destroying the planet?"

    We should be able to make a similar argument with the nation experimenters. "What if you are wrong? Why are you risking one of the greatest nations in history on an unproven experiment that cannot possibly make the the nation any better, only worse?"

    After all, we did put men on the moon pre-diversity. Even if a diversified USA is not a total disaster, the bar has been set so high there is no where to go but down.

    Of all the things you risk, you would think the last would be a functioning nation. People throughout history have continually fought and died to have countries that are favorable to them. So it makes absolutely no sense to start a crazy experiment once you have actually achieved that goal of a functioning, high-trust nation.

    Great way to put this, istevefan, in terms of the comparison to your GlobalClimateDisruption(TM)-admitter friend. However, I have plenty of arguments against your friends closing statement. I have heard that one many times, and, upon looking through all my posts on Global Climate Stupidity I could not now just find a refutation written out.

    Yes, I wanted to be the first to mention this, but, I saw this point in the middle of the comments: Right! When you design this kind of experiment you must have a control group. It’s not just that the instigators of this immigration-invasion/population-replacement “experiment” didn’t allow for a control group. They do not want one, it seems, and won’t let one exist. Could not Utah at least, or Montana, or Maine, be small control groups. Lot of people can fit into those place. No, though, they want to import multiculturalism into every nook and crany.

    Along with the point of “do you really want to screw around with a whole nation, not knowing how this will turn out?!” comes the question “Couldn’t you leave a control group untouched, so even if we can’t back out of the experiment, we can high-tail it to the control-zone?”

    I know the answers though. This is a globalist plan – they know the results will not be to our liking. They THINK they results will be to THEIR liking, but I don’t they THINK hard enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    They do not want one, it seems, and won’t let one exist. Could not Utah at least, or Montana, or Maine, be small control groups. Lot of people can fit into those place. No, though, they want to import multiculturalism into every nook and crany.
     
    They don't want a control group because a control group would stand out like a sore thumb, or should I say a healthy thumb.

    From the Movie Full Metal Jacket, "It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps a review of the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts passed by the US Congress would be in order?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Perhaps a review of the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts passed by the US Congress would be in order?"

    Posterity does NOT refer only to one's own children, but as with the synonymous "legacy" also has the broader meaning of what we leave behind. The Founding Fathers were self-consciously leaving behind other than a genetic legacy. The motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects their legacy, setting up the mechanisms of government they invented to secure liberty against tyranny. Recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: "The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document. The Founding Fathers clearly desired "to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us." Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution. Of course, that does not mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, as Congress sets the standards for immigration. But the proposition remains that there are hoops for newcomers to jump through.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”--which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.” James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”. At the time of the Founding Fathers, their worldview was European, which is other than surprising. However, as we have seen throughout the course of human history, perspectives change over time due to a host of factors.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Anonymous
    But the PC Mafia says that the "real" United States was post-1965. Brooks is clearly trying to delude his bigoted brain into thinking his ancestors are free from the taint of white maleness.

    Yes, I think this view has some momentum now. It makes a sort of reductionist sense for the tens of millions of post 1965 immigrants. Their history starts at that time, so who cares what came before? Eventually, Lincoln will be seen as a retrograde white male racist and the founding of the “real” United States will be marked by either the 1963 Civil Rights march on Washington, or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Maybe 1964 as a compromise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anonymous
    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    "Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence"

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson's Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness".

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They're also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people's/our people's heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    There are no historians or contextually informed people who would accept this, and it’s a pretty well-trodden ground since it takes us directly to slavery. Also, that’s an axiomatic starting point, not a law or a mission statement. Also, that’s a letter explaining to friendly monarchs — created equal but surely not born or presently equal — that we were not pirates but rational people with a limited grievance. This is the same error as the idea that the “shining city on a hill” idea has any overlap with multikulti when it has no immigration element and is violently anti-multikulti.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. istevefan says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Great way to put this, istevefan, in terms of the comparison to your GlobalClimateDisruption(TM)-admitter friend. However, I have plenty of arguments against your friends closing statement. I have heard that one many times, and, upon looking through all my posts on Global Climate Stupidity I could not now just find a refutation written out.

    Yes, I wanted to be the first to mention this, but, I saw this point in the middle of the comments: Right! When you design this kind of experiment you must have a control group. It's not just that the instigators of this immigration-invasion/population-replacement "experiment" didn't allow for a control group. They do not want one, it seems, and won't let one exist. Could not Utah at least, or Montana, or Maine, be small control groups. Lot of people can fit into those place. No, though, they want to import multiculturalism into every nook and crany.

    Along with the point of "do you really want to screw around with a whole nation, not knowing how this will turn out?!" comes the question "Couldn't you leave a control group untouched, so even if we can't back out of the experiment, we can high-tail it to the control-zone?"

    I know the answers though. This is a globalist plan - they know the results will not be to our liking. They THINK they results will be to THEIR liking, but I don't they THINK hard enough.

    They do not want one, it seems, and won’t let one exist. Could not Utah at least, or Montana, or Maine, be small control groups. Lot of people can fit into those place. No, though, they want to import multiculturalism into every nook and crany.

    They don’t want a control group because a control group would stand out like a sore thumb, or should I say a healthy thumb.

    From the Movie Full Metal Jacket, “It’s a huge shit sandwich and we’re all gonna have to take a bite.”

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

    From France 24 comes this quote from PM Netanyahu

    DIMONA (ISRAEL) (AFP) –

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that an electronic fence along the Israel-Egypt border has saved the Jewish state from jihadist attacks or what he believes would be worse — a tide of African migrants.

    “Were it not for the fence, we would be faced with… severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa,” Netanyahu’s office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.

    Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn’t dream of conducting a similar one in theirs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross

    Netanyahu’s office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.
     
    This is a big detail. He wasn't speaking to journalists, certainly not to English-language press, or even to Tel Aviv liberals.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Corvinus
    "Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn’t dream of conducting a similar one in theirs."

    Wait, I could not help but notice that several posters here on this fine blog had argued that Jews are in FAVOR of demographic change by way of diversity and demographic change. So is Bibi a "good Jew" because he is going against conventional thought, and those who neglect to follow his lead "bad Jews"? Please clarify.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. syonredux says:
    @anonymous
    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    "Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence"

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson's Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness".

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They're also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people's/our people's heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.”

    By happiness, Jefferson meant the kind of happiness that comes from civic virtue……Carol Hamilton has a rather good essay on the topic:

    Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the pursuit of happiness,” they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia. The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to “social happiness.”

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/46460

    Immigration by undesirables does not promote social happiness. Hence, it can be blocked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. syonredux says:
    @RebelWriter
    I used to think the majority of white Americans were like me, but recently have had it pointed out that this isn't true. I am 100% founding stock, meaning ALL my ancestors were here prior to the Revolution. It seems I am a much rarer bird that I thought. This is more common in the South than elsewhere, as immigration to the South stagnated after 1780, and the majority of 19th century immigrants went to the North and Midwest, with very few coming South.

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?

    I seem to recall reading a study once that estimated that something like half of all Americans can trace the majority of their ancestry to people who arrived in the USA prior to 1800.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Probably overlaps nicely with the half of the country that supports Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @syonredux

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?
     
    I seem to recall reading a study once that estimated that something like half of all Americans can trace the majority of their ancestry to people who arrived in the USA prior to 1800.

    Probably overlaps nicely with the half of the country that supports Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Maybe. I'm new stock (Ellis Island era) and know plenty of even more recently arrived Trumpeters (eg, conservative Indics and East Asians). I would expect either the opposite or another condition: a well-established line becomes prosperous and therefore decadent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    iSteve, you hit a grand-salami with that one! And here all this time I thought E. Lazarus wrote the Constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @anonymous
    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    "Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence"

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson's Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness".

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They're also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people's/our people's heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    LOL. Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman. Also, the engrossed copy of the Declaration reads “and the pursuit of Happinefs.” Happinefs were a type of jackrabbit, now long since extinct, so that doesn’t apply anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman."

    Except those "savages" and "slave stock" were indeed men from a biological perspective.
    , @anonymous
    Hardly all. Benjamin Franklin was a typical Quaker, and became a radical Abolitionist late in life.

    He wrote to an English friend that he had "conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children." With this adjustment, Franklin rejected the dominant racial theory of the time and actually came closer to the views most Americans hold today.
     
    He apparently spent the last years trying to shame his fellows while joining organizations named like "Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage," and for that received comments such as being "an abhorrent old man...speedily wish his death." No one loves busybodies, then or now. But its obvious that the Founders were not all of one mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @istevefan
    You'd think that Jews like Brooks could glom onto the Founding of the nation because of Haym Salomon. Of course I've heard people argue that he was either, a) the main reason we were able to fund the Revolution, or b) he was overrated and only became popular as Jews' status in the US increased.

    Given the fact that most Jews don't bring him up, or feel a connection to the Founding, maybe he wasn't as important as he has recently been made out to be.

    The Haym Salomon “financial founding father” story is complete fiction.

    His son was pretty good at scamming Congress though.

    The most thorough expose:

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    Thanks for the link.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Kyle says:
    @Tiny Duck
    That's what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    “whether white men confront their past present and future evil”

    I love it. Does that qualify as a straw man attack?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. J.Ross says: • Website
    @RebelWriter
    Probably overlaps nicely with the half of the country that supports Trump.

    Maybe. I’m new stock (Ellis Island era) and know plenty of even more recently arrived Trumpeters (eg, conservative Indics and East Asians). I would expect either the opposite or another condition: a well-established line becomes prosperous and therefore decadent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. J.Ross says: • Website
    @istevefan
    From France 24 comes this quote from PM Netanyahu

    DIMONA (ISRAEL) (AFP) -

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that an electronic fence along the Israel-Egypt border has saved the Jewish state from jihadist attacks or what he believes would be worse -- a tide of African migrants.

    "Were it not for the fence, we would be faced with... severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa," Netanyahu's office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.
     
    Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn't dream of conducting a similar one in theirs.

    Netanyahu’s office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.

    This is a big detail. He wasn’t speaking to journalists, certainly not to English-language press, or even to Tel Aviv liberals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Dimona being the home of Israel's nuclear program:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    we must be knit together, in this work, as one man

    ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies

    Fascism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Celerity says:
    @RebelWriter
    I used to think the majority of white Americans were like me, but recently have had it pointed out that this isn't true. I am 100% founding stock, meaning ALL my ancestors were here prior to the Revolution. It seems I am a much rarer bird that I thought. This is more common in the South than elsewhere, as immigration to the South stagnated after 1780, and the majority of 19th century immigrants went to the North and Midwest, with very few coming South.

    On another site we started trying to figure out whether or not the founding stock was outnumbered by the 19th century immigrants. We could find no direct comparisons, and the numbers for immigrants for the period in question were inconsistent.

    Has anyone here ever looked into this?

    An utter irrelevance. The Multicultural Republic came into being in 1965. The most profound of all Great Society legislation was the Immigration Act. Every ethnicity, from the Hmong to the Hindu, has found a home on these shores since then. Thank you, Lyndon Johnson (it’s always a Democrat, isn’t it ?)

    Unless you played a part in this seminal event, you are not “founding stock”. The Multicultural Republic is now 53 years old.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Karl says:
    @Anon
    "Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment..."

    David Brooks is so devoted to the American 'Experiment' that his kid served in a foreign country's army. You don't think these people are being disingenuous or anything, do you?

    57 Anon > David Brooks is so devoted to the American ‘Experiment’ that his kid served in a foreign country’s army

    I have searched – and I cannot find any written evidence that it actually happened.

    I find written evidence that he told an audience of elderly American Jewish ladies in LA that it happened.

    it’s the kind of comment you would throw around if you were trying to establish yourself on the renumerated-speaker’s-fee circuit of the sort of audiences that have money.

    Not money like Sheldon Adelson. Money like your dentist’s wife.

    to a journalist who isn’t quite smart enough to get hired by an actual business newspaper, that’s good money.

    If I was bad guy, I could ask if journalist iSteve does more original investigative reporting than David Brooks does – but who’s asking?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    David Brooks: Gaza War Proved My Son Was Right to Serve in IDF
    NYT columnist-writer talks about his eldest son's decision to become a 'lone soldier' in Israel, and being liberals' 'favorite conservative.'
     

    Brooks has always had a close attachment to Israel – hes visited the country almost every year since 1991. But in the past few months those ties have become even stronger, as his eldest son, aged 23, has enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces in the Lone Soldier program (for soldiers with no family living in Israel).
     

    His son arrived [in Israel] probably four or five months ago, Brooks tells Haaretz, in a telephone interview conducted last month. To be honest, Im a little uncomfortable talking about that, because its his own life. When I said that to Katie, I told her I wanted him to have his own life and not be talked about so much in public – referring to a July interview he did with Yahoo News Katie Couric, in which he first revealed that his son had decided to enlist in the Israeli army. After the Gaza war, he says, Im more convinced that its the right thing to do.
     
    https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/.premium-gaza-war-showed-my-son-was-right-to-join-idf-1.5315633
    , @Brutusale
    Your Google Fu needs work, my friend.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/david-brooks-son-idf-israeli-army.html

    As 5 seconds of searching will show you, it wasn't exactly a secret.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Forbes says:
    @Classical Liberal
    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It's in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    And read in context with the rest of the document–a document that was a declaration to dissolve the political bonds with the British Crown, denying the royal prerogative of the Monarch to rule other men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous
    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    "Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence"

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson's Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness".

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They're also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people's/our people's heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    “The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes…”

    He’s OK. But he did commit a major not-noticing error here.

    “Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence…”

    From my vantage point, Mr. Sailer was trying to be annoyingly cute. According to this source, the Federalist Papers indeed has quotations about immigration.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/james_madison_foresaw_illegal_immigration.html

    Here is something related to Brooks’ comment. In the Federalist Papers, a gentleman under the pen name “Agrippa” opposed ratification of the Constitution. “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts”, referring to their dissimilarity. “They must, therefore, legislate for themselves”. According to John Jay, however, it was the apparent homogeneity of the American people that necessitated passage, considering people of the former 13 colonies had originated from common backgrounds and held similar beliefs.

    On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin was disgusted by the Germans who settled in Pennsylvania–this ethnic group was other than seen as “similar in their manners and customs” compared to the English. There was this seemingly natural suspicion for one another among the former colonists; at the same time, there was this seemingly natural admiration for one another. But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in–the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in–the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.
     
    That kind of assimilation/amalgamation has been most successful with Europeans......Hence the term White American (what else fits a person who is 25% English, 25% Finnish, 25% Italian, and 25% Ashkenazi?).....But's it's been markedly less successful with Amerind/Mestizo Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims.....To them, Anglo Whites are the eternal enemy.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous
    Perhaps a review of the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts passed by the US Congress would be in order?

    “Perhaps a review of the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts passed by the US Congress would be in order?”

    Posterity does NOT refer only to one’s own children, but as with the synonymous “legacy” also has the broader meaning of what we leave behind. The Founding Fathers were self-consciously leaving behind other than a genetic legacy. The motto “Novus Ordo Seclorum” reflects their legacy, setting up the mechanisms of government they invented to secure liberty against tyranny. Recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: “The Congress shall have Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….” By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document. The Founding Fathers clearly desired “to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution. Of course, that does not mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, as Congress sets the standards for immigration. But the proposition remains that there are hoops for newcomers to jump through.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”–which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.” James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”. At the time of the Founding Fathers, their worldview was European, which is other than surprising. However, as we have seen throughout the course of human history, perspectives change over time due to a host of factors.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one’s own children. In particular, “Novus Ordo Seclorum” reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one’s racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….” By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the “original” settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”.
     
    Hamilton also had some other words on the subject of immigration.....

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

     


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

    “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
     
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Corvinus says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman. Also, the engrossed copy of the Declaration reads “and the pursuit of Happinefs.” Happinefs were a type of jackrabbit, now long since extinct, so that doesn’t apply anymore.

    “Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman.”

    Except those “savages” and “slave stock” were indeed men from a biological perspective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    … were indeed men from a biological perspective.
     
    Corvinus, you’re the master of damning with faint praise. ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman. Also, the engrossed copy of the Declaration reads “and the pursuit of Happinefs.” Happinefs were a type of jackrabbit, now long since extinct, so that doesn’t apply anymore.

    Hardly all. Benjamin Franklin was a typical Quaker, and became a radical Abolitionist late in life.

    He wrote to an English friend that he had “conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children.” With this adjustment, Franklin rejected the dominant racial theory of the time and actually came closer to the views most Americans hold today.

    He apparently spent the last years trying to shame his fellows while joining organizations named like “Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage,” and for that received comments such as being “an abhorrent old man…speedily wish his death.” No one loves busybodies, then or now. But its obvious that the Founders were not all of one mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Benjamin Franklin was a typical Quaker

    No, Franklin was from a Puritan background in Boston. He was usually on the opposite side from the Quakers in local Pennsylvania politics for complicated reasons. He didn't mind being thought of as a Quaker in Europe because Quakers had a friendlier image than New England Puritans.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus
    "Perhaps a review of the 1790 and 1795 immigration acts passed by the US Congress would be in order?"

    Posterity does NOT refer only to one's own children, but as with the synonymous "legacy" also has the broader meaning of what we leave behind. The Founding Fathers were self-consciously leaving behind other than a genetic legacy. The motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects their legacy, setting up the mechanisms of government they invented to secure liberty against tyranny. Recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: "The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document. The Founding Fathers clearly desired "to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us." Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution. Of course, that does not mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, as Congress sets the standards for immigration. But the proposition remains that there are hoops for newcomers to jump through.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”--which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.” James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”. At the time of the Founding Fathers, their worldview was European, which is other than surprising. However, as we have seen throughout the course of human history, perspectives change over time due to a host of factors.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its underpinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor.

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”.

    Hamilton also had some other words on the subject of immigration…..

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

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

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

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0282

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus
    "The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes..."

    He's OK. But he did commit a major not-noticing error here.

    “Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence...”

    From my vantage point, Mr. Sailer was trying to be annoyingly cute. According to this source, the Federalist Papers indeed has quotations about immigration.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/james_madison_foresaw_illegal_immigration.html

    Here is something related to Brooks' comment. In the Federalist Papers, a gentleman under the pen name "Agrippa" opposed ratification of the Constitution. “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts", referring to their dissimilarity. “They must, therefore, legislate for themselves”. According to John Jay, however, it was the apparent homogeneity of the American people that necessitated passage, considering people of the former 13 colonies had originated from common backgrounds and held similar beliefs.

    On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin was disgusted by the Germans who settled in Pennsylvania--this ethnic group was other than seen as "similar in their manners and customs" compared to the English. There was this seemingly natural suspicion for one another among the former colonists; at the same time, there was this seemingly natural admiration for one another. But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in--the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.

    But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in–the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.

    That kind of assimilation/amalgamation has been most successful with Europeans……Hence the term White American (what else fits a person who is 25% English, 25% Finnish, 25% Italian, and 25% Ashkenazi?)…..But’s it’s been markedly less successful with Amerind/Mestizo Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims…..To them, Anglo Whites are the eternal enemy…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That kind of assimilation/amalgamation has been most successful with Europeans".

    Europeans AND non-Europeans.

    "Hence the term White American (what else fits a person who is 25% English, 25% Finnish, 25% Italian, and 25% Ashkenazi)."

    No, just American.

    "But’s it’s been markedly less successful with Amerind/Mestizo Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims…..To them, Anglo Whites are the eternal enemy…."

    That would be Fake News you are peddling.

    "Hamilton also had some other words on the subject of immigration..."

    Yes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. syonredux says:
    @Karl
    57 Anon > David Brooks is so devoted to the American ‘Experiment’ that his kid served in a foreign country’s army


    I have searched - and I cannot find any written evidence that it actually happened.

    I find written evidence that he told an audience of elderly American Jewish ladies in LA that it happened.

    it's the kind of comment you would throw around if you were trying to establish yourself on the renumerated-speaker's-fee circuit of the sort of audiences that have money.

    Not money like Sheldon Adelson. Money like your dentist's wife.

    to a journalist who isn't quite smart enough to get hired by an actual business newspaper, that's good money.

    If I was bad guy, I could ask if journalist iSteve does more original investigative reporting than David Brooks does - but who's asking?

    David Brooks: Gaza War Proved My Son Was Right to Serve in IDF
    NYT columnist-writer talks about his eldest son’s decision to become a ‘lone soldier’ in Israel, and being liberals’ ‘favorite conservative.’

    Brooks has always had a close attachment to Israel – hes visited the country almost every year since 1991. But in the past few months those ties have become even stronger, as his eldest son, aged 23, has enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces in the Lone Soldier program (for soldiers with no family living in Israel).

    His son arrived [in Israel] probably four or five months ago, Brooks tells Haaretz, in a telephone interview conducted last month. To be honest, Im a little uncomfortable talking about that, because its his own life. When I said that to Katie, I told her I wanted him to have his own life and not be talked about so much in public – referring to a July interview he did with Yahoo News Katie Couric, in which he first revealed that his son had decided to enlist in the Israeli army. After the Gaza war, he says, Im more convinced that its the right thing to do.

    https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/.premium-gaza-war-showed-my-son-was-right-to-join-idf-1.5315633

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @anonymous
    Hardly all. Benjamin Franklin was a typical Quaker, and became a radical Abolitionist late in life.

    He wrote to an English friend that he had "conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children." With this adjustment, Franklin rejected the dominant racial theory of the time and actually came closer to the views most Americans hold today.
     
    He apparently spent the last years trying to shame his fellows while joining organizations named like "Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage," and for that received comments such as being "an abhorrent old man...speedily wish his death." No one loves busybodies, then or now. But its obvious that the Founders were not all of one mind.

    Benjamin Franklin was a typical Quaker

    No, Franklin was from a Puritan background in Boston. He was usually on the opposite side from the Quakers in local Pennsylvania politics for complicated reasons. He didn’t mind being thought of as a Quaker in Europe because Quakers had a friendlier image than New England Puritans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Classical Liberal
    America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It's in the declaration of independence.

    https://imgur.com/IeOU7BS

    Context.
    The rights of Englishmen, colonists creating civilization out of wilderness, asking their King back in England to recognize their rights equal to Englishmen in the Mother Country.
    To read universalism into TJ’s phrase is not valid.
    We are English by blood, language, culture. We are settlers, colonists, homesteaders, pioneers.
    The “proposition nation” is a modern rumor. Check the web tool for word use through time. Americans self identified as pioneers, settlers, homesteaders since the beginning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The “proposition nation” is a modern rumor."

    No, you are decidedly in error. I am paraphrasing the fine work of author Tom Krautman who wrote about this topic -->

    “Posterity” has three possible meanings: one’s actual legal descendants and heirs, one’s succeeding generations, or simply refers to later times. Samuel Johnson in his dictionary preceding the Revolution and in his edition contemporary with defines it as both descendants and succeeding generations. Note if “succeeding generations” means the same thing as descendants, or vice versa, it would have been unnecessary to include both definitions. He also cited to Latin, wherein posteritas refers means future generations, one’s actual descendants, AND future times.

    Now, Johnson was NOT descended from the successful revolutionaries of 1776 nor even related to the statesmen of 1789. Thus, we could discount him and his dictionary. Yet, Webster’s Dictionary at that same time uses the same definitions, and employs the same language of the day. How do we address “the addition of the word ‘our’ must restrict it to descendants alone?” Simply, we add “our” to either definition and both stand equally well on their own – “our descendants,” “our succeeding generations” – without changing their relationship or meaning.

    Indeed, Madison and company COULD have meant only the descendants of the then “People of the United States”, which includes the half-white, half-Indian, and Dutch, German, Scots, Irish, and French. half breeds from Indian-settler matches, Dutch and Germans, Scots and Irish. Lafayette, von Steuben, Pulaski, and Kosciuszko, not native born, so they had to go back.

    However, it would have been easy enough for the Founding Fathers to have written into the Constitution, words to the effect of, “The law for citizenship in the United States shall be the same as prevailed in that other great democracy, Athens, at the time of Pericles”, which would given special consideration in deserving cases, most notably Pericles’ son by the courtesan, Aspasia, was granted citizenship, even though not full blooded Athenian. There were dozens of ways to have restricted citizenship, but the Founding Fathers, being educated and intelligent men, neglected to make those distinctions.

    Rather, they wrote into the Constitution an understanding and intent to permit naturalization, with the implication of immigration, in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2—“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen” AND Article One, Section Three, Clause Three—“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    The Founding Fathers here were focusing exclusively on higher qualifications for more important offices, in the context of permitting people who were not citizens, who came from outside, to come in and become citizens. Shortly thereafter, Naturalization Act of 1790, written by men closely in tune with the tenor of the times and either drafters of the Constitution, or associates of those who drafted it – permitted free white aliens, who had been resident for two years, to become citizens.

    YET granted Congress the expressive permission to change such criteria. While this act was restrictive, it was not restricted to British white people, and certainly not only descendants of those here prior to the Revolution. What about Negroes and Asians and womenfolk? Well, we have an amendment process.

    "We are English by blood, language, culture. We are settlers, colonists, homesteaders, pioneers."

    We, as in those who are English. Although, prominent members of the Alt Right find fault with those “current Americans” who trace their ancestry to the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, and the Slavs. Why? Well, since their relatives were “allowed” to enter America, their undesirable traits have eroded and diluted the customs and traditions created by the original founders of the United States, the English. It is not an issue of being white, but being non-English.

    To quote, “The American civic heritage does not “transcend ethnicity”, as I [Vox Day], or any other American Indian, can tell you. And it is restricted by geographic extent. The Chinese, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the British are not Americans…[Moreover], there is nothing exceptional about America except its superior founding stock and its geographic advantages, both of which are now significantly reduced.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. What is/are the American Experiment(s)?

    The first experiment was the Articles of Confederation. That didn’t last long.

    Some have suggested we divide the Constitutional phase of our nation’s history into several time frames. Before and after the Great Unpleasantness. Maybe Reconstruction, the New Deal to the Great Society, etc.

    Anthropologists often divide civilizations into three parts: Pre-Classic, Classic and Post-Classic.

    One article I read said our society entered the Classic state in 1945. I have no idea if we are entering, or are in, the Post-Classic state yet.

    The way each phase works:

    In the Pre-Classic era, life can be very tough, and the people of the civilization are tough and frugal. Civilizations are more likely to fight very brutal wars, more likely to have human sacrifice, more likely to have harsh punishments, etc. It is the toughness and frugality that build up the civilization for the Classic era. Immigration may or may not be encouraged, depending on whether it is needed to build the society to the Classic state.

    The Classic era is the most pleasant, but can be very wasteful. People are softer. Fewer brutal wars are fought. (Compare the Civil War, WW I and WW II in the Pre-Classic era to the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and other conflicts — not even declared wars — of the Classic era.) Fewer human sacrifices, less harsh punishments (many places end capital punishment, etc.) The people tend to get soft and wasteful. The waste and sloth lead to the Post-Classic era. Immigration at this point is either because the society is too weak to care, or because families are no longer having many children. Remember, during the Roman Empire, pagan Roman women during the Classic phase pretty much stopped having kids. Only Christians and Barbarians had kids. (Greatly exaggerated, but you get the point).

    In the Post-Classic era, many of the resources that enabled the rise to the Classic era are gone. The people are soft, but life is getting harder generation by generation. Eventually something comes along to end the civilization. It could be an environmental disaster, such as a drought for an area that is using up too much water. It could be invasion by barbarians. It could be takeover by some sub-groups within the population. For example, Christians taking over the Roman Empire was considered to be part of the reason for the fall of the Empire, along with the rush in of barbarians.

    I have no idea whether we are in the Post-Classic era yet. In most civilizations, the Classic part lasts for anywhere from a century to several centuries.

    I think of my mother, who was born in Oklahoma at the beginning of the Great Depression. She has seen the harshness of the Pre-Classic era, the greatness of the Classic era, and possibly the beginning of the Post-Classic era just in her lifetime.

    As for our future — the white Christians will go the way of the Roman Pagans of Italian extract.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @polskijoe
    Its sad many Americans dont understand how Freemasonry works.

    I find this lack of knowledge more common on average with Protestant population...

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).

    This site is like a black hole for talking about freemasonry. Perhaps because digging into that part of history will actually compel you into looking forward.. into globalism and gender ideology. And this site is about white male identitarians arguing with each other about WWII. Rehash the past, mutter about the Jews. Nothing useful, like actual political groups, networks and current ideologies. Good for coverage of some foreign policy stuff, tho.

    Anyway, and what do you think about YPO (Young Presidents Organization)? Is it para-Masonic? I know it is ‘discreet’, selective/coercive, but does it have Masonic roots?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Hume
    In my working life in the late 50s and in the 60s when two fellow workers traveled together the government and the company saved money by insisting that we rent only one hotel room. As soon as gays “came out“ publicly, it was automatically, without comment, assumed that we would have separate rooms. This reduced productivity due to a reduction in, definitely non-sexual, bonding.

    A lot of ex-servicemen in the population back then. Communal sleeping arrangements were just accepted as natural by that generation. Nobody saw anything inappropriate in it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Corvinus
    "Obviously the Founders were talking about men, not savages or slave stock, which they generally considered subhuman."

    Except those "savages" and "slave stock" were indeed men from a biological perspective.

    … were indeed men from a biological perspective.

    Corvinus, you’re the master of damning with faint praise. ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Tiny Duck
    That's what it is now

    America and the rest of the western world was all about white supremacy

    As Leonard Pitts has said many times the great struggle of our time will be whether white men confront their past present and future evil and will work to make America what it should be and not what it is

    The mere existence of pale-skinned monkey-human hybrids originating from the tundras of Europe, which creatures we falsely call white “people,” is by its very nature white supremacist. White people using the resources of this earth all of which rightfully belong to everybody else living in communion with nature is absolutely reprehensible and unforgivable. Oxygen and water belong to PoC alone. Only an idiot would deny that whiteness is the origin of all oppression and suffering from the dawn of the universe to the present day and beyond. No soul has ever been exploited, unfairly treated, or killed except in the name of the socially constructed toxic ideological hegemony known as Whiteness. Just read history, just glance at statistics, and you will find that every single atrocity was either committed by white people as a result of their irresistible innate predilection for evil, or if committed by brown bodies of color was so committed under the white man’s duress or ultimate control and influence. And to rectify the world’s misery, to quote Leonard Pitts, to redeem the world from the monstrosities of European pale maleness and Western Uncivilization, pale stale whitey males must confront their ineluctable evil with sterilization or the noose. America and the entire world will only what they should be and not what they are once white people vanish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Corvinus says:
    @Sarah Toga
    Context.
    The rights of Englishmen, colonists creating civilization out of wilderness, asking their King back in England to recognize their rights equal to Englishmen in the Mother Country.
    To read universalism into TJ's phrase is not valid.
    We are English by blood, language, culture. We are settlers, colonists, homesteaders, pioneers.
    The "proposition nation" is a modern rumor. Check the web tool for word use through time. Americans self identified as pioneers, settlers, homesteaders since the beginning.

    “The “proposition nation” is a modern rumor.”

    No, you are decidedly in error. I am paraphrasing the fine work of author Tom Krautman who wrote about this topic –>

    “Posterity” has three possible meanings: one’s actual legal descendants and heirs, one’s succeeding generations, or simply refers to later times. Samuel Johnson in his dictionary preceding the Revolution and in his edition contemporary with defines it as both descendants and succeeding generations. Note if “succeeding generations” means the same thing as descendants, or vice versa, it would have been unnecessary to include both definitions. He also cited to Latin, wherein posteritas refers means future generations, one’s actual descendants, AND future times.

    Now, Johnson was NOT descended from the successful revolutionaries of 1776 nor even related to the statesmen of 1789. Thus, we could discount him and his dictionary. Yet, Webster’s Dictionary at that same time uses the same definitions, and employs the same language of the day. How do we address “the addition of the word ‘our’ must restrict it to descendants alone?” Simply, we add “our” to either definition and both stand equally well on their own – “our descendants,” “our succeeding generations” – without changing their relationship or meaning.

    Indeed, Madison and company COULD have meant only the descendants of the then “People of the United States”, which includes the half-white, half-Indian, and Dutch, German, Scots, Irish, and French. half breeds from Indian-settler matches, Dutch and Germans, Scots and Irish. Lafayette, von Steuben, Pulaski, and Kosciuszko, not native born, so they had to go back.

    However, it would have been easy enough for the Founding Fathers to have written into the Constitution, words to the effect of, “The law for citizenship in the United States shall be the same as prevailed in that other great democracy, Athens, at the time of Pericles”, which would given special consideration in deserving cases, most notably Pericles’ son by the courtesan, Aspasia, was granted citizenship, even though not full blooded Athenian. There were dozens of ways to have restricted citizenship, but the Founding Fathers, being educated and intelligent men, neglected to make those distinctions.

    Rather, they wrote into the Constitution an understanding and intent to permit naturalization, with the implication of immigration, in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2—“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen” AND Article One, Section Three, Clause Three—“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

    The Founding Fathers here were focusing exclusively on higher qualifications for more important offices, in the context of permitting people who were not citizens, who came from outside, to come in and become citizens. Shortly thereafter, Naturalization Act of 1790, written by men closely in tune with the tenor of the times and either drafters of the Constitution, or associates of those who drafted it – permitted free white aliens, who had been resident for two years, to become citizens.

    YET granted Congress the expressive permission to change such criteria. While this act was restrictive, it was not restricted to British white people, and certainly not only descendants of those here prior to the Revolution. What about Negroes and Asians and womenfolk? Well, we have an amendment process.

    “We are English by blood, language, culture. We are settlers, colonists, homesteaders, pioneers.”

    We, as in those who are English. Although, prominent members of the Alt Right find fault with those “current Americans” who trace their ancestry to the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, and the Slavs. Why? Well, since their relatives were “allowed” to enter America, their undesirable traits have eroded and diluted the customs and traditions created by the original founders of the United States, the English. It is not an issue of being white, but being non-English.

    To quote, “The American civic heritage does not “transcend ethnicity”, as I [Vox Day], or any other American Indian, can tell you. And it is restricted by geographic extent. The Chinese, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the British are not Americans…[Moreover], there is nothing exceptional about America except its superior founding stock and its geographic advantages, both of which are now significantly reduced.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    But something remarkable occurred as more people were born in the States and as more immigrants came pouring in–the development of a notion that we, as Americans, are a mutt nation from several races, cultures, and ethnicities, with a common language and customs originally derived from a host of Western/Northern European nations, with distinctions then added over the decades by Southern/Eastern European nations and non-Europeans, groups considered by nativists as unworthy of assimilation and citizenship.
     
    That kind of assimilation/amalgamation has been most successful with Europeans......Hence the term White American (what else fits a person who is 25% English, 25% Finnish, 25% Italian, and 25% Ashkenazi?).....But's it's been markedly less successful with Amerind/Mestizo Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims.....To them, Anglo Whites are the eternal enemy.....

    “That kind of assimilation/amalgamation has been most successful with Europeans”.

    Europeans AND non-Europeans.

    “Hence the term White American (what else fits a person who is 25% English, 25% Finnish, 25% Italian, and 25% Ashkenazi).”

    No, just American.

    “But’s it’s been markedly less successful with Amerind/Mestizo Latinx, Blacks, and Muslims…..To them, Anglo Whites are the eternal enemy….”

    That would be Fake News you are peddling.

    “Hamilton also had some other words on the subject of immigration…”

    Yes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @istevefan
    From France 24 comes this quote from PM Netanyahu

    DIMONA (ISRAEL) (AFP) -

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that an electronic fence along the Israel-Egypt border has saved the Jewish state from jihadist attacks or what he believes would be worse -- a tide of African migrants.

    "Were it not for the fence, we would be faced with... severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa," Netanyahu's office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.
     
    Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn't dream of conducting a similar one in theirs.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. istevefan says:
    @AndrewR
    I don't think you realize how radical, revolutionary and - yes - experimental the American system of government was and, in some ways, continues to be.

    If only the experiment he is referring to was about our system of government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @polskijoe
    Its sad many Americans dont understand how Freemasonry works.

    I find this lack of knowledge more common on average with Protestant population...

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).

    Many people (including enthusiastic Freemasons) make far too much of the role of Freemasonry in the American Revolution. It should be borne in mind that English Freemasonry had lost whatever political character following the failure of the Scottish rising of 1745. Yes, indeed, Washington and Franklin were Freemasons – but so was Lord Cornwallis. Indeed, one of the principal vectors through which Freemasonry was spread throughout the British empire was the Royal Army, which had numerous military lodges.

    During the time of the Revolution there were two rival Grand Lodges in England – the Antients, whose Grand Masters were the third and fourth Dukes of Atholl, and the Moderns, whose Grand Masters were Lord Petre and the Duke of Manchester. These two bodies were merged in 1813 as the United Grand Lodge of England, the first Grand Master of which was Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex – the sixth son of George III.

    So, the claim that the English-derived Freemasonry of the American Founders was in some respect radical or revolutionary does not seem to hold water. It used to be said that the Church of England was the establishment at prayer; so, Anglo-American Freemasonry was the establishment at lodge.

    Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America. In countries without a tradition of parliamentary government, the lodges with their oaths of secrecy provided natural gathering places for political factions, especially those that happened to be in opposition to the government. Moreover, in historically Roman Catholic countries they tended to be strongly anti-clerical. This was especially so in the case of the Grand Orient of France. Poinsett, when he was U.S. minister to Mexico, reported that in that country the two systems of higher degrees had effectively become partisan entities – the yorquinas and the escoseses – rival factions in politics having adhered respectively to the York Rite and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Such a state of affairs would be inconceivable in English-speaking Freemasonry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    @ Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America.

    I think he does not. Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries. It has mainly been stabilizing, not subversive, in England/UK. But certainly political since inception, as its importance in military, parliamentary and judicial circles attest to. In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI. Kerensky was held to be a freemason, and in all probability the British Ambassador to Tsar Nicholas' court.

    Anyway, what would you say is Freemasonry current role in the US? Is it limited to charity/professional networking? When did it stop being a political network, and what, if anything, substituted it? Could, for example, the CFR be para-Masonic (large % Freemasons)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @anonymous
    The usually outstanding 98% right Steve Sailer makes an error here he writes:

    "Can Mr. Brooks find any quotations from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence"

    I respond:

    Sorry Steve S, I can find one extremely crazy, treason quote from Tommy Jefferson's Declaration of Independence promoting this one world, everybody is welcome in the USA here it is Steve:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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."

    I Continue.

    So if we are to accept Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that this is AN ABSOLUTE INDISPUTABLE TRUTH that every male/man is created equal then it follows that every man/male in the entire world has some equal right to move to our United States and pursues his happiness".

    What do mountain Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan want to do to pursue their happiness? Certainly not promote blue grass music or classical music as the Taliban banned all music and banned women from showing their faces in public, promotes shooting 9 year old girls in the face for wanting to go to school.

    What do M13 gang members in El Salvador or now on Long Island want to do to promote their happiness ? They're also in to face and neck tattoos cutting off people's/our people's heads with chain saws.

    Sorry Steve Sailer you just swung and missed on this one.

    Wow, gay and Jewish. When shall we expect the Broadway musical?

    You missed the part about his wife Sarah and their four children. The assumption that because he shared a house with another man, he must have been gay, is projecting 21st century assumptions back onto 18th century events.

    Of course, that wouldn’t prevent someone from making a Broadway musical based on such assumptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Rod1963
    The elites do not care what we think because we have made ourselves irrelevant to them. We may be armed to the teeth, but as a group you couldn't motivate whites to pay a visit to Brooks home and tar and feather the SOB. You don't a horde of angry whites descending upon the Hamptons or any of the other pits where the elite dwell.

    Until the average white begins to stand up to the elites and their tools like Brooks, it's going to get progressively worse for us. We will end up like Zimbabwe's white farmers - nearly extinct.

    We will end up like Zimbabwe’s white farmers – nearly extinct.

    Nope. We are better armed, with both information, and, well arms. If they make that play, we won’t end up like the Rhodesians. Algeria has been duly noted, and won’t be forgotten.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @eah
    https://twitter.com/TOQJoyce/status/975743644140474370

    The latter. No one believes that it is the former.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Realist

    Despite our differences, we devote our lives to the same experiment, the American experiment to draw people from around the world …
     
    This experiment will cause the death of America.

    This experiment will cause the death of America.

    Not if we win. And we will win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Too many anti-white Whites against us. This fight should have started in 1965.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @tyrone
    I'm no scientist but shouldn't there be a control , I want to live there.

    I’m no scientist but shouldn’t there be a control , I want to live there.

    Brooks control is Israel. Are you sure you want to live there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Redneck farmer
    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don't really like.

    The great struggle could very well be the other members of the coalition of the fringes ethnic cleansing of African-Americans, whom they don’t really like.

    Ethnic cleansing is already going on right now in Chicago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    If you knew what some of their ideas and goals are, who wrote your constitution,
    who your founding fathers were (Freemasons and protribeProtestants).
     
    Many people (including enthusiastic Freemasons) make far too much of the role of Freemasonry in the American Revolution. It should be borne in mind that English Freemasonry had lost whatever political character following the failure of the Scottish rising of 1745. Yes, indeed, Washington and Franklin were Freemasons - but so was Lord Cornwallis. Indeed, one of the principal vectors through which Freemasonry was spread throughout the British empire was the Royal Army, which had numerous military lodges.

    During the time of the Revolution there were two rival Grand Lodges in England - the Antients, whose Grand Masters were the third and fourth Dukes of Atholl, and the Moderns, whose Grand Masters were Lord Petre and the Duke of Manchester. These two bodies were merged in 1813 as the United Grand Lodge of England, the first Grand Master of which was Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex - the sixth son of George III.

    So, the claim that the English-derived Freemasonry of the American Founders was in some respect radical or revolutionary does not seem to hold water. It used to be said that the Church of England was the establishment at prayer; so, Anglo-American Freemasonry was the establishment at lodge.

    Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America. In countries without a tradition of parliamentary government, the lodges with their oaths of secrecy provided natural gathering places for political factions, especially those that happened to be in opposition to the government. Moreover, in historically Roman Catholic countries they tended to be strongly anti-clerical. This was especially so in the case of the Grand Orient of France. Poinsett, when he was U.S. minister to Mexico, reported that in that country the two systems of higher degrees had effectively become partisan entities - the yorquinas and the escoseses - rival factions in politics having adhered respectively to the York Rite and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Such a state of affairs would be inconceivable in English-speaking Freemasonry.

    @ Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America.

    I think he does not. Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries. It has mainly been stabilizing, not subversive, in England/UK. But certainly political since inception, as its importance in military, parliamentary and judicial circles attest to. In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI. Kerensky was held to be a freemason, and in all probability the British Ambassador to Tsar Nicholas’ court.

    Anyway, what would you say is Freemasonry current role in the US? Is it limited to charity/professional networking? When did it stop being a political network, and what, if anything, substituted it? Could, for example, the CFR be para-Masonic (large % Freemasons)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI.
     
    Freemasonry was not "anti-government" in France under the Third Republic. It was deeply embedded in government. The present French policy of laïcité dates from this period and reflects the influence, along with that of French Jewry and Protestantism, of the Grand Orient of France. Note, however, that Anglo-American Freemasonry does not recognize the Grand Orient as a regular Masonic body, and has not done since the mid-nineteenth century.

    As for Austria-Hungary, I'll remark only that the Emperor Joseph II refused to publish the papal bulls condemning Freemasonry in his domains, and took the lodges under his protection. It was because of the Emperor's policies that Mozart and Haydn managed to be both brother Freemasons and observant Catholics, whose musical output included numerous masses, and in Haydn's case, Austria's national anthem, the Gott erhalte (better known as the tune sung with the lyrics of Deutschland über alles). So much for anti-government and anti-clerical!

    I would be curious as to the evidence for your claim that "Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries." Bear in mind that Freemasonry was a local phenomenon peculiar to Britain until the Premier Grand Lodge was organized in 1717, and to the extent it existed outside of Britain after that date, it was largely as a society for British expatriates. Many of these were Jacobites (i.e., supporters of the Catholic Stuart pretenders to the British crown). Far from being opposed to the Spanish empire, the Jacobites were allied with it, as well as with the French. The Duke of Wharton, one of the Premier Grand Lodge's early Grand Masters, was such a Jacobite; he ended up fleeing to Spain, where he received a commission in the Spanish army.

    As I noted earlier, the involvement of English Freemasonry in the politics of this period, such as it was, reflected the contemporary division in the country's political class between Jacobite and Hanoverian factions, and there were such factions within the Craft at the time. All of this ceased after the failure of the 1745 rising in Scotland, and this experience is perhaps the seminal reason for the longstanding principle in Anglo-American Freemasonry that politics and religion shall not be discussed in lodge.

    The Masonic Craft has never engaged in partisan politics in the United States. That it has had members who were politicians (both Republican and Democrat), government officials, or men of influence in society is not disputed. Nonetheless, all Freemasons are explicitly forbidden by longstanding rule from discussing politics or religion in lodge. Based on personal experience, I'd say that the political preferences of regular American Freemasons reflect those typical of the stratum from which they are drawn - white, middle-class, middle-aged and older men.

    Freemasonry in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Britain, is in absolute numerical decline. It probably has less than one-third the membership it did fifty years ago. The baby-boomer generation did not join at nearly the rate that their fathers did. This is true also of service clubs like Rotary or Lions, of veterans' organizations like the American Legion or VFW (since a much smaller percentage of the population now serve), and even small and informal groups like bowling leagues, book clubs, bridge clubs, etc.

    It is rather amusing in view of the real condition of American Freemasonry to contemplate all the wild assertions about Masonic influence in public affairs. I remember almost thirty years ago having dinner with a group of people which included a past Grand Master of my state's Grand Lodge - he was a state district court judge. I kidded him about the purported influence of Freemasons in public life, and he laughed, saying "If only it were so!"

    As for the CFR and other elite institutions, as far as I know there is not a large percentage of Freemasons in it, and certainly no organizational connection with the Craft. The only members of the CFR with whom I have been acquainted were not Freemasons. If anything I'd guess that the percentage that are has declined in a greater proportion than the percentage of Masonic membership in the population at large. The reason is obvious. Fifty or sixty years ago, such groups were almost exclusively white and male - now they are not. Since Freemasonry is a men's group, and overwhelmingly white, simple arithmetic draws us to the necessary conclusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Anonymous
    I can actually argue Brook's case to some extent here. Augstine's City of God was clearly a huge influence upon the Pilgrims, and its doubtless that at least some of it indeed suggested to draw all Christians to the new shining city on the hill(and I doubt that the founders were completely uninfluenced by the ideology). To extend that, consider John Winthrop's sermon A Model of Christian Charity:



    ...we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

    Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection.

    We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

     

    And in it, it reflects of Matthew 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    Obviously the founders were far more complex and realistic than pilgrim theologians, but an argument can indeed be made that the City of God notion that draws all faithful and to build a world for the Elect has been a strain of thought in America since the beginning.

    But all we Elect are here already, so we can stop now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. istevefan says:
    @Millennial
    The Haym Salomon "financial founding father" story is complete fiction.

    His son was pretty good at scamming Congress though.

    The most thorough expose:

    https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/01/financial-hero/

    Thanks for the link.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Realist says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    This experiment will cause the death of America.
     
    Not if we win. And we will win.

    Too many anti-white Whites against us. This fight should have started in 1965.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Too many anti-white Whites against us. This fight should have started in 1965.
     
    It isn't over until we are dead. And we are not dead. We will win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Mike G says:

    tiny duck a postmodern marxist squeaks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. JohnnyDOH says:

    The “Experiment” of mixing tribes together actually works, IF your objective is to divide people and make them hate each other. Which of course, is what keeps the dualist system working.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. @Anon
    @ Do not make the mistake of confusing Anglo-American Freemasonry with the political Freemasonry of continental Europe and Latin America.

    I think he does not. Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries. It has mainly been stabilizing, not subversive, in England/UK. But certainly political since inception, as its importance in military, parliamentary and judicial circles attest to. In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI. Kerensky was held to be a freemason, and in all probability the British Ambassador to Tsar Nicholas' court.

    Anyway, what would you say is Freemasonry current role in the US? Is it limited to charity/professional networking? When did it stop being a political network, and what, if anything, substituted it? Could, for example, the CFR be para-Masonic (large % Freemasons)?

    In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI.

    Freemasonry was not “anti-government” in France under the Third Republic. It was deeply embedded in government. The present French policy of laïcité dates from this period and reflects the influence, along with that of French Jewry and Protestantism, of the Grand Orient of France. Note, however, that Anglo-American Freemasonry does not recognize the Grand Orient as a regular Masonic body, and has not done since the mid-nineteenth century.

    As for Austria-Hungary, I’ll remark only that the Emperor Joseph II refused to publish the papal bulls condemning Freemasonry in his domains, and took the lodges under his protection. It was because of the Emperor’s policies that Mozart and Haydn managed to be both brother Freemasons and observant Catholics, whose musical output included numerous masses, and in Haydn’s case, Austria’s national anthem, the Gott erhalte (better known as the tune sung with the lyrics of Deutschland über alles). So much for anti-government and anti-clerical!

    I would be curious as to the evidence for your claim that “Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries.” Bear in mind that Freemasonry was a local phenomenon peculiar to Britain until the Premier Grand Lodge was organized in 1717, and to the extent it existed outside of Britain after that date, it was largely as a society for British expatriates. Many of these were Jacobites (i.e., supporters of the Catholic Stuart pretenders to the British crown). Far from being opposed to the Spanish empire, the Jacobites were allied with it, as well as with the French. The Duke of Wharton, one of the Premier Grand Lodge’s early Grand Masters, was such a Jacobite; he ended up fleeing to Spain, where he received a commission in the Spanish army.

    As I noted earlier, the involvement of English Freemasonry in the politics of this period, such as it was, reflected the contemporary division in the country’s political class between Jacobite and Hanoverian factions, and there were such factions within the Craft at the time. All of this ceased after the failure of the 1745 rising in Scotland, and this experience is perhaps the seminal reason for the longstanding principle in Anglo-American Freemasonry that politics and religion shall not be discussed in lodge.

    The Masonic Craft has never engaged in partisan politics in the United States. That it has had members who were politicians (both Republican and Democrat), government officials, or men of influence in society is not disputed. Nonetheless, all Freemasons are explicitly forbidden by longstanding rule from discussing politics or religion in lodge. Based on personal experience, I’d say that the political preferences of regular American Freemasons reflect those typical of the stratum from which they are drawn – white, middle-class, middle-aged and older men.

    Freemasonry in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Britain, is in absolute numerical decline. It probably has less than one-third the membership it did fifty years ago. The baby-boomer generation did not join at nearly the rate that their fathers did. This is true also of service clubs like Rotary or Lions, of veterans’ organizations like the American Legion or VFW (since a much smaller percentage of the population now serve), and even small and informal groups like bowling leagues, book clubs, bridge clubs, etc.

    It is rather amusing in view of the real condition of American Freemasonry to contemplate all the wild assertions about Masonic influence in public affairs. I remember almost thirty years ago having dinner with a group of people which included a past Grand Master of my state’s Grand Lodge – he was a state district court judge. I kidded him about the purported influence of Freemasons in public life, and he laughed, saying “If only it were so!”

    As for the CFR and other elite institutions, as far as I know there is not a large percentage of Freemasons in it, and certainly no organizational connection with the Craft. The only members of the CFR with whom I have been acquainted were not Freemasons. If anything I’d guess that the percentage that are has declined in a greater proportion than the percentage of Masonic membership in the population at large. The reason is obvious. Fifty or sixty years ago, such groups were almost exclusively white and male – now they are not. Since Freemasonry is a men’s group, and overwhelmingly white, simple arithmetic draws us to the necessary conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Thank you. I take it you're an American Freemason? If you don't mind, I'll try to post a response on Friday, I am short of time just now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Immigration is an obsolete relic of a bygone era. Robert Putnam of Harvard pointed out years ago that modern immigration is degrading American communities and social fabric.

    One example of obsolescence, Mexico is a prosperous modern nation with a large growing economy. Led by politicians smarter and more assertive than most American politicians. Therefore, Mexicans do not need to “immigrate” to the USA to “find a better life”.

    Another example, the land of the USA is environmentally burdened by its current population. If current numbers continue the USA will soon contain 400 million people. The environmental damage will be horrific. Water shortages, yuuuge mounds of trash growing above landfills, air pollution, etc.

    With the internet and easy global commerce, plus the rise of relative peace and democratization since WWII, people anywhere can simply stay put and “find a better life” by planning and effort. With a few exceptions such as North Korea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    One example of obsolescence, Mexico is a prosperous modern nation with a large growing economy. Led by politicians smarter and more assertive than most American politicians. Therefore, Mexicans do not need to “immigrate” to the USA to “find a better life”.
     
    Whether Mexican politicians are "smarter and more assertive than most American politicians," I couldn't say, but they are more assertive and unapologetic about their kleptocracy. This is not to overstate the virtue of U.S. politicians, but merely to observe that our politicians are still somewhat constrained by the expectation that public office is a public trust, which is a concept that has never existed in Latin countries.

    Mexican politicians have for decades viewed the United States as a suitable dump for their surplus population. Rather than allowing that surplus population to stay in their country, where it might become restive and demand changes in the Mexican economic and social order, Mexico's kleptocrats there have exported their surplus to the United States, where it has become a substantial source of income in the form of remittances to Mexico from Mexicans living in the U.S., and also exerts an influence on the American economic and social order which the Mexican kleptocrats regard as favorable to themselves. This is, needless to say, why the Mexican government hates Trump's proposal of a wall, hates the enforcement of U.S. immigration law, and uses its consulates in the United States to aid and abet Mexican nationals illegally present in this country.

    If the ruling elite of Mexico thought that it could better use these people in Mexico, they would certainly follow a different set of policies. And if the ruling elite in this country thought that they could benefit by returning those people to Mexuco, they would equally certainly follow a different set of policies. We have the situation we do because it is agreeable to the ruling elites of both countries. This is why Trump is swimming against the current.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. If America is a mass immigration experiment, can we cordon off the red states as the control group?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. Brutusale says:
    @RebelWriter
    Well, I've been studying South Carolina history most of my life, with the American Revolution in the Southern Colonies being a chief focus, and this is the very first I've read of this particular fellow. I'd run across his name, but never knew he was Jewish. So, in other words, he's not a popular figure around here.

    C’mon man! Don’t you know that Salvador was far more important to Revolution-period South Carolina’s history than fakers like Marion and Sumter?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Brutusale says:
    @J.Ross

    Netanyahu’s office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.
     
    This is a big detail. He wasn't speaking to journalists, certainly not to English-language press, or even to Tel Aviv liberals.

    Dimona being the home of Israel’s nuclear program:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Brutusale says:
    @Karl
    57 Anon > David Brooks is so devoted to the American ‘Experiment’ that his kid served in a foreign country’s army


    I have searched - and I cannot find any written evidence that it actually happened.

    I find written evidence that he told an audience of elderly American Jewish ladies in LA that it happened.

    it's the kind of comment you would throw around if you were trying to establish yourself on the renumerated-speaker's-fee circuit of the sort of audiences that have money.

    Not money like Sheldon Adelson. Money like your dentist's wife.

    to a journalist who isn't quite smart enough to get hired by an actual business newspaper, that's good money.

    If I was bad guy, I could ask if journalist iSteve does more original investigative reporting than David Brooks does - but who's asking?

    Your Google Fu needs work, my friend.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/david-brooks-son-idf-israeli-army.html

    As 5 seconds of searching will show you, it wasn’t exactly a secret.

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

    I’m not the sort of guy given to want to smack anybody till he cries like a little bitch, but it’s hard not to have that reaction whenever confronted with anything related to David Brooks.

    By the way, how are things working out with him and his evangelical Christian hotsy-totsy daughter-aged shiksa “research assistant” with whom he replaced his converted-to-Judaism-for-him wife of 27 years and mother of his children? And more importantly, is he still lecturing everyone on morality/moral decay, not just on poems affixed to ugly statues?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  158. @Dave Pinsen
    But wouldn't blacks and old-stock gentile American liberals mostly agree with Giant Duck on where to start the clock?

    No. American blacks who think about American history probably start the clock when blacks were first “brought to the colony of Virginia in 1619,” as Ta-Nehisi Coates marks it. Even the most ‘based’ forward-looking MAGA blacks aren’t going to forget what their ancestors/racial kin went through before Emancipation and the end of Jim Crow.

    Similarly, most old-stock WASPs of liberal bent still take (quiet) pride in their ancestry and ancestors going all the way back to “when the Angles met the Saxons” as one Simpsons character playfully put it. More than a few Betsy Ross flags (and occasional various non-soccer related Flags of New England) still drape above quaint stoops in WASPy coastal New England towns that vote RINO or Democrat.

    In case the clip gets pulled for copyright:

    Gruff ‘humble background’ CEO to board:
    The problem with you guys is, you’ve forgotten your ROOTS!— You! What are your roots?

    Humorously smug board member:
    Well I guess you could say they extend to when the Angles met the Saxons.

    (The mostly WASP board erupts in convivial laughter.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    When their ancestors came to America and when they "start the clock" on when America became "America" are different questions. Put another way, when they say "That's not who we are", they mean as of when? Surely not as of 1619.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    No. American blacks who think about American history probably start the clock when blacks were first “brought to the colony of Virginia in 1619,” as Ta-Nehisi Coates marks it. Even the most ‘based’ forward-looking MAGA blacks aren’t going to forget what their ancestors/racial kin went through before Emancipation and the end of Jim Crow.

    Similarly, most old-stock WASPs of liberal bent still take (quiet) pride in their ancestry and ancestors going all the way back to “when the Angles met the Saxons” as one Simpsons character playfully put it. More than a few Betsy Ross flags (and occasional various non-soccer related Flags of New England) still drape above quaint stoops in WASPy coastal New England towns that vote RINO or Democrat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OV50kdoPE&t=1m06s

    In case the clip gets pulled for copyright:

    Gruff ‘humble background’ CEO to board:
    The problem with you guys is, you’ve forgotten your ROOTS!— You! What are your roots?

    Humorously smug board member:
    Well I guess you could say they extend to when the Angles met the Saxons.

    (The mostly WASP board erupts in convivial laughter.)

     

    When their ancestors came to America and when they “start the clock” on when America became “America” are different questions. Put another way, when they say “That’s not who we are”, they mean as of when? Surely not as of 1619.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    When their ancestors came to America and when they “start the clock” on when America became “America” are different questions.
     
    From modern American blacks, I’m more familiar with “Plymouth Rock was landed on us!” “Slaves built America!” “Franklin Delano Redline!” and “Let me tell you something—for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

    That all spans 1619 to the present day—unfortunately President Trump isn’t the change Michelle-O was hungry for. The general black view is that ‘America’ has existed as an illegitimate evil from the start, or is at best a sad chimera of false promises—and so has never existed. Something tells me most American blacks will never really care about ‘America,’ they’d rather daydream about some unattainable Wakanda.

    And as for old-stock whites (liberal or not)—and really, anyone else who knows history: America predates the Revolution, let alone the Civil War. Maybe there’s a strain of especially ‘virtuous’ signaling going on that I’m unaware of—

    Future old-stock white liberal: “America wasn’t America until JFK Intercontinental Globostrip welcomed its 100 millionth immigrant!”

    Future black American: “Shut yo ass up, fool.”

    Put another way, when they say “That’s not who we are”, they mean as of when?
     
    That’s really a present tense who/whom question, not “when.”

    We’re oppressed blacks, they have white privilege.”
    We’re woke progressives, they are deplorables.”

    But enough of my jabbering— do you have any significant examples of “blacks and old-stock gentile Americans” explicitly stating “America” began circa 1861?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Another way David Brooks shoots himself in the foot . . . his beloved immigrants lack interest in learning English.
    So they can’t read that English-language paper that employs him.
    So the advertising revenue continues to drop. Immigration has long since devolved into a destructive thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  161. Corvinus says:
    @istevefan
    From France 24 comes this quote from PM Netanyahu

    DIMONA (ISRAEL) (AFP) -

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that an electronic fence along the Israel-Egypt border has saved the Jewish state from jihadist attacks or what he believes would be worse -- a tide of African migrants.

    "Were it not for the fence, we would be faced with... severe attacks by Sinai terrorists, and something much worse, a flood of illegal migrants from Africa," Netanyahu's office quoted him as telling a development conference in the southern Israel desert town of Dimona.
     
    Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn't dream of conducting a similar one in theirs.

    “Get that David Brooks? Even Bibi admits demographic change is much worse than jihadi attacks. Yet David wishes to experiment with our country when his kin wouldn’t dream of conducting a similar one in theirs.”

    Wait, I could not help but notice that several posters here on this fine blog had argued that Jews are in FAVOR of demographic change by way of diversity and demographic change. So is Bibi a “good Jew” because he is going against conventional thought, and those who neglect to follow his lead “bad Jews”? Please clarify.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Dave Pinsen
    When their ancestors came to America and when they "start the clock" on when America became "America" are different questions. Put another way, when they say "That's not who we are", they mean as of when? Surely not as of 1619.

    When their ancestors came to America and when they “start the clock” on when America became “America” are different questions.

    From modern American blacks, I’m more familiar with “Plymouth Rock was landed on us!” “Slaves built America!” “Franklin Delano Redline!” and “Let me tell you something—for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

    That all spans 1619 to the present day—unfortunately President Trump isn’t the change Michelle-O was hungry for. The general black view is that ‘America’ has existed as an illegitimate evil from the start, or is at best a sad chimera of false promises—and so has never existed. Something tells me most American blacks will never really care about ‘America,’ they’d rather daydream about some unattainable Wakanda.

    And as for old-stock whites (liberal or not)—and really, anyone else who knows history: America predates the Revolution, let alone the Civil War. Maybe there’s a strain of especially ‘virtuous’ signaling going on that I’m unaware of—

    Future old-stock white liberal: “America wasn’t America until JFK Intercontinental Globostrip welcomed its 100 millionth immigrant!”

    Future black American: “Shut yo ass up, fool.”

    Put another way, when they say “That’s not who we are”, they mean as of when?

    That’s really a present tense who/whom question, not “when.”

    We’re oppressed blacks, they have white privilege.”
    We’re woke progressives, they are deplorables.”

    But enough of my jabbering— do you have any significant examples of “blacks and old-stock gentile Americans” explicitly stating “America” began circa 1861?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Anon[247] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    In Catholic countries, it has not only been anticlerical, but clearly anti-government, as in France, Italy, Spain and Austro-Hungary up until WWI.
     
    Freemasonry was not "anti-government" in France under the Third Republic. It was deeply embedded in government. The present French policy of laïcité dates from this period and reflects the influence, along with that of French Jewry and Protestantism, of the Grand Orient of France. Note, however, that Anglo-American Freemasonry does not recognize the Grand Orient as a regular Masonic body, and has not done since the mid-nineteenth century.

    As for Austria-Hungary, I'll remark only that the Emperor Joseph II refused to publish the papal bulls condemning Freemasonry in his domains, and took the lodges under his protection. It was because of the Emperor's policies that Mozart and Haydn managed to be both brother Freemasons and observant Catholics, whose musical output included numerous masses, and in Haydn's case, Austria's national anthem, the Gott erhalte (better known as the tune sung with the lyrics of Deutschland über alles). So much for anti-government and anti-clerical!

    I would be curious as to the evidence for your claim that "Freemasonry allied with the British Crown/establishment to precisely undermine first the Spanish Empire, then other countries." Bear in mind that Freemasonry was a local phenomenon peculiar to Britain until the Premier Grand Lodge was organized in 1717, and to the extent it existed outside of Britain after that date, it was largely as a society for British expatriates. Many of these were Jacobites (i.e., supporters of the Catholic Stuart pretenders to the British crown). Far from being opposed to the Spanish empire, the Jacobites were allied with it, as well as with the French. The Duke of Wharton, one of the Premier Grand Lodge's early Grand Masters, was such a Jacobite; he ended up fleeing to Spain, where he received a commission in the Spanish army.

    As I noted earlier, the involvement of English Freemasonry in the politics of this period, such as it was, reflected the contemporary division in the country's political class between Jacobite and Hanoverian factions, and there were such factions within the Craft at the time. All of this ceased after the failure of the 1745 rising in Scotland, and this experience is perhaps the seminal reason for the longstanding principle in Anglo-American Freemasonry that politics and religion shall not be discussed in lodge.

    The Masonic Craft has never engaged in partisan politics in the United States. That it has had members who were politicians (both Republican and Democrat), government officials, or men of influence in society is not disputed. Nonetheless, all Freemasons are explicitly forbidden by longstanding rule from discussing politics or religion in lodge. Based on personal experience, I'd say that the political preferences of regular American Freemasons reflect those typical of the stratum from which they are drawn - white, middle-class, middle-aged and older men.

    Freemasonry in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Britain, is in absolute numerical decline. It probably has less than one-third the membership it did fifty years ago. The baby-boomer generation did not join at nearly the rate that their fathers did. This is true also of service clubs like Rotary or Lions, of veterans' organizations like the American Legion or VFW (since a much smaller percentage of the population now serve), and even small and informal groups like bowling leagues, book clubs, bridge clubs, etc.

    It is rather amusing in view of the real condition of American Freemasonry to contemplate all the wild assertions about Masonic influence in public affairs. I remember almost thirty years ago having dinner with a group of people which included a past Grand Master of my state's Grand Lodge - he was a state district court judge. I kidded him about the purported influence of Freemasons in public life, and he laughed, saying "If only it were so!"

    As for the CFR and other elite institutions, as far as I know there is not a large percentage of Freemasons in it, and certainly no organizational connection with the Craft. The only members of the CFR with whom I have been acquainted were not Freemasons. If anything I'd guess that the percentage that are has declined in a greater proportion than the percentage of Masonic membership in the population at large. The reason is obvious. Fifty or sixty years ago, such groups were almost exclusively white and male - now they are not. Since Freemasonry is a men's group, and overwhelmingly white, simple arithmetic draws us to the necessary conclusion.

    Thank you. I take it you’re an American Freemason? If you don’t mind, I’ll try to post a response on Friday, I am short of time just now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    Yes, I am a Freemason, and a member of lodges both in the U.S. and in England.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Anon
    Thank you. I take it you're an American Freemason? If you don't mind, I'll try to post a response on Friday, I am short of time just now.

    Yes, I am a Freemason, and a member of lodges both in the U.S. and in England.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Sarah Toga
    Immigration is an obsolete relic of a bygone era. Robert Putnam of Harvard pointed out years ago that modern immigration is degrading American communities and social fabric.

    One example of obsolescence, Mexico is a prosperous modern nation with a large growing economy. Led by politicians smarter and more assertive than most American politicians. Therefore, Mexicans do not need to "immigrate" to the USA to "find a better life".

    Another example, the land of the USA is environmentally burdened by its current population. If current numbers continue the USA will soon contain 400 million people. The environmental damage will be horrific. Water shortages, yuuuge mounds of trash growing above landfills, air pollution, etc.

    With the internet and easy global commerce, plus the rise of relative peace and democratization since WWII, people anywhere can simply stay put and "find a better life" by planning and effort. With a few exceptions such as North Korea.

    One example of obsolescence, Mexico is a prosperous modern nation with a large growing economy. Led by politicians smarter and more assertive than most American politicians. Therefore, Mexicans do not need to “immigrate” to the USA to “find a better life”.

    Whether Mexican politicians are “smarter and more assertive than most American politicians,” I couldn’t say, but they are more assertive and unapologetic about their kleptocracy. This is not to overstate the virtue of U.S. politicians, but merely to observe that our politicians are still somewhat constrained by the expectation that public office is a public trust, which is a concept that has never existed in Latin countries.

    Mexican politicians have for decades viewed the United States as a suitable dump for their surplus population. Rather than allowing that surplus population to stay in their country, where it might become restive and demand changes in the Mexican economic and social order, Mexico’s kleptocrats there have exported their surplus to the United States, where it has become a substantial source of income in the form of remittances to Mexico from Mexicans living in the U.S., and also exerts an influence on the American economic and social order which the Mexican kleptocrats regard as favorable to themselves. This is, needless to say, why the Mexican government hates Trump’s proposal of a wall, hates the enforcement of U.S. immigration law, and uses its consulates in the United States to aid and abet Mexican nationals illegally present in this country.

    If the ruling elite of Mexico thought that it could better use these people in Mexico, they would certainly follow a different set of policies. And if the ruling elite in this country thought that they could benefit by returning those people to Mexuco, they would equally certainly follow a different set of policies. We have the situation we do because it is agreeable to the ruling elites of both countries. This is why Trump is swimming against the current.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Well argued.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Realist
    Too many anti-white Whites against us. This fight should have started in 1965.

    Too many anti-white Whites against us. This fight should have started in 1965.

    It isn’t over until we are dead. And we are not dead. We will win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. MBlanc46 says:
    @Celerity
    The Multicultural Republic came into being well after the founding. The category error of old white guys like Steve is to assume there is an almost biblical legitimacy in quoting a dead member of Genus White Guy to prove a point. Look around you Steve. As the British say, “the proof is in the pudding.”

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can’t you get anything right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. MBlanc46 says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    One example of obsolescence, Mexico is a prosperous modern nation with a large growing economy. Led by politicians smarter and more assertive than most American politicians. Therefore, Mexicans do not need to “immigrate” to the USA to “find a better life”.
     
    Whether Mexican politicians are "smarter and more assertive than most American politicians," I couldn't say, but they are more assertive and unapologetic about their kleptocracy. This is not to overstate the virtue of U.S. politicians, but merely to observe that our politicians are still somewhat constrained by the expectation that public office is a public trust, which is a concept that has never existed in Latin countries.

    Mexican politicians have for decades viewed the United States as a suitable dump for their surplus population. Rather than allowing that surplus population to stay in their country, where it might become restive and demand changes in the Mexican economic and social order, Mexico's kleptocrats there have exported their surplus to the United States, where it has become a substantial source of income in the form of remittances to Mexico from Mexicans living in the U.S., and also exerts an influence on the American economic and social order which the Mexican kleptocrats regard as favorable to themselves. This is, needless to say, why the Mexican government hates Trump's proposal of a wall, hates the enforcement of U.S. immigration law, and uses its consulates in the United States to aid and abet Mexican nationals illegally present in this country.

    If the ruling elite of Mexico thought that it could better use these people in Mexico, they would certainly follow a different set of policies. And if the ruling elite in this country thought that they could benefit by returning those people to Mexuco, they would equally certainly follow a different set of policies. We have the situation we do because it is agreeable to the ruling elites of both countries. This is why Trump is swimming against the current.

    Well argued.

    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.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?