The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Will Wilkinson: Mexico Is Who We Are
🔊 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
 
Hide 123 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. maybe we could also adopt the south of the border nuanced racial terminology like just how touched by the tarbrush is someone

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. There are better historians here than me who can explain how sparsely populated the American West and Southwest was before American settlers from the East and non-Spaniard European settlers started building stuff there.

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a “real American?” Because usually they don’t admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.

    Bret Stephens did when he went a bit out over his skis in stating that America is for immigrants and foreigners and not its native population but that seemed an aberration for its honesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    There's also a weird bit of Manifest Destiny retconning there. Federalists were opposed to the Louisiana Purchase. Also, Spanish settlements in the Southwest were no more American than British settlements in Oregon or Russian settlements in California. Or are we going to argue now that Russian election meddling doesn't count because the Russians were at Fort Ross 200 years ago?
    , @415 reasons
    This is an astute point. Somehow I don’t think Wilkinson would accept a compromise where people with deep roots in northern Mexico were free to go back and forth over the border. Somehow all the people whose ancestors were on the continent in 1600 are real Americans. But so are Uzbek Uber drivers and Pakistani truck drivers and Afghan warlords. It seems like the only principle to be defended by Democrats and Lolbertarians vis-à-vis immigration is expediency in saying yes. At least in Wilkinson’s case it comes from a principled stand against borders. Sure, it’s a set of principles that most people outgrow by the time they are 20, and that is so lacking in basic intuition about human nature that it’s essentially autistic, but whatever. In the case of Democrats it is 30 years war to permanently win every Presidential election, disguised with self righteous virtue signaling. It’s heads I win tails you lose for the rest of the current years to come.
    , @AnotherDad

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a “real American?” Because usually they don’t admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.
     
    That's the thing that struck me Alec as well.

    Beyond the abject stupidity of his claims--Spanish explorers and missionaries trooping around are not the precursors to the actual American nation that was brought into being (Hint: We speak English)--Wilkinson is the kind of ideologue who thinks anyone and everyone have the right to be here.

    So is Wilkinson going to say the Somalis don't belong here because in fact they clearly have absolutely no association with America whatsoever. No, of course not.

    We're out of the realm of argument here now and just dealing with intellectual toddlers throwing hissy fits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Alec Leamas
    There are better historians here than me who can explain how sparsely populated the American West and Southwest was before American settlers from the East and non-Spaniard European settlers started building stuff there.

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a "real American?" Because usually they don't admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.

    Bret Stephens did when he went a bit out over his skis in stating that America is for immigrants and foreigners and not its native population but that seemed an aberration for its honesty.

    There’s also a weird bit of Manifest Destiny retconning there. Federalists were opposed to the Louisiana Purchase. Also, Spanish settlements in the Southwest were no more American than British settlements in Oregon or Russian settlements in California. Or are we going to argue now that Russian election meddling doesn’t count because the Russians were at Fort Ross 200 years ago?

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

    So to get this straight, the descendants of the first Euro conquerors/colonizers of parts of North America have an inviolable claim to it, rather than the much more successful second wave of Euro colonizers?

    Contra Wilkinson, the issue is not that a large part of the American citizenry cannot accept people of Spanish descent as ‘real Americans’ it’s that a large part of our elites believe they are preferable and superior to their actual countrymen, and usher in huge numbers of future voters to wrest political control away from people who have been here for generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I wonder if Will Wilkerson ever met a Hispanic libertarian.
    , @Ganderson
    It’s not Americans of Spanish descent I mind- it’s actual Mexicans
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period

    Translation: Period! End of discussion! Don’t even think of questioning my logic on this!

    and splits Americans into warring tribes ready to abuse people whom patriotic decency would otherwise compel us to defend.

    Projection, that’s exactly what Wilkinson and others of his ilk do to White Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. J.Ross says: • Website

    So … not a nation of immigrants any more, now it’s first come first serve, and Elizabeth Warren will sacrifice us all to the Corn Mother. Okay.
    These people live in a real echo chamber, they look at Thomas Fried Man and David BoBo as examples, and nothing they say ever has to make any sense.
    That said my understanding is that local and traffic policias are highly open to rational transactions whereas it would be an extremely bad idea to attempt to bribe — or to have any dealings at all if you can avoid it — with a Federale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

    What’s Will Wilkinson’s end game here? How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?

    Good luck on your ethnic outreach, Will. Have fun explaining to a majority minority electorate that actually when you stop and think about it wealth redistribution is bad for poor people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Who knows? He probably just takes an autistic view of liberty.

    A few seem to believe that open immigration will cause the whole taxation system to collapse. I think that they are just severely deluding themselves. Anyway, it is probably more a passive fantasy than a willful strategy. Obviously, there's a lot of places that don't balance the books, but stay around.
    , @Anonymous
    Wilkinson's end game, or rather rear end game, isn't libertarianism - it's Latin pool boys. Lots and lots of Latin pool boys.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?"

    None. Libertarianism is an empty movement filled with smug gasbags who worship at the altar of capital. They offer no real solutions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Zpaladin says:

    The latinos themselves imposes borders all over Central and Siuth America that divide La Raza. But I think an Argentinian would bristle st the idea that a Uraguaian is a true Argentinian, let alone a Cuban.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Barnard says:

    This is the same argument that was made in a show I watched on PBS about tbe Spanish settlement of Florida. They called St. Augustine the true multicultural founding of the United States. It had no influence on the Constitution but never mind that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anonym says:

    If Mexico is so wonderful, why not cross over the border and move there Will.

    Here is a picture of American national identity. As can be readily observed, Mexican culture and ethnicity is of course foundational:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Barnard says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. songbird says:
    @Felix Fischer

    DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    What's Will Wilkinson's end game here? How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?

    Good luck on your ethnic outreach, Will. Have fun explaining to a majority minority electorate that actually when you stop and think about it wealth redistribution is bad for poor people.

    Who knows? He probably just takes an autistic view of liberty.

    A few seem to believe that open immigration will cause the whole taxation system to collapse. I think that they are just severely deluding themselves. Anyway, it is probably more a passive fantasy than a willful strategy. Obviously, there’s a lot of places that don’t balance the books, but stay around.

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

    As Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams knew, there are no “Real Americans.” Real Americans are anyone who wants to come to America, especially if they’re not White.

    I mean, come on. It’s all over the Constitution and correspondence between the Founding Fathers.

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

    DREAMers come from all over, but nearly 80 percent of them were born in Mexico. For the ethnonationalist populists, immigration — and Mexican immigration in particular — is a threat to authentic American national identity, which in their eyes is white and European in origin.

    Huh. Guess all that stuff that I read in my High School history class about Jamestown and Plymouth and Protestant Christianity must have been some kind of “ethnonationalist” propaganda….

    White Americans anxious about retaining their cultural and political dominance

    You mean the White Anglos who aren’t cucked and don’t want to see their nation commit racial suicide?

    The Americanness of Hispanic Americans ought to be indisputable.

    On the other hand, their Anglo-Americanness seems highly disputable…..

    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.

    Thanks for reminding us about the the struggle between Anglo and Latinx for mastery of North America.

    The standard narrative of American history begins with the establishment of English colonies on the East Coast and then follows the westward expansion of official US territory.

    Yeah, that’s because Anglo-America, you know, started there…

    This makes it easy to overlook that the “Mestizo” mixture of Spanish and Southwestern indigenous ancestry is older the United States, and that Mexicans inhabited US territory before it became US territory.

    Of course, 90% + of the Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who lived there before it became US territory….

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico. (Texas declared independence earlier, but Mexico didn’t recognize it.) The treaty drew the border right through the middle of a culturally coherent, economically unified trade zone and labor market. Look closely at this map:

    Trump supporters who thrill to the idea of a “big, beautiful wall” on the border largely fail to grasp that the ancestors of many of the people they want to keep out have been here all along, and that people cross back and forth over the border in part because the border crossed a people.

    Nope. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who were here in 1848.

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic. If it works its way back up to that from today’s 30 percent, it won’t have become less American. It will have become more like it was when it became American.

    Which is another way of saying that it will revert to being less American.

    Before the Gold Rush, Spanish-speaking Mexicans and indigenous people outnumbered English-speaking white settlers in California by a wide margin. Today in the Golden State, where the largest population of DREAMers lives, the most common last names are Garcia, Hernandez, and Lopez and an American is as just as likely to be Hispanic as white. DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

    They’re Anglos?

    The fact that there’s any question about affording legal status to a class of rooted young immigrants who grew up American among Americans is shameful.

    Yeah, someone who illegally entered the USA at the age of 15 has deep roots….

    It’s a reflection of the disgraceful fact that so many of us are doggedly ignorant of the country we claim to revere, and deny the plain historical truth that America has always been multicultural, that Spanish colonial mestizo culture is a foundational American culture, and that many Mexican Americans have deeper roots in American soil than those of us whose European ancestors arrived rather late in the day at Ellis Island.

    MMMM, “foundational American culture”…..What comes to mind: Jamestown, Plymouth, Puritans, King James Bible, John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, the Wright Bros….Nope, can’t seem to think of anyone whose name ends in a “Z.”

    It makes no more sense, culturally or ethnically, to call into question the Americanness of a young woman whose mom brought her from Hermosillo to Tucson at the age of 6 than it does to doubt that a white guy raised in Syracuse but born in Toronto can ever really belong there.

    Sure it does. See, Will, Anglo-Canadians are part of something called Anglo-America….
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes

    Been on a university campus lately, Will? SJWs are quite keen on making sure that the USA is split into warring tribes….

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Serious question: Is Will Wilkinson retarded? Or is he simply being massively disingenuous? Perhaps both retarded and massively disingenuous?
    , @istevefan

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico.
     
    Wasn't it literally Mexico for about 27 years?

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic.
     
    In 1870, Arizona had a population of 9,658 people. The population of the USA in 1870 was 38 million. So Arizona's population wasn't even statistically significant. In other words it was essentially empty territory.

    So what again is 61 percent of nothing?

    Also you will note massive numbers of people would not be willing to go to Arizona until the Anglo-Americans got a chance to improve the place and make it more conducive. You know like building the great big dam that brings in beautiful electricity.

    I think most of the areas that we "stole" from Mexico, who stole them from Spain who stole them from the Tribes, were similarly sparsely inhabited which is why the USA took them. After all we defeated Mexico in a war and could have taken much more. But to have taken more territory in what is now Mexico would have meant taking in significantly more Mexicans into our populace. And the leaders back then were smart enough not to go that route. They took AZ and other places because of the lack of Mexicans in those places. In other words the Americans at that time were decidedly against the Mexicanization of the USA.

    , @Art Deco
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes

    What's salient about remarks like this is that they expect the rest of us to maintain a mentality commonly associated with battered wives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. istevefan says:

    … The Americanness of Hispanic Americans ought to be indisputable. Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    And the Cherokee, Iroquois, Blackfeet, Lakota, etc., etc, cultures all preceded Spanish colonial culture. Does this mean that the United States is based upon those cultures? No, Anglo-American culture replaced those cultures just as Spanish Culture replaced many native cultures and how Anglo-American culture displaced Spanish culture in those aforementioned areas named by Will.

    I’ve been seeing more of this. It is obviously being done, like the black Cheddar man thing in the UK, for the express purpose of gaslighting the legacy population into accepting their displacement. Even if Cheddar Man were nonwhite, clearly the UK that is world renown was not built by such people. It was built over the past 1500 years by specific groups of closely related Europeans who have fought each other from time to time for control over those islands.

    Similarly the presence of Spanish colonies in what is now the USA had nothing to do with what made the USA; such as our founding principles, constitution, language, law, etc. Just like Russian colonies in what is now the USA had nothing to do with it either.

    PS.

    I saw something on PBS last month where they did a documentary on St. Augustine, FL. They went on an on about how the Spanish established this colony several decades before the English landed in Jamestown and Plymouth. They even found in Spain a modern day descendant of the organizer of this Spanish colony. He told us how American history has been edited to deny our Spanish past. That this colony is the true birthplace of America, etc.

    They then turned it into a celebration about how Spanish Florida was some multicultural paradise with free blacks and others living side by side. They even suggested that this multicultural colony justifies today’s multicultural America.

    America’s original European forefathers were a melting pot of races that more closely resembled today’s population than was previously understood.

    Of course they glossed over a gruesome mass execution by the Spaniards of about 100 Frenchmen who made the mistake of trying to stake a claim in Florida. It was totally justified because they could ill afford to allow these adult men to live, lest they come back and harm this diverse colony.

    But then the evil Sir Walter Raleigh destroyed everything, the English came and the Spaniards and the free blacks fled to Cuba so they would not be enslaved by those terrible Englishmen.

    St. Augustine had absolutely zilch to do with the founding of the USA, but they were trying to give it as much or more importance than the English colonies.

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

    “…Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America…”

    A libertarian presumably might have difficulties with the concepts of friends, enemies, “world” war, and little thing like that, mere human affairs, not like those grand ideals of the *isms:

    Queen Anne’s War:

    “…the North American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession, as known in the British colonies, and the second in a series of French and Indian Wars fought between France and England, later Great Britain, in North America for control of the continent. … the war also involved numerous American Indian tribes allied with each nation, and Spain, which was allied with France

    Spanish Florida and the English Province of Carolina were each subjected to attacks from the other, and the English engaged the French based at Mobile…

    …The southern war did not result in significant territorial changes, but it had the effect of nearly wiping out the Indian population of Spanish Florida, including parts of present-day southern Georgia, and destroying Spain’s network of missions in the area…

    …The peace of Utrecht, however, had ignored Indian interests, and some Abenaki expressed willingness to negotiate a peace with the New Englanders…

    …Spanish Florida never really recovered its economy or population… it was ceded to Britain in the 1763 Treaty of Paris following the Seven Years’ War…

    …The loss of population in the Spanish territories contributed to the 1732 founding of the Province of Georgia, which was granted on territory that Spain had originally claimed…”

    Anglo-Spanish War (1762–1763):

    “…fought between Britain and Spain as part of the Seven Years’ War…

    …In anticipation of the Spanish entering the war on the French side, the British attacked Spanish colonies…

    …a British expedition against Cuba took Havana and western Cuba, then a month later the British seized Manila…

    …three major Franco-Spanish invasions of Portugal were defeated and they were forced to withdraw with heavy losses inflicted by the Portuguese with British assistance…

    Spain handed over Florida and Menorca to Britain and returned territories in Portugal and Brazil to Portugal in exchange for British withdrawal from Cuba…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Wilkey says:

    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The total Spanish-speaking population in the area we claimed after the War with Mexico was (maybe, possibly) 100,000 people, at the very most, spread out over about half a million square miles. Add in all the Spanish-speakers in other Spanish settlements (Texas, Florida, etc.) and I doubt you’d get anywhere close to 200,000.

    In contrast, the population of Connecticut in 1850 was….371,000 people. And New York, fwiw, had over 3 million people. But hey, there were a few dozen Mexican families living in Southwest Colorado, so that’s like totally the same thing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But hey, there were a few dozen Mexican families living in Southwest Colorado, so that’s like totally the same thing.

    And they didn't think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as Spaniards.

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

    DREAMers come from all over, but nearly 80 percent of them were born in Mexico. For the ethnonationalist populists, immigration — and Mexican immigration in particular — is a threat to authentic American national identity, which in their eyes is white and European in origin.
     
    Huh. Guess all that stuff that I read in my High School history class about Jamestown and Plymouth and Protestant Christianity must have been some kind of "ethnonationalist" propaganda....

    White Americans anxious about retaining their cultural and political dominance
     
    You mean the White Anglos who aren't cucked and don't want to see their nation commit racial suicide?

    The Americanness of Hispanic Americans ought to be indisputable.
     
    On the other hand, their Anglo-Americanness seems highly disputable.....

    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.
     

    Thanks for reminding us about the the struggle between Anglo and Latinx for mastery of North America.

    The standard narrative of American history begins with the establishment of English colonies on the East Coast and then follows the westward expansion of official US territory.
     
    Yeah, that's because Anglo-America, you know, started there...

    This makes it easy to overlook that the “Mestizo” mixture of Spanish and Southwestern indigenous ancestry is older the United States, and that Mexicans inhabited US territory before it became US territory.
     
    Of course, 90% + of the Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who lived there before it became US territory....

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico. (Texas declared independence earlier, but Mexico didn’t recognize it.) The treaty drew the border right through the middle of a culturally coherent, economically unified trade zone and labor market. Look closely at this map:

    Trump supporters who thrill to the idea of a “big, beautiful wall” on the border largely fail to grasp that the ancestors of many of the people they want to keep out have been here all along, and that people cross back and forth over the border in part because the border crossed a people.
     

    Nope. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who were here in 1848.

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic. If it works its way back up to that from today’s 30 percent, it won’t have become less American. It will have become more like it was when it became American.
     
    Which is another way of saying that it will revert to being less American.

    Before the Gold Rush, Spanish-speaking Mexicans and indigenous people outnumbered English-speaking white settlers in California by a wide margin. Today in the Golden State, where the largest population of DREAMers lives, the most common last names are Garcia, Hernandez, and Lopez and an American is as just as likely to be Hispanic as white. DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    They're Anglos?

    The fact that there’s any question about affording legal status to a class of rooted young immigrants who grew up American among Americans is shameful.

     

    Yeah, someone who illegally entered the USA at the age of 15 has deep roots....

    It’s a reflection of the disgraceful fact that so many of us are doggedly ignorant of the country we claim to revere, and deny the plain historical truth that America has always been multicultural, that Spanish colonial mestizo culture is a foundational American culture, and that many Mexican Americans have deeper roots in American soil than those of us whose European ancestors arrived rather late in the day at Ellis Island.
     
    MMMM, "foundational American culture".....What comes to mind: Jamestown, Plymouth, Puritans, King James Bible, John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, the Wright Bros....Nope, can't seem to think of anyone whose name ends in a "Z."

    It makes no more sense, culturally or ethnically, to call into question the Americanness of a young woman whose mom brought her from Hermosillo to Tucson at the age of 6 than it does to doubt that a white guy raised in Syracuse but born in Toronto can ever really belong there.
     

    Sure it does. See, Will, Anglo-Canadians are part of something called Anglo-America....
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes
     
    Been on a university campus lately, Will? SJWs are quite keen on making sure that the USA is split into warring tribes....

    Serious question: Is Will Wilkinson retarded? Or is he simply being massively disingenuous? Perhaps both retarded and massively disingenuous?

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    It's deliberate. It really seems like the media is doing a full court press on Americans and other Euros to justify their displacement. Apparently they no longer think just saying diversity is a strength is good enough. The MAGA stuff and other nationalist movements are no longer easily buying that line. So they have to convince people that what they yearn for from yesteryear never really happened, or never was how we imagined it.

    I know it's old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    They are now hellbent on rewriting our past so as to ensure their future.
    , @AndrewR
    Retardation and disingenuousness are not mutually exclusive, of course, but Wilkinson and everyone else at Vox, NYT, The Atlantic, etc are bright, educated people. They're just con artists.
    , @Pericles
    Wil Wilkinson: Retardedly disingenuous or disingenuously retarded?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Fischer

    DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    What's Will Wilkinson's end game here? How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?

    Good luck on your ethnic outreach, Will. Have fun explaining to a majority minority electorate that actually when you stop and think about it wealth redistribution is bad for poor people.

    Wilkinson’s end game, or rather rear end game, isn’t libertarianism – it’s Latin pool boys. Lots and lots of Latin pool boys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. 1661er says:

    My late preside of my Alma Mater, SI Hayakawa, had said this about Panama

    After all, we stole it fair and square.

    That’s how my family thought about what we did to Dutch East Indian Companies in 1661 at Fort Zealandia.

    US need more people like Hayakawa, maybe import them from Canada like it did with Hayakawa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Abe says: • Website

    Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period

    “Blah, blah, blah, period. Blah, blah, blah, is not OK.”

    Stalin modeled himself after Ivan the Terrible. Hitler wanted to be the reincarnation of Frederick the Great. Current Year soy liberal nu males, however, try their darnedest to sound like your former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher.

    Read More
    • Replies: @njguy73

    Current Year soy liberal nu males, however, try their darnedest to sound like your former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher.
     
    I wish. My former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher actually instilled in us pride in being American. She expected us to pledge allegiance to the flag, and taught us that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were heroes.

    Today she'd be called a racist imperialist.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. istevefan says:
    @syonredux

    DREAMers come from all over, but nearly 80 percent of them were born in Mexico. For the ethnonationalist populists, immigration — and Mexican immigration in particular — is a threat to authentic American national identity, which in their eyes is white and European in origin.
     
    Huh. Guess all that stuff that I read in my High School history class about Jamestown and Plymouth and Protestant Christianity must have been some kind of "ethnonationalist" propaganda....

    White Americans anxious about retaining their cultural and political dominance
     
    You mean the White Anglos who aren't cucked and don't want to see their nation commit racial suicide?

    The Americanness of Hispanic Americans ought to be indisputable.
     
    On the other hand, their Anglo-Americanness seems highly disputable.....

    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.
     

    Thanks for reminding us about the the struggle between Anglo and Latinx for mastery of North America.

    The standard narrative of American history begins with the establishment of English colonies on the East Coast and then follows the westward expansion of official US territory.
     
    Yeah, that's because Anglo-America, you know, started there...

    This makes it easy to overlook that the “Mestizo” mixture of Spanish and Southwestern indigenous ancestry is older the United States, and that Mexicans inhabited US territory before it became US territory.
     
    Of course, 90% + of the Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who lived there before it became US territory....

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico. (Texas declared independence earlier, but Mexico didn’t recognize it.) The treaty drew the border right through the middle of a culturally coherent, economically unified trade zone and labor market. Look closely at this map:

    Trump supporters who thrill to the idea of a “big, beautiful wall” on the border largely fail to grasp that the ancestors of many of the people they want to keep out have been here all along, and that people cross back and forth over the border in part because the border crossed a people.
     

    Nope. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who were here in 1848.

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic. If it works its way back up to that from today’s 30 percent, it won’t have become less American. It will have become more like it was when it became American.
     
    Which is another way of saying that it will revert to being less American.

    Before the Gold Rush, Spanish-speaking Mexicans and indigenous people outnumbered English-speaking white settlers in California by a wide margin. Today in the Golden State, where the largest population of DREAMers lives, the most common last names are Garcia, Hernandez, and Lopez and an American is as just as likely to be Hispanic as white. DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    They're Anglos?

    The fact that there’s any question about affording legal status to a class of rooted young immigrants who grew up American among Americans is shameful.

     

    Yeah, someone who illegally entered the USA at the age of 15 has deep roots....

    It’s a reflection of the disgraceful fact that so many of us are doggedly ignorant of the country we claim to revere, and deny the plain historical truth that America has always been multicultural, that Spanish colonial mestizo culture is a foundational American culture, and that many Mexican Americans have deeper roots in American soil than those of us whose European ancestors arrived rather late in the day at Ellis Island.
     
    MMMM, "foundational American culture".....What comes to mind: Jamestown, Plymouth, Puritans, King James Bible, John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, the Wright Bros....Nope, can't seem to think of anyone whose name ends in a "Z."

    It makes no more sense, culturally or ethnically, to call into question the Americanness of a young woman whose mom brought her from Hermosillo to Tucson at the age of 6 than it does to doubt that a white guy raised in Syracuse but born in Toronto can ever really belong there.
     

    Sure it does. See, Will, Anglo-Canadians are part of something called Anglo-America....
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes
     
    Been on a university campus lately, Will? SJWs are quite keen on making sure that the USA is split into warring tribes....

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico.

    Wasn’t it literally Mexico for about 27 years?

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic.

    In 1870, Arizona had a population of 9,658 people. The population of the USA in 1870 was 38 million. So Arizona’s population wasn’t even statistically significant. In other words it was essentially empty territory.

    So what again is 61 percent of nothing?

    Also you will note massive numbers of people would not be willing to go to Arizona until the Anglo-Americans got a chance to improve the place and make it more conducive. You know like building the great big dam that brings in beautiful electricity.

    I think most of the areas that we “stole” from Mexico, who stole them from Spain who stole them from the Tribes, were similarly sparsely inhabited which is why the USA took them. After all we defeated Mexico in a war and could have taken much more. But to have taken more territory in what is now Mexico would have meant taking in significantly more Mexicans into our populace. And the leaders back then were smart enough not to go that route. They took AZ and other places because of the lack of Mexicans in those places. In other words the Americans at that time were decidedly against the Mexicanization of the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Don Diego does not have the moral high ground:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPrLU4Zspo
    , @Steve Sailer
    Lots of the Spanish speakers in 1848 didn't think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as loyal subjects of Spain or as of rightfully independent Californios or whatever. Linda Chavez's ancestors in the Upper Rio Grande were never big fans of Mexico.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. syonredux says:
    @istevefan

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico.
     
    Wasn't it literally Mexico for about 27 years?

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic.
     
    In 1870, Arizona had a population of 9,658 people. The population of the USA in 1870 was 38 million. So Arizona's population wasn't even statistically significant. In other words it was essentially empty territory.

    So what again is 61 percent of nothing?

    Also you will note massive numbers of people would not be willing to go to Arizona until the Anglo-Americans got a chance to improve the place and make it more conducive. You know like building the great big dam that brings in beautiful electricity.

    I think most of the areas that we "stole" from Mexico, who stole them from Spain who stole them from the Tribes, were similarly sparsely inhabited which is why the USA took them. After all we defeated Mexico in a war and could have taken much more. But to have taken more territory in what is now Mexico would have meant taking in significantly more Mexicans into our populace. And the leaders back then were smart enough not to go that route. They took AZ and other places because of the lack of Mexicans in those places. In other words the Americans at that time were decidedly against the Mexicanization of the USA.

    Don Diego does not have the moral high ground:

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Give this another try


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPrLU4Zspo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Whiskey says: • Website

    There is a message here. It is quite succinct. It has been the same message since, oh say 1965. “White people and particularly White men suck!” That is the message.

    It is inevitable once women get power — they despise their men for the Original Sin of being equal. So want to replace them. Add Oligarchs and the devolution of power* and its fairly obvious.

    *Power has been devolving away from the Presidency towards various scattered Judges, interest groups like La Raza, Urban League, MeCHa, etc. since the 1970s. Centralization peaked with Nixon and has been in decline ever since, with various fief holders and castellans having in effect unassailable fortresses in media empires, political machines, etc.

    Russia is centralized. When Putin took over he did not face most of the security services scheming to get Boris Yeltsin’s nephew installed. America is decentralized as various power groups have neutralized the Presidency and Congress the way medieval lords neutralized kings to the point of near irrelevancy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    Whiskey, you would not pass the Turing Test.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. syonredux says:
    @syonredux
    Don Diego does not have the moral high ground:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPrLU4Zspo

    Give this another try

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Alec Leamas
    There are better historians here than me who can explain how sparsely populated the American West and Southwest was before American settlers from the East and non-Spaniard European settlers started building stuff there.

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a "real American?" Because usually they don't admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.

    Bret Stephens did when he went a bit out over his skis in stating that America is for immigrants and foreigners and not its native population but that seemed an aberration for its honesty.

    This is an astute point. Somehow I don’t think Wilkinson would accept a compromise where people with deep roots in northern Mexico were free to go back and forth over the border. Somehow all the people whose ancestors were on the continent in 1600 are real Americans. But so are Uzbek Uber drivers and Pakistani truck drivers and Afghan warlords. It seems like the only principle to be defended by Democrats and Lolbertarians vis-à-vis immigration is expediency in saying yes. At least in Wilkinson’s case it comes from a principled stand against borders. Sure, it’s a set of principles that most people outgrow by the time they are 20, and that is so lacking in basic intuition about human nature that it’s essentially autistic, but whatever. In the case of Democrats it is 30 years war to permanently win every Presidential election, disguised with self righteous virtue signaling. It’s heads I win tails you lose for the rest of the current years to come.

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

    Well, it’s all called ‘America’.

    North America, Central America, South America.

    So, everyone is an ‘American’.

    Now, isn’t it arrogant and imperialist for the US to hog the title of ‘American’?

    And why do the OTHER Americans want to ditch their own brand of Americanism and become Americans in the US way? These people denounce gringos and yanquis, but they prefer the Americanism of gringos than of their own kind.

    This whole debate is premised on both sides, pro-immigration and anti-immigration, on the same viewpoint: Mexico and Latin America are inferior and suck so bad.

    Anti-immigration side says, “We shouldn’t let them in because they suck so bad, made a mess of their nations, will just come here with resentment and envy, and make a mess of the US like they made a mess of their own nations.”

    Pro-immigration side says, “We should let them in because they suck so bad and so pathetic that they can’t have nice lives UNLESS they come to the US and live under our leadership and work for us and do and abandon their own identities and cultures to be Americans.”

    Supposedly, the US will do wonders for the newcomers because of its diversity, totally overlooking the fact that Latin American nations are more diverse in that they are white-minority already.
    Now, why are people running from white-minority nations to a white-majority nation? We are told that US will be better when it comes white-minority, but why are ‘Latinos’ running from white-minority nations to one that is still white-majority?

    Of course, NO ONE is coming to the US for its diversity. Suppose we press a reset button and made the US 100% white. Would no one want to come here because it’s too white? No, they would want to come precisely because it is so white.

    Let’s press the button and reset it further and make the US 100% Anglo. Would no one want to come here cuz Wasps are eeeeeeeeeeeevil? But look at Canada. At one time, it was ovewhelmingly Anglo, but it was the favored destination spot for so many Chinese and Hindus.

    Diversity is not the attraction of the US. It is the end-result of diversity being attracted to whiteness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Robert Wright has this idea, it’s come up in his Blogging Heads podcasts with Mickey Kaus, that the United States has essentially said, yeah, it’s no big deal, you can come over here. And he says that sending them back is a human rights violation.

    To the first, what do they think that the border entry points are for? What is all that stuff at state.gov about on the subject of immigration? Why are there U.S. consular offices in their home countries? Of course the government has not O.K.’d aliens to just come to the U.S. by crossing borders, overstaying, or forging documents.

    To the second, all that is being asked is to move to a new city and get a new job, something that Americans do all the time. The new city will be in their country of citizenship, so any problems that occur because you’re illegal will be gone. This is not a human rights violation. To the extent that it is even a minor hardship, I’m in favor of paying them some cash to ease the transition, as long as they agree never to come back and give up their retinal scans.

    One thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty? Amnesty for anyone who can get 100 miles form the border and remain unapprehended for two years? Do we finally get tough? Exactly how do we get tough, e-Verify, prosecutions of employers? If so, do we start that now? I want to hear a pro-amnesty person get grilled on this stuff, in detail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    one thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty? Amnesty for anyone who can get 100 miles form the border and remain unapprehended for two years? Do we finally get tough? Exactly how do we get tough, e-Verify, prosecutions of employers? If so, do we start that now? I want to hear a pro-amnesty person get grilled on this stuff, in detail.
     
    I sense that in America the Democrats and their media enablers simply see amnesty as the step before winning an election on a Latino tidal wave. All of this hysteria about how borders are bad really is that superficial, for the most part.

    As for what happens after this, they don't care much. They don't believe in much anyway. Winning the game of Democracy via the irreversible strategy of demographic victory is self-esteem boosting enough, to just think about, that they're not motivated to think any further. I suppose they have vague thoughts of humiliating the NRA, or humiliating anti-abortion states or humiliating whomever currently annoys them...

    I doubt they feel the need to think of any terms greater than this. Modern, especially progressive i.e post-modern i.e nihilist, democracy seems to have become a sport, a form of entertainment, where the participants play for the same reasons that sportsmen play any sport. They get jobs, money, fame and the great feeling of beating and humiliating your enemies when you win. That democracy is supposed to improve a nation for its citizens is practically crimethink.

    It is certainly as incidental to the motivations of the progressives in the 3 legs of the entertainment industry (movies/tv etc, 'news' and 'acadaemia') as worshipping Mars is incidental to the competitors in the Graeco-Roman wrestling events at the modern-day Olympics is.

    To be fair to the Democrats, half of the Republican side only stand against amnesty for exactly the same reason! The game has become the point. The purpose has been forgotten.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. CCZ says:

    Wilkinson relies on an Economist article from 2014 that includes a map of the United States that delineates the pre-1848 US southern boundary and today’s percentage (in each United States county) of persons with Mexican heritage to show that “Old Mexico Lives On” in the modern United States. A look at the map would lead one to conclude that Mexican heritage residents have indeed re-conquered all of the pre-1848 territory and actually expanded “Old Mexico” into Oregon, Washington, southern Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming and are expanding east and north from these states. Annexation not immigration!!

    To view the map:

    https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595434-old-mexico-lives

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. njguy73 says:
    @Abe

    Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period
     
    "Blah, blah, blah, period. Blah, blah, blah, is not OK."

    Stalin modeled himself after Ivan the Terrible. Hitler wanted to be the reincarnation of Frederick the Great. Current Year soy liberal nu males, however, try their darnedest to sound like your former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher.

    Current Year soy liberal nu males, however, try their darnedest to sound like your former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher.

    I wish. My former post-menopausal, 3rd grade home room teacher actually instilled in us pride in being American. She expected us to pledge allegiance to the flag, and taught us that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were heroes.

    Today she’d be called a racist imperialist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Tyrion 2 says:

    Liberaltarianism is not an ideology with a future. It is almost entirely particular to the English and their descendants. This is not a statement of preference, it is merely an observation that anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history can make.

    How strange therefore that a liberaltarian would write an article like this. One that starts with Mexicans and then extends to all Latinos to fundamentally re-define US political culture. No doubt he hopes that if he writes this stuff then said Latinos will think better of his ideology.

    Because pathetic grovelling and mindless self-abegnation is so attractive Mr Wilkinson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But Wilkinson-style liberaltarianism seems indistinguishable from the Democratic center left at this point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. bgates says:

    Spain itself had been conquered by the Arabs 700 years before it began colonizing the Western Hemisphere, so Yemenis have a much better claim on America than any of us when you really think about it.

    How does a guy with two words for close blood relative in his own last name spew this sort of garbage?

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

    So, we can formulate immigration policy by weighing who has stronger or weaker ancestral ties to the North American continent? Okay…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Roger says: • Website

    Even if Spanish-American settlers were real Americans, what does that have to do with Mexicans?

    Mexicans speak the same language as Spain, but not the same as the USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Arclight
    So to get this straight, the descendants of the first Euro conquerors/colonizers of parts of North America have an inviolable claim to it, rather than the much more successful second wave of Euro colonizers?

    Contra Wilkinson, the issue is not that a large part of the American citizenry cannot accept people of Spanish descent as 'real Americans' it's that a large part of our elites believe they are preferable and superior to their actual countrymen, and usher in huge numbers of future voters to wrest political control away from people who have been here for generations.

    I wonder if Will Wilkerson ever met a Hispanic libertarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode

    Argentine, so possibly of Italian rather than Spanish ancestry.
    , @nebulafox
    Much like how Turd Blossom's beliefs, leading to his destruction of all opposing views in the GOP on the subject, can be easily explained by the fact that the only Americans of Mexican extraction he's probably ever met work for the Chamber of Commerce.
    , @Bill
    There are a fair number of Conquistador libertarian economists. There was a whole University of Chicago Economics - South American libertarian nexus thing for a while.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Maybe when they converted, God promised them our land, à la Exodus:

    Mexicus 23:31

    “I will establish your borders from the Pacific to the Gulf, and from the Yucatán Peninsula to the Platte and Sacramento Rivers. I will give into your hands the people who live in the north, and you will replace them demographically.”

    It worked for the Khazars.

    Writing like this article really does smack of myth-making and twisted logic. It is a trick. As we know, the longer a myth is propagated, the more people believe it.

    The legitimate, old family Americans of Hispanic descent in the Southwestern United States are honest-to-God US Americans who don’t necessarily have any sympathy for Mexicans. They are the Americans whom Wilkinson awkwardly calls “ancestors who have been here all along.” (They must be 400 years old by now!)

    We know Spaniards were in the Southwest a long time ago. Santa Fe, founded by them in 1610, is the oldest city in the United States. That does not give their descendants who have never lived there and are not citizens any right to it or to any other land in our country — unless our people begin to believe the myth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We know Spaniards were in the Southwest a long time ago. Santa Fe, founded by them in 1610, is the oldest city in the United States.
     
    St. Augustine and Jamestown are both older than that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Chris Marsk
    Robert Wright has this idea, it's come up in his Blogging Heads podcasts with Mickey Kaus, that the United States has essentially said, yeah, it's no big deal, you can come over here. And he says that sending them back is a human rights violation.

    To the first, what do they think that the border entry points are for? What is all that stuff at state.gov about on the subject of immigration? Why are there U.S. consular offices in their home countries? Of course the government has not O.K.'d aliens to just come to the U.S. by crossing borders, overstaying, or forging documents.

    To the second, all that is being asked is to move to a new city and get a new job, something that Americans do all the time. The new city will be in their country of citizenship, so any problems that occur because you're illegal will be gone. This is not a human rights violation. To the extent that it is even a minor hardship, I'm in favor of paying them some cash to ease the transition, as long as they agree never to come back and give up their retinal scans.

    One thing that I've never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty? Amnesty for anyone who can get 100 miles form the border and remain unapprehended for two years? Do we finally get tough? Exactly how do we get tough, e-Verify, prosecutions of employers? If so, do we start that now? I want to hear a pro-amnesty person get grilled on this stuff, in detail.

    one thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty? Amnesty for anyone who can get 100 miles form the border and remain unapprehended for two years? Do we finally get tough? Exactly how do we get tough, e-Verify, prosecutions of employers? If so, do we start that now? I want to hear a pro-amnesty person get grilled on this stuff, in detail.

    I sense that in America the Democrats and their media enablers simply see amnesty as the step before winning an election on a Latino tidal wave. All of this hysteria about how borders are bad really is that superficial, for the most part.

    As for what happens after this, they don’t care much. They don’t believe in much anyway. Winning the game of Democracy via the irreversible strategy of demographic victory is self-esteem boosting enough, to just think about, that they’re not motivated to think any further. I suppose they have vague thoughts of humiliating the NRA, or humiliating anti-abortion states or humiliating whomever currently annoys them…

    I doubt they feel the need to think of any terms greater than this. Modern, especially progressive i.e post-modern i.e nihilist, democracy seems to have become a sport, a form of entertainment, where the participants play for the same reasons that sportsmen play any sport. They get jobs, money, fame and the great feeling of beating and humiliating your enemies when you win. That democracy is supposed to improve a nation for its citizens is practically crimethink.

    It is certainly as incidental to the motivations of the progressives in the 3 legs of the entertainment industry (movies/tv etc, ‘news’ and ‘acadaemia’) as worshipping Mars is incidental to the competitors in the Graeco-Roman wrestling events at the modern-day Olympics is.

    To be fair to the Democrats, half of the Republican side only stand against amnesty for exactly the same reason! The game has become the point. The purpose has been forgotten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Very good explanation of the motivations of today's Democrat Party, liberals, the left and the cultural left -cultural Marxists. Nihilism and more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. istevefan says:
    @syonredux
    Serious question: Is Will Wilkinson retarded? Or is he simply being massively disingenuous? Perhaps both retarded and massively disingenuous?

    It’s deliberate. It really seems like the media is doing a full court press on Americans and other Euros to justify their displacement. Apparently they no longer think just saying diversity is a strength is good enough. The MAGA stuff and other nationalist movements are no longer easily buying that line. So they have to convince people that what they yearn for from yesteryear never really happened, or never was how we imagined it.

    I know it’s old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    They are now hellbent on rewriting our past so as to ensure their future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I know it’s old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
     
    Yep. Saying that "Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period" is the SJW version of

    O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. 'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' 'Four.' 'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Horseball says:

    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it’s poking through there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it’s poking through there.

     

    If Wilkinson is a Mormon, he is following the party line on mass immigration from the ruling class of the Mormon cult. Mitt Romney and the Huntsman styrofoam egg shell people all now say they love mass immigration.

    I once asked Jon Huntsman Jr. about immigration, and his answer led me to the conclusion that the plutocrat Mormons are just as evil as any member of the Bush or Clinton organized crime syndicates.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. syonredux says:
    @istevefan
    It's deliberate. It really seems like the media is doing a full court press on Americans and other Euros to justify their displacement. Apparently they no longer think just saying diversity is a strength is good enough. The MAGA stuff and other nationalist movements are no longer easily buying that line. So they have to convince people that what they yearn for from yesteryear never really happened, or never was how we imagined it.

    I know it's old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    They are now hellbent on rewriting our past so as to ensure their future.

    I know it’s old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    Yep. Saying that “Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period” is the SJW version of

    O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. ‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’ ‘Four.’ ‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?’

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJz77y4d_JA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. syonredux says:
    @syonredux

    I know it’s old hat around here, but Orwell was right when he wrote, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
     
    Yep. Saying that "Mexican culture and ethnicity is foundational to American national identity, period" is the SJW version of

    O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. 'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' 'Four.' 'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'
     

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

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico.
     
    Wasn't it literally Mexico for about 27 years?

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic.
     
    In 1870, Arizona had a population of 9,658 people. The population of the USA in 1870 was 38 million. So Arizona's population wasn't even statistically significant. In other words it was essentially empty territory.

    So what again is 61 percent of nothing?

    Also you will note massive numbers of people would not be willing to go to Arizona until the Anglo-Americans got a chance to improve the place and make it more conducive. You know like building the great big dam that brings in beautiful electricity.

    I think most of the areas that we "stole" from Mexico, who stole them from Spain who stole them from the Tribes, were similarly sparsely inhabited which is why the USA took them. After all we defeated Mexico in a war and could have taken much more. But to have taken more territory in what is now Mexico would have meant taking in significantly more Mexicans into our populace. And the leaders back then were smart enough not to go that route. They took AZ and other places because of the lack of Mexicans in those places. In other words the Americans at that time were decidedly against the Mexicanization of the USA.

    Lots of the Spanish speakers in 1848 didn’t think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as loyal subjects of Spain or as of rightfully independent Californios or whatever. Linda Chavez’s ancestors in the Upper Rio Grande were never big fans of Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lots of the Spanish speakers in 1848 didn’t think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as loyal subjects of Spain or as of rightfully independent Californios or whatever. Linda Chavez’s ancestors in the Upper Rio Grande were never big fans of Mexico.
     
    You can see the tenuousness of Mexican identity in the massive rebellion against Santa Anna in 1835:

    In May 1834, Santa Anna ordered disarmament of the civic militia. He suggested to Congress that they should abolish the controversial Ley del Caso, under which the liberals' opponents had been sent into exile.[29] The Plan of Cuernavaca, published on 25 May 1834, called for repeal of the liberal reforms.[30] On 12 June, Santa Anna dissolved Congress and announced his decision to adopt the Plan of Cuernavaca.[31] Santa Anna formed a new Catholic, centralist, conservative government. In 1835, it replaced the 1824 constitution with the new constitutional document known as the "Siete Leyes" ("The Seven Laws"). Santa Anna dissolved the Congress and began centralizing power. His regime became a dictatorship backed by the military.

    Several states openly rebelled against the changes: Coahuila y Tejas (the northern part of which would become the Republic of Texas), San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments: the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatán, and the Republic of Texas. Only the Texans defeated Santa Anna and retained their independence. Their fierce resistance was possibly fueled by reprisals Santa Anna committed against his defeated enemies.[32] The New York Post editorialized that "had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren."[33]

    The Zacatecan militia, the largest and best supplied of the Mexican states, led by Francisco García, was well armed with .753 caliber British 'Brown Bess' muskets and Baker .61 rifles. But, after two hours of combat on 12 May 1835, Santa Anna's "Army of Operations" defeated the Zacatecan militia and took almost 3,000 prisoners. Santa Anna allowed his army to loot Zacatecas for forty-eight hours. After defeating Zacatecas, he planned to move on to Coahuila y Tejas to quell the rebellion there, which was being supported by settlers from the United States (aka Texians).
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna#Santa_Anna_and_the_Central_Republic,_1835
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Wilkey
    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The total Spanish-speaking population in the area we claimed after the War with Mexico was (maybe, possibly) 100,000 people, at the very most, spread out over about half a million square miles. Add in all the Spanish-speakers in other Spanish settlements (Texas, Florida, etc.) and I doubt you'd get anywhere close to 200,000.

    In contrast, the population of Connecticut in 1850 was....371,000 people. And New York, fwiw, had over 3 million people. But hey, there were a few dozen Mexican families living in Southwest Colorado, so that's like totally the same thing.

    But hey, there were a few dozen Mexican families living in Southwest Colorado, so that’s like totally the same thing.

    And they didn’t think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as Spaniards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. syonredux says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Lots of the Spanish speakers in 1848 didn't think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as loyal subjects of Spain or as of rightfully independent Californios or whatever. Linda Chavez's ancestors in the Upper Rio Grande were never big fans of Mexico.

    Lots of the Spanish speakers in 1848 didn’t think of themselves as Mexicans, they thought of themselves as loyal subjects of Spain or as of rightfully independent Californios or whatever. Linda Chavez’s ancestors in the Upper Rio Grande were never big fans of Mexico.

    You can see the tenuousness of Mexican identity in the massive rebellion against Santa Anna in 1835:

    In May 1834, Santa Anna ordered disarmament of the civic militia. He suggested to Congress that they should abolish the controversial Ley del Caso, under which the liberals’ opponents had been sent into exile.[29] The Plan of Cuernavaca, published on 25 May 1834, called for repeal of the liberal reforms.[30] On 12 June, Santa Anna dissolved Congress and announced his decision to adopt the Plan of Cuernavaca.[31] Santa Anna formed a new Catholic, centralist, conservative government. In 1835, it replaced the 1824 constitution with the new constitutional document known as the “Siete Leyes” (“The Seven Laws”). Santa Anna dissolved the Congress and began centralizing power. His regime became a dictatorship backed by the military.

    Several states openly rebelled against the changes: Coahuila y Tejas (the northern part of which would become the Republic of Texas), San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments: the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatán, and the Republic of Texas. Only the Texans defeated Santa Anna and retained their independence. Their fierce resistance was possibly fueled by reprisals Santa Anna committed against his defeated enemies.[32] The New York Post editorialized that “had [Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren.”[33]

    The Zacatecan militia, the largest and best supplied of the Mexican states, led by Francisco García, was well armed with .753 caliber British ‘Brown Bess’ muskets and Baker .61 rifles. But, after two hours of combat on 12 May 1835, Santa Anna’s “Army of Operations” defeated the Zacatecan militia and took almost 3,000 prisoners. Santa Anna allowed his army to loot Zacatecas for forty-eight hours. After defeating Zacatecas, he planned to move on to Coahuila y Tejas to quell the rebellion there, which was being supported by settlers from the United States (aka Texians).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna#Santa_Anna_and_the_Central_Republic,_1835

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

    The next step, no doubt Wilkinson will agree with border crossing [annexation] made safer, smarter, faster.

    Bienvenidos is the world’s first community-based navigation app for immigration. Using crowd-sourced data from users, Bienvenidos provides real-time info about the best immigration routes to cross the U.S.-Mexico Border.

    https://www.bienvenidosapp.com/home

    Discover the best routes and avoid obstacles

    Get notified about the most efficient routes and entry points. Receive alerts on Border Patrol agents, drones, ground sensors, and hidden camera locations. Be warned of hazards and obstacles like heat waves, dangerous river crossings, and wild animals.

    Outsmart any wall with live updates

    View updates in real-time on the status of the new border wall construction. Get reports on vulnerable areas along current fences and barricades, like openings, lack of barbed wiring, and flimsy construction. Share tunneling locations and conditions.

    Help each other every step of the way

    Dropped pins provide the geolocation of water supplies and rations from volunteers, hide-out locations, and sites that offer natural shade from extreme heat or potential flash floods.

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

    OT but iStevey:

    Who is saying this:

    Every country or territory decides who can enter or exit through its borders.

    ANSWER: None other than Her Majesty the Queen in Right in Canada, aka Trudeaupia.

    https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/united-states (under “Entry/Exit Requirements)

    (Save copy now before page is memory-holed.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. guest says:

    What ethnicity is Trump promoting as part of his “ethnonationalist agenda?” Not WASPs. I see no evidence it’s Founding Stock, either. I don’t have any idea what it is, except that it’s supposed to be white. But white isn’t an ethnicity.

    By the way, there’s no such thing as an ethnonation. That’s redundant. They’gone so far around the bend with their Nation of Immigrants nonsense that they think nation needs to be modified to include a particular ethnicity. Ha! That’s like eating a peanut butter PB&J.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    I wonder if Will Wilkerson ever met a Hispanic libertarian.

    https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode

    Argentine, so possibly of Italian rather than Spanish ancestry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Liberaltarianism is not an ideology with a future. It is almost entirely particular to the English and their descendants. This is not a statement of preference, it is merely an observation that anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history can make.


    How strange therefore that a liberaltarian would write an article like this. One that starts with Mexicans and then extends to all Latinos to fundamentally re-define US political culture. No doubt he hopes that if he writes this stuff then said Latinos will think better of his ideology.

    Because pathetic grovelling and mindless self-abegnation is so attractive Mr Wilkinson.

    But Wilkinson-style liberaltarianism seems indistinguishable from the Democratic center left at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The Democratic centre left is indistinguishable in and of itself. What does it stand for?
    , @Art Deco
    Same deal with the Mercatus variant. A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn't libertarianism but cosmopolitanism. That and a tendency to be very conscious of what is status-lowering in faculty settings. Aside from open borders, their big liberty issues are petty occupational licensure and the health-and-safety regs governing pharmaceutical marketing, issues in which no one in academe has much of an emotional investment. Oh, and Tabarrok hates cops.
    , @Gunner
    That’s because there is no difference. Willy Boy is getting torn up on his twitter post about this article. 100% calling him an idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Anonymous
    But Wilkinson-style liberaltarianism seems indistinguishable from the Democratic center left at this point.

    The Democratic centre left is indistinguishable in and of itself. What does it stand for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. nebulafox says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    I wonder if Will Wilkerson ever met a Hispanic libertarian.

    Much like how Turd Blossom’s beliefs, leading to his destruction of all opposing views in the GOP on the subject, can be easily explained by the fact that the only Americans of Mexican extraction he’s probably ever met work for the Chamber of Commerce.

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

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.

    Predated by St. Augustine! But if “who got here first” establishes superior legitimacy how then to square that with the current notion that only the newest of newcomers are legitimate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    St. Augustine got there in the 4th c.? Holy cow, I had no idea. Eat your heart out, Columbus, you non-newcomer Italiano, financed by those wicked Spanish sovereigns. The North Africans own America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Maybe when they converted, God promised them our land, à la Exodus:

    Mexicus 23:31

    “I will establish your borders from the Pacific to the Gulf, and from the Yucatán Peninsula to the Platte and Sacramento Rivers. I will give into your hands the people who live in the north, and you will replace them demographically."

    It worked for the Khazars.

    Writing like this article really does smack of myth-making and twisted logic. It is a trick. As we know, the longer a myth is propagated, the more people believe it.

    The legitimate, old family Americans of Hispanic descent in the Southwestern United States are honest-to-God US Americans who don't necessarily have any sympathy for Mexicans. They are the Americans whom Wilkinson awkwardly calls "ancestors who have been here all along." (They must be 400 years old by now!)

    We know Spaniards were in the Southwest a long time ago. Santa Fe, founded by them in 1610, is the oldest city in the United States. That does not give their descendants who have never lived there and are not citizens any right to it or to any other land in our country -- unless our people begin to believe the myth.

    We know Spaniards were in the Southwest a long time ago. Santa Fe, founded by them in 1610, is the oldest city in the United States.

    St. Augustine and Jamestown are both older than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    My mistake. Santa Fe is the oldest state capital. That must have stuck in my mind the times I was there.

    Santa Fe population today: 84,000. That's a city. The oldest one in the Southwest US.

    St. Augustine: 13,000. Smaller, but the oldest continuously occupied community in US

    Jamestown: Abandoned, repopulated, died again long ago. Is anybody there now?

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

    Like the Spanish Fleet you sank in the Spanish American War, or the rapists in Pancho Villa’s band of brigands gunned down by Texas Rangers, Mexico has had a major contribution to American History. Now as we face the important decision of having you hand everything you and your ancestors worked for to dumb brown people who are no longer useful since robots are smarter and harder working than we are, we just hope you will give up and not firebomb Mexico City.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. AndrewR says:

    Federale? That word doesn’t exist in Spanish. The singular is “federal,” and tye plural is “federales.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. AndrewR says:
    @syonredux
    Serious question: Is Will Wilkinson retarded? Or is he simply being massively disingenuous? Perhaps both retarded and massively disingenuous?

    Retardation and disingenuousness are not mutually exclusive, of course, but Wilkinson and everyone else at Vox, NYT, The Atlantic, etc are bright, educated people. They’re just con artists.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous

    We know Spaniards were in the Southwest a long time ago. Santa Fe, founded by them in 1610, is the oldest city in the United States.
     
    St. Augustine and Jamestown are both older than that.

    My mistake. Santa Fe is the oldest state capital. That must have stuck in my mind the times I was there.

    Santa Fe population today: 84,000. That’s a city. The oldest one in the Southwest US.

    St. Augustine: 13,000. Smaller, but the oldest continuously occupied community in US

    Jamestown: Abandoned, repopulated, died again long ago. Is anybody there now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Considering the Texans fought a war to not be Mexican (did you ever make it out to San Jacinto when you were at Rice, Mr. Sailer?), and then the nation as a whole had to fight a war with them, I’d say no, we’re not Mexican.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    (did you ever make it out to San Jacinto when you were at Rice, Mr. Sailer?)

    Yeah, when I arrived in August 1976 my dad and I went to the top of the giant San Jacinto monument, which, being Texas, is taller than the Washington Monument.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Considering the Texans fought a war to not be Mexican (did you ever make it out to San Jacinto when you were at Rice, Mr. Sailer?), and then the nation as a whole had to fight a war with them, I'd say no, we're not Mexican.

    (did you ever make it out to San Jacinto when you were at Rice, Mr. Sailer?)

    Yeah, when I arrived in August 1976 my dad and I went to the top of the giant San Jacinto monument, which, being Texas, is taller than the Washington Monument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Only Catholic Unionist
    Great view from up there. They now have the old USS Texas (the New York class battleship) in the channel there too ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. It’s hilarious to imagine this little effeminate dweeb putting on a tough guy act and trying to tell actual Americans that we’re not American, “Period.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    A philosophy student laying down the law like he's Wyatt Earp....hilarious!
    , @Anonymous
    Indeed, but thanks to the MSM and the internet, such people are lecturing us 24/7 nowadays. IRL they'd get the smackdowns they deserve and the rest of us could go about rebuilding our society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @istevefan

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico.
     
    Wasn't it literally Mexico for about 27 years?

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic.
     
    In 1870, Arizona had a population of 9,658 people. The population of the USA in 1870 was 38 million. So Arizona's population wasn't even statistically significant. In other words it was essentially empty territory.

    So what again is 61 percent of nothing?

    Also you will note massive numbers of people would not be willing to go to Arizona until the Anglo-Americans got a chance to improve the place and make it more conducive. You know like building the great big dam that brings in beautiful electricity.

    I think most of the areas that we "stole" from Mexico, who stole them from Spain who stole them from the Tribes, were similarly sparsely inhabited which is why the USA took them. After all we defeated Mexico in a war and could have taken much more. But to have taken more territory in what is now Mexico would have meant taking in significantly more Mexicans into our populace. And the leaders back then were smart enough not to go that route. They took AZ and other places because of the lack of Mexicans in those places. In other words the Americans at that time were decidedly against the Mexicanization of the USA.

    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The only problem with Mexico is that it is full of Mexicans.
    , @John Gruskos
    No, you have it backwards.

    The big mistake Polk made was taking too much of Mexico.

    If Polk had been content with a boundary consisting of the Nueces River, 100 degrees longitude, and 37 degrees latitude (which the Mexican government offered when it became clear that they were losing the war), the conquests would have been fully assimilated.

    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated, and now mass immigration and differential birthrates are causing those areas to rapidly de-assimilate.

    Also, the Civil War might have been avoided if Polk had been content with more modest gains. The controversy over extending slavery into the areas taken from Mexico which lay south of the Missouri Compromise line began the cycle of sectional conflict which culminated in the Civil War.
    , @Art Deco
    Per Populstats, the U.S. had a population of about 23 million at the time, and Mexico 7 million. Mexican peninsulares, criollos, mestizos, and mission indians numbered fewer than 20,000 in California in 1840. In Texas in 1836, such people numbered around 3,000. In New Mexico, they were more numerous, but still numbered in five digits. Santa Fe was just about the largest town to be found north of the Rio Grande. After the war, its population was smaller than 5,000. The territory north of the Rio Grande was bereft of actual Mexicans.

    Of course, Guatemala insisted for 150 years or so that British Honduras was theirs, Spain insists that Gibraltar (a British possession for 300 years) is theirs, and Argentina's butt hurt about the Falklands - a territory on which they had a colony with a two-digit population during the period running from 1826 to 1831.
    , @syonredux

    A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.
     
    Far too many. That would have created a Quebec-style situation in the USA, only worse. The Quebecois are European, whereas the overwhelming bulk of Mexico is Amerind/Mestizo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    The only problem with Mexico is that it is full of Mexicans.

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

    Trump’s improving fortunes are causing normally smart liberals to sound like idiots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Lots of illegal immigrants themselves say its better under Anglos than Mexico. So, the argument is a bit silly here, Actually, Latinos are not the group being pushed by the Dems now. Mexicans sliightly declined if net immigration and out migration are factor in. If Mexicans don’t marry in the US, they are less likely if they are here illegality to stay. The biggest increase under Obama was Africans. They went from a low 300,00 in 2,000 to almost 2 million by the end of Obama’s administration. The Dems want chain migration more than just legalizing Latinos since the new groups are less Mexicans and Central Americans and more likely to be from Africa or Asia. Both Africans and Asians are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican more so than the Latinos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Tex says:

    Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Founding Father of the United States.* He gave his leg for your freedom kids!

    That makes Juan Peron much more important than FDR. And as for Evita, well whoever made a musical about Eleanor Roosevelt? Check and mate, redlining racists.

    *OK, United States of Mexico, but what reeeeeeeeely is the difference? Borders can’t hold a love like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Mr. Vox is forgetting Roanoke Island (1585) of V. Dare fame, and Nova Albion (1579).
    Sir Francis Drake left all those surfer dudes and Valley girls in California who survive to this day!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. “Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s.”

    The first step in the establishment of the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine was the slaughter of a French Protestant settlement that had been previously established at the same location.

    The French surrendered to the Spanish on the condition that their lives be spared, but the Spanish treacherously slaughtered the French once they had them at their mercy, reasoning that no faith need be kept with “heretics”.

    They commemorated their deed with a monument stating “We did this not to Frenchmen, but to heretics”.

    When Florida was surrendered to the British empire after the Seven Years War, the Spanish inhabitants unanimously decided to move to Cuba rather than live under the unholy rule of Protestants.

    America is a nation born from the 17th-18th century Protestant settlements, mostly English but also Scottish, Dutch, Swedish, German, and French (with minute sprinklings of Czech Moravians and even Italian Waldensians), established along the Atlantic coast of North America north of Florida and south of Canada. They were almost all seeking refuge from the Counter-Reformation, either as refugees from the victorious Catholic monarchs of Spain, France and Austria, or as refugees from the High Church Anglicans of the Stuart dynasty, who seemed to be always on the brink of converting back to Catholicism and bringing the High Church in the British Isles with them.

    As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed.

    If the Spanish and their Catholic French allies had the power to do so, they would have exterminated these settlements as they had previously exterminated the first European settlement within the boundaries of the current United States, the French Protestant settlement in Florida.

    Ever step of the growth of the American nation was marked by conflict with the evil Spanish Empire and its successor state, Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Fascinating comment. Thank you.
    , @Hibernian
    "As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed."

    You're ignoring Switzerland and the Netherlands, at the very least.

    , @Anonymous
    This tends to get forgotten. The biggest threat faced by the early English settlers of North America didn't come from the Indians but from other Europeans, especially the Spanish.

    I remember reading an article about the excavations in Jamestown, in which someone expressed incredulity that the settlers had brought with them heavy body armor - totally unnecessary for fighting Indians. Nobody mentioned what should have been obvious: this was for fighting Spaniards not Indians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    No, you have it backwards.

    The big mistake Polk made was taking too much of Mexico.

    If Polk had been content with a boundary consisting of the Nueces River, 100 degrees longitude, and 37 degrees latitude (which the Mexican government offered when it became clear that they were losing the war), the conquests would have been fully assimilated.

    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated, and now mass immigration and differential birthrates are causing those areas to rapidly de-assimilate.

    Also, the Civil War might have been avoided if Polk had been content with more modest gains. The controversy over extending slavery into the areas taken from Mexico which lay south of the Missouri Compromise line began the cycle of sectional conflict which culminated in the Civil War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated . . . .

    Agree. This fits in with my running thesis that mid-to-late 1800s marked the existential turning point for America, from a nation of WASPs to an ethnically ambiguous free-trade zone. The further East of the Mississippi, the further you get from anyone who could join or would be interested in joining the Daughters of the American Revolution.

    Mid-1800s: Texas and California never had any deep connection with Boston and New York. Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas were essentially New Germany---fully bilingual---until the World Wars forced the German Midwest to adopt a fierce but vague "American" identity. Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!) and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios. Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.

    The America of 1776 never made it past the Mississippi. My parents---Iberian and native, Irish, a smattering of German and late-arriving Scotch-Irish---have zero connection with that America. Yet, God Bless America, they love her for her ideals and heroes and look up to those old WASPs who founded a free society governed by rule of law and not the whims of men. It's misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America. However, it is prudent and right to promote among all newcomers the ideals upon which their nation (not ours) was founded. The tearing down of their monuments is a dangerous trend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Art Deco says:

    The question at hand is the degree to which Wilkinson actually believes this hooey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Art Deco says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    Per Populstats, the U.S. had a population of about 23 million at the time, and Mexico 7 million. Mexican peninsulares, criollos, mestizos, and mission indians numbered fewer than 20,000 in California in 1840. In Texas in 1836, such people numbered around 3,000. In New Mexico, they were more numerous, but still numbered in five digits. Santa Fe was just about the largest town to be found north of the Rio Grande. After the war, its population was smaller than 5,000. The territory north of the Rio Grande was bereft of actual Mexicans.

    Of course, Guatemala insisted for 150 years or so that British Honduras was theirs, Spain insists that Gibraltar (a British possession for 300 years) is theirs, and Argentina’s butt hurt about the Falklands – a territory on which they had a colony with a two-digit population during the period running from 1826 to 1831.

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

    one thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty?

    Wilkinson was a philosophy student, and has a master’s degree in the subject. What does that suggest? (a) innumerate and (b) likes to play with abstract ideas. What Chesterton said: the trouble with a madman is not that he is illogical, but that he is only logical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Apparently, you know little about philosophy majors, at least those of my generation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Art Deco says:
    @syonredux

    DREAMers come from all over, but nearly 80 percent of them were born in Mexico. For the ethnonationalist populists, immigration — and Mexican immigration in particular — is a threat to authentic American national identity, which in their eyes is white and European in origin.
     
    Huh. Guess all that stuff that I read in my High School history class about Jamestown and Plymouth and Protestant Christianity must have been some kind of "ethnonationalist" propaganda....

    White Americans anxious about retaining their cultural and political dominance
     
    You mean the White Anglos who aren't cucked and don't want to see their nation commit racial suicide?

    The Americanness of Hispanic Americans ought to be indisputable.
     
    On the other hand, their Anglo-Americanness seems highly disputable.....

    Spanish colonial culture precedes English colonial culture in North America. Coronado made it all the way to where Kansas sits today, not far from my birthplace in Independence, Missouri, in 1541. Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s. A Spanish mission was established in what is now the state of New Mexico in 1598 for the purpose of converting the indigenous peoples to Catholicism.

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.
     

    Thanks for reminding us about the the struggle between Anglo and Latinx for mastery of North America.

    The standard narrative of American history begins with the establishment of English colonies on the East Coast and then follows the westward expansion of official US territory.
     
    Yeah, that's because Anglo-America, you know, started there...

    This makes it easy to overlook that the “Mestizo” mixture of Spanish and Southwestern indigenous ancestry is older the United States, and that Mexicans inhabited US territory before it became US territory.
     
    Of course, 90% + of the Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who lived there before it became US territory....

    Until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the entire American Southwest, half of Colorado, and even bits of Wyoming and Kansas were literally Mexico. (Texas declared independence earlier, but Mexico didn’t recognize it.) The treaty drew the border right through the middle of a culturally coherent, economically unified trade zone and labor market. Look closely at this map:

    Trump supporters who thrill to the idea of a “big, beautiful wall” on the border largely fail to grasp that the ancestors of many of the people they want to keep out have been here all along, and that people cross back and forth over the border in part because the border crossed a people.
     

    Nope. As I pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans in the USA are not descended from the people who were here in 1848.

    In 1870, the first year for which census data is available, Arizona was 61 percent Hispanic. If it works its way back up to that from today’s 30 percent, it won’t have become less American. It will have become more like it was when it became American.
     
    Which is another way of saying that it will revert to being less American.

    Before the Gold Rush, Spanish-speaking Mexicans and indigenous people outnumbered English-speaking white settlers in California by a wide margin. Today in the Golden State, where the largest population of DREAMers lives, the most common last names are Garcia, Hernandez, and Lopez and an American is as just as likely to be Hispanic as white. DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    They're Anglos?

    The fact that there’s any question about affording legal status to a class of rooted young immigrants who grew up American among Americans is shameful.

     

    Yeah, someone who illegally entered the USA at the age of 15 has deep roots....

    It’s a reflection of the disgraceful fact that so many of us are doggedly ignorant of the country we claim to revere, and deny the plain historical truth that America has always been multicultural, that Spanish colonial mestizo culture is a foundational American culture, and that many Mexican Americans have deeper roots in American soil than those of us whose European ancestors arrived rather late in the day at Ellis Island.
     
    MMMM, "foundational American culture".....What comes to mind: Jamestown, Plymouth, Puritans, King James Bible, John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, the Wright Bros....Nope, can't seem to think of anyone whose name ends in a "Z."

    It makes no more sense, culturally or ethnically, to call into question the Americanness of a young woman whose mom brought her from Hermosillo to Tucson at the age of 6 than it does to doubt that a white guy raised in Syracuse but born in Toronto can ever really belong there.
     

    Sure it does. See, Will, Anglo-Canadians are part of something called Anglo-America....
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes
     
    Been on a university campus lately, Will? SJWs are quite keen on making sure that the USA is split into warring tribes....

    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes

    What’s salient about remarks like this is that they expect the rest of us to maintain a mentality commonly associated with battered wives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Art Deco says:
    @Anonymous
    But Wilkinson-style liberaltarianism seems indistinguishable from the Democratic center left at this point.

    Same deal with the Mercatus variant. A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn’t libertarianism but cosmopolitanism. That and a tendency to be very conscious of what is status-lowering in faculty settings. Aside from open borders, their big liberty issues are petty occupational licensure and the health-and-safety regs governing pharmaceutical marketing, issues in which no one in academe has much of an emotional investment. Oh, and Tabarrok hates cops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    And Caplan thinks he pays his barber too much.
    , @Anonymous
    A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn’t libertarianism but cosmopolitanism.

    Do you have a cite?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Art Deco
    Same deal with the Mercatus variant. A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn't libertarianism but cosmopolitanism. That and a tendency to be very conscious of what is status-lowering in faculty settings. Aside from open borders, their big liberty issues are petty occupational licensure and the health-and-safety regs governing pharmaceutical marketing, issues in which no one in academe has much of an emotional investment. Oh, and Tabarrok hates cops.

    And Caplan thinks he pays his barber too much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anonymous

    The English Jamestown Colony was established in 1607. The Pilgrims did not arrive at Plymouth Rock until 1620.
     
    Predated by St. Augustine! But if "who got here first" establishes superior legitimacy how then to square that with the current notion that only the newest of newcomers are legitimate?

    St. Augustine got there in the 4th c.? Holy cow, I had no idea. Eat your heart out, Columbus, you non-newcomer Italiano, financed by those wicked Spanish sovereigns. The North Africans own America.

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

    Wilkinson demonstrates the brilliance of writing an essay in which every statement of fact and every conclusion is demonstrably wrong….where does a critic start?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. pyrrhus says:
    @27 year old
    It's hilarious to imagine this little effeminate dweeb putting on a tough guy act and trying to tell actual Americans that we're not American, "Period."

    A philosophy student laying down the law like he’s Wyatt Earp….hilarious!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Pericles says:
    @syonredux
    Serious question: Is Will Wilkinson retarded? Or is he simply being massively disingenuous? Perhaps both retarded and massively disingenuous?

    Wil Wilkinson: Retardedly disingenuous or disingenuously retarded?

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. syonredux says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m wondering if the US should in fact have taken more of Mexico. At the time the US had at least 10 times the population of all of Mexico, so they could have taken some more of their territory at little demographic cost. They could have taken the country all the way up until just north of the Valley of Mexico, which would have made for a much more defensible border in the future. A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    A fair trade-off for assimilating a few more of them.

    Far too many. That would have created a Quebec-style situation in the USA, only worse. The Quebecois are European, whereas the overwhelming bulk of Mexico is Amerind/Mestizo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Alec Leamas
    There are better historians here than me who can explain how sparsely populated the American West and Southwest was before American settlers from the East and non-Spaniard European settlers started building stuff there.

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a "real American?" Because usually they don't admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.

    Bret Stephens did when he went a bit out over his skis in stating that America is for immigrants and foreigners and not its native population but that seemed an aberration for its honesty.

    But is Wilkinson proposing that there is such a thing as a “real American?” Because usually they don’t admit of such a concept. America is a set of ideas and WHO WE ARE that sort of hovers over our magic dirt.

    That’s the thing that struck me Alec as well.

    Beyond the abject stupidity of his claims–Spanish explorers and missionaries trooping around are not the precursors to the actual American nation that was brought into being (Hint: We speak English)–Wilkinson is the kind of ideologue who thinks anyone and everyone have the right to be here.

    So is Wilkinson going to say the Somalis don’t belong here because in fact they clearly have absolutely no association with America whatsoever. No, of course not.

    We’re out of the realm of argument here now and just dealing with intellectual toddlers throwing hissy fits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @27 year old
    It's hilarious to imagine this little effeminate dweeb putting on a tough guy act and trying to tell actual Americans that we're not American, "Period."

    Indeed, but thanks to the MSM and the internet, such people are lecturing us 24/7 nowadays. IRL they’d get the smackdowns they deserve and the rest of us could go about rebuilding our society.

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

    Uh, yeah…

    From their website: “The Niskanen Center, which launched operations in January 2015, is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) think tank that works to promote an open society: a social order that is open to political, cultural, and social change; open to free inquiry; open to individual autonomy; open to the poor and marginalized; open to commerce and trade; open to people who may wish to come or go; open to different beliefs and cultures; open to the search for truth; and a government that protects these freedoms while advancing the cause of open societies around the world. The politics of the 21st century increasingly pits defenders of the open society against a new breed of populists animated by a vision of a closed and exclusive national community. The Niskanen Center’s theory of policy change and how we go about our business is described in detail in our conspectus.”

    Interestingly, Linda Chavez, the partial focus of another article hereabouts lately, is their ‘senior fellow…’

    Looking at their collective pictures, they’re about as limp-wristed, pajama-boy a group as you’d suspect. Safe in their sinecures, sipping tea and positing wisdom about the beauty of a borderless world. I suspect not a one of them has plumbed past the first half inch of Magic Dirt, to the “Real American Dirt” where you have to rub elbows with the unwashed non-English speakers who are the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Looking at their collective pictures, they’re about as limp-wristed, pajama-boy a group as you’d suspect.
     
    I have to agree, it may not be a fair or just statement to make, but I've never seen such a collection of low-T men in my life.

    In no way do I want these soy boys determining the future of my country. These wimps must be holding grudges against real American men. Maybe they were bullied when they were young or lost out in the dating game. Perhaps this is why they want to push the faces of American men in the dirt. They want to drain America of any home-grown masculinity and replace it with the virile foreigner. Disgusting half-men. Especially that anti-American boot-licker Will Wilkindaughter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. The overwrought writing and absurd metaphors of the left’s “journalists” barely make sense. This guy writes like a college student.

    “Trump’s unilateral act of political hostage-taking was, from the beginning, an act of violent division”

    Hostage-taking? Violent division?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @Whiskey
    There is a message here. It is quite succinct. It has been the same message since, oh say 1965. "White people and particularly White men suck!" That is the message.

    It is inevitable once women get power -- they despise their men for the Original Sin of being equal. So want to replace them. Add Oligarchs and the devolution of power* and its fairly obvious.

    *Power has been devolving away from the Presidency towards various scattered Judges, interest groups like La Raza, Urban League, MeCHa, etc. since the 1970s. Centralization peaked with Nixon and has been in decline ever since, with various fief holders and castellans having in effect unassailable fortresses in media empires, political machines, etc.

    Russia is centralized. When Putin took over he did not face most of the security services scheming to get Boris Yeltsin's nephew installed. America is decentralized as various power groups have neutralized the Presidency and Congress the way medieval lords neutralized kings to the point of near irrelevancy.

    Whiskey, you would not pass the Turing Test.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. The real first European colony in the land now comprising the United States.

    Not Saint Augustine!

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @John Gruskos
    No, you have it backwards.

    The big mistake Polk made was taking too much of Mexico.

    If Polk had been content with a boundary consisting of the Nueces River, 100 degrees longitude, and 37 degrees latitude (which the Mexican government offered when it became clear that they were losing the war), the conquests would have been fully assimilated.

    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated, and now mass immigration and differential birthrates are causing those areas to rapidly de-assimilate.

    Also, the Civil War might have been avoided if Polk had been content with more modest gains. The controversy over extending slavery into the areas taken from Mexico which lay south of the Missouri Compromise line began the cycle of sectional conflict which culminated in the Civil War.

    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated . . . .

    Agree. This fits in with my running thesis that mid-to-late 1800s marked the existential turning point for America, from a nation of WASPs to an ethnically ambiguous free-trade zone. The further East of the Mississippi, the further you get from anyone who could join or would be interested in joining the Daughters of the American Revolution.

    Mid-1800s: Texas and California never had any deep connection with Boston and New York. Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas were essentially New Germany—fully bilingual—until the World Wars forced the German Midwest to adopt a fierce but vague “American” identity. Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!) and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios. Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.

    The America of 1776 never made it past the Mississippi. My parents—Iberian and native, Irish, a smattering of German and late-arriving Scotch-Irish—have zero connection with that America. Yet, God Bless America, they love her for her ideals and heroes and look up to those old WASPs who founded a free society governed by rule of law and not the whims of men. It’s misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America. However, it is prudent and right to promote among all newcomers the ideals upon which their nation (not ours) was founded. The tearing down of their monuments is a dangerous trend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!)
     
    Mormon influence was heavily concentrated in a few areas (Utah, etc).

    and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios.
     
    Sure they did. By the 1870s, for example, Spanish/Mexican California was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Only New Mexico demonstrated real cultural continuity.

    Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.
     
    LARPing. Beginning in the late 19th century, Anglos in CA, desiring a colonial past to match what existed back East, phonied-up a romantic vision of Spanish CA that never existed (Ramona, Zorro, etc)

    It’s misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America.
     
    Seem to recall a census study that showed that approx half of all Americans are substantially descended from people who were here in 1800.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Magic dirt is just a cover for Magic blood.

    What the likes of Chetty really mean is that non-whites gotta go where the (Anglo/Germanic)whites are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @Horseball
    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it's poking through there.

    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it’s poking through there.

    If Wilkinson is a Mormon, he is following the party line on mass immigration from the ruling class of the Mormon cult. Mitt Romney and the Huntsman styrofoam egg shell people all now say they love mass immigration.

    I once asked Jon Huntsman Jr. about immigration, and his answer led me to the conclusion that the plutocrat Mormons are just as evil as any member of the Bush or Clinton organized crime syndicates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I thought Mitt was a Stepford Wife! I watched the entire spiel....scary.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    Like many Manichean religious sects, whose active and enthusiastic membership constitute tiny minorities in America, and who identify with immigrants whose culture depart from the Melting Pot norm, they seem to think that can convert the immigrants to their religion and immanentize the eschaton (a term-of-art meaning to hurry along the arrival of the End Times or the Golden Age or whatever the end goal of the religion).

    If we are talking multi-culti, the preponderance of Latter Day Saints, in the U.S. where they originated, are as white bread as one can imagine, but they do not see themselves as part of the broader Anglo founding culture of the U.S.. They think of themselves as much as strangers here as the German Annabaptists (Amish are but one sect) or perhaps adherents to religious Judaism or even Roman Catholics, when you think about it.

    Indeed, they cannot think of any other way than loving mass immigration by people who are culturally distinct from the Melting Pot norms because they think of themselves that way, and inasmuch as the immigrant norms are not compatible with Mormonism, they appear to believe they have the power of their religion to fix that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @John Gruskos
    "Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s."

    The first step in the establishment of the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine was the slaughter of a French Protestant settlement that had been previously established at the same location.

    The French surrendered to the Spanish on the condition that their lives be spared, but the Spanish treacherously slaughtered the French once they had them at their mercy, reasoning that no faith need be kept with "heretics".

    They commemorated their deed with a monument stating "We did this not to Frenchmen, but to heretics".

    When Florida was surrendered to the British empire after the Seven Years War, the Spanish inhabitants unanimously decided to move to Cuba rather than live under the unholy rule of Protestants.

    America is a nation born from the 17th-18th century Protestant settlements, mostly English but also Scottish, Dutch, Swedish, German, and French (with minute sprinklings of Czech Moravians and even Italian Waldensians), established along the Atlantic coast of North America north of Florida and south of Canada. They were almost all seeking refuge from the Counter-Reformation, either as refugees from the victorious Catholic monarchs of Spain, France and Austria, or as refugees from the High Church Anglicans of the Stuart dynasty, who seemed to be always on the brink of converting back to Catholicism and bringing the High Church in the British Isles with them.

    As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed.

    If the Spanish and their Catholic French allies had the power to do so, they would have exterminated these settlements as they had previously exterminated the first European settlement within the boundaries of the current United States, the French Protestant settlement in Florida.

    Ever step of the growth of the American nation was marked by conflict with the evil Spanish Empire and its successor state, Mexico.

    Fascinating comment. Thank you.

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

    Sheer poppycock – without language, borders, and culture you have no country. How does Mexico treat illegals living in their country? You need to learn the difference between an immigrant and an illegal then come back and join the discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @Felix Fischer

    DREAMers aren’t like us. They are us.

     

    What's Will Wilkinson's end game here? How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?

    Good luck on your ethnic outreach, Will. Have fun explaining to a majority minority electorate that actually when you stop and think about it wealth redistribution is bad for poor people.

    “How much of a constituency is there for libertarianism among mestizos?”

    None. Libertarianism is an empty movement filled with smug gasbags who worship at the altar of capital. They offer no real solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Bill says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    I wonder if Will Wilkerson ever met a Hispanic libertarian.

    There are a fair number of Conquistador libertarian economists. There was a whole University of Chicago Economics – South American libertarian nexus thing for a while.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I'll admit I know next to nothing about libertarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Same deal with the Mercatus variant. A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn't libertarianism but cosmopolitanism. That and a tendency to be very conscious of what is status-lowering in faculty settings. Aside from open borders, their big liberty issues are petty occupational licensure and the health-and-safety regs governing pharmaceutical marketing, issues in which no one in academe has much of an emotional investment. Oh, and Tabarrok hates cops.

    A student of Cowen and Tabarrok offered some time back that their real lodestar wasn’t libertarianism but cosmopolitanism.

    Do you have a cite?

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

    An aside comment from the immigration situation, which is of course out of control. It strikes me as an outsider that cultural difference between America and Mexico is no more than between France and Spain, or between Poland and Russia. It seems often such cousin-cultures, perceive in themselves differences between each other which are less visible to outsiders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    more than between France and Spain
     
    Well this was perhaps poorly chosen - although I was thinking in terms of Spain as France's 'backyard' (as Mexico is to the United States). But the cultural distance between the United States and Mexico, is of course that of the difference that comes of being an offspring of the United Kingdom vs. being an offspring of Spain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    An aside comment from the immigration situation, which is of course out of control. It strikes me as an outsider that cultural difference between America and Mexico is no more than between France and Spain, or between Poland and Russia. It seems often such cousin-cultures, perceive in themselves differences between each other which are less visible to outsiders.

    more than between France and Spain

    Well this was perhaps poorly chosen – although I was thinking in terms of Spain as France’s ‘backyard’ (as Mexico is to the United States). But the cultural distance between the United States and Mexico, is of course that of the difference that comes of being an offspring of the United Kingdom vs. being an offspring of Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Either you've never seen Spain, or you've never seen Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob Lee
    Uh, yeah...

    From their website: "The Niskanen Center, which launched operations in January 2015, is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) think tank that works to promote an open society: a social order that is open to political, cultural, and social change; open to free inquiry; open to individual autonomy; open to the poor and marginalized; open to commerce and trade; open to people who may wish to come or go; open to different beliefs and cultures; open to the search for truth; and a government that protects these freedoms while advancing the cause of open societies around the world. The politics of the 21st century increasingly pits defenders of the open society against a new breed of populists animated by a vision of a closed and exclusive national community. The Niskanen Center’s theory of policy change and how we go about our business is described in detail in our conspectus."

    Interestingly, Linda Chavez, the partial focus of another article hereabouts lately, is their 'senior fellow...'

    Looking at their collective pictures, they're about as limp-wristed, pajama-boy a group as you'd suspect. Safe in their sinecures, sipping tea and positing wisdom about the beauty of a borderless world. I suspect not a one of them has plumbed past the first half inch of Magic Dirt, to the "Real American Dirt" where you have to rub elbows with the unwashed non-English speakers who are the future.

    Looking at their collective pictures, they’re about as limp-wristed, pajama-boy a group as you’d suspect.

    I have to agree, it may not be a fair or just statement to make, but I’ve never seen such a collection of low-T men in my life.

    In no way do I want these soy boys determining the future of my country. These wimps must be holding grudges against real American men. Maybe they were bullied when they were young or lost out in the dating game. Perhaps this is why they want to push the faces of American men in the dirt. They want to drain America of any home-grown masculinity and replace it with the virile foreigner. Disgusting half-men. Especially that anti-American boot-licker Will Wilkindaughter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. syonredux says:
    @Seth Largo
    As it is, the lands beyond that line have never been fully assimilated . . . .

    Agree. This fits in with my running thesis that mid-to-late 1800s marked the existential turning point for America, from a nation of WASPs to an ethnically ambiguous free-trade zone. The further East of the Mississippi, the further you get from anyone who could join or would be interested in joining the Daughters of the American Revolution.

    Mid-1800s: Texas and California never had any deep connection with Boston and New York. Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas were essentially New Germany---fully bilingual---until the World Wars forced the German Midwest to adopt a fierce but vague "American" identity. Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!) and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios. Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.

    The America of 1776 never made it past the Mississippi. My parents---Iberian and native, Irish, a smattering of German and late-arriving Scotch-Irish---have zero connection with that America. Yet, God Bless America, they love her for her ideals and heroes and look up to those old WASPs who founded a free society governed by rule of law and not the whims of men. It's misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America. However, it is prudent and right to promote among all newcomers the ideals upon which their nation (not ours) was founded. The tearing down of their monuments is a dangerous trend.

    Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!)

    Mormon influence was heavily concentrated in a few areas (Utah, etc).

    and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios.

    Sure they did. By the 1870s, for example, Spanish/Mexican California was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Only New Mexico demonstrated real cultural continuity.

    Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.

    LARPing. Beginning in the late 19th century, Anglos in CA, desiring a colonial past to match what existed back East, phonied-up a romantic vision of Spanish CA that never existed (Ramona, Zorro, etc)

    It’s misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America.

    Seem to recall a census study that showed that approx half of all Americans are substantially descended from people who were here in 1800.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    We, Scandinavians, Dutch, German, Austrian, Swiss farmers were the hardiest...and the most successful immigrants in the history of the USA. Just look at the ole' phone book registers of Utah, Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska. Also, Montana State U got over 110 million dollars from these descendants...these past 5 years.
    , @Seth Largo
    "[only] half of Americans substantially descended from someone here in 1800" kinda proves my point. And what % of that half can trace most of their ancestry to the late 1600s/early 1700s? Not many, I imagine. The Central, Southern, and Eastern Europeans soiled the British seed! (They also were glad to be here, unlike a non-trivial proportion of post-1960s immigrants.)

    Re: California history, I agree there was some 19th century LARPing going on, but come on, most of our missions are well preserved because people cared for them long before Zorro.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Bill
    There are a fair number of Conquistador libertarian economists. There was a whole University of Chicago Economics - South American libertarian nexus thing for a while.

    I’ll admit I know next to nothing about libertarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    what? That is utter bullshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Gunner says:
    @Anonymous
    But Wilkinson-style liberaltarianism seems indistinguishable from the Democratic center left at this point.

    That’s because there is no difference. Willy Boy is getting torn up on his twitter post about this article. 100% calling him an idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Lagertha says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it’s poking through there.

     

    If Wilkinson is a Mormon, he is following the party line on mass immigration from the ruling class of the Mormon cult. Mitt Romney and the Huntsman styrofoam egg shell people all now say they love mass immigration.

    I once asked Jon Huntsman Jr. about immigration, and his answer led me to the conclusion that the plutocrat Mormons are just as evil as any member of the Bush or Clinton organized crime syndicates.

    I thought Mitt was a Stepford Wife! I watched the entire spiel….scary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    The best thing Mitt Romney ever did was have a big family, and Ann Romney can take most of the credit for that.

    Mitt Romney will continue the mass immigration enthusiasm of Orrin Hatch if Romney wins the US Senate seat in Utah currently held by retiring mass immigration fanatic Hatch.

    The leaders of the Mormon cult have lost their marbles from trying to ape the lunacy of the ruling class of the American Empire.

    Romney needs to eat some cheeseburgers to look like the rest of us walruses in America. He's over 6 feet tall and has a 25 inch waist. Trumpy looks likes a retired linebacker in the NFL. Romney, in person, is wispy thin with no shoulders. Trumpy is a man you wouldn't insult just for the hell of it.

    https://twitter.com/JoshMcElveen/status/560559959210225664
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Lagertha says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    I'll admit I know next to nothing about libertarians.

    what? That is utter bullshit.

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

    Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!)
     
    Mormon influence was heavily concentrated in a few areas (Utah, etc).

    and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios.
     
    Sure they did. By the 1870s, for example, Spanish/Mexican California was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Only New Mexico demonstrated real cultural continuity.

    Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.
     
    LARPing. Beginning in the late 19th century, Anglos in CA, desiring a colonial past to match what existed back East, phonied-up a romantic vision of Spanish CA that never existed (Ramona, Zorro, etc)

    It’s misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America.
     
    Seem to recall a census study that showed that approx half of all Americans are substantially descended from people who were here in 1800.

    We, Scandinavians, Dutch, German, Austrian, Swiss farmers were the hardiest…and the most successful immigrants in the history of the USA. Just look at the ole’ phone book registers of Utah, Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska. Also, Montana State U got over 110 million dollars from these descendants…these past 5 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Steve Sailer
    (did you ever make it out to San Jacinto when you were at Rice, Mr. Sailer?)

    Yeah, when I arrived in August 1976 my dad and I went to the top of the giant San Jacinto monument, which, being Texas, is taller than the Washington Monument.

    Great view from up there. They now have the old USS Texas (the New York class battleship) in the channel there too …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Art Deco
    The ethnically purified fantasy of the populist imagination is a seditious force that obscures our higher loyalties, shatters the peace of liberal equality, and splits Americans into warring tribes

    What's salient about remarks like this is that they expect the rest of us to maintain a mentality commonly associated with battered wives.

    Indeed.

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

    more than between France and Spain
     
    Well this was perhaps poorly chosen - although I was thinking in terms of Spain as France's 'backyard' (as Mexico is to the United States). But the cultural distance between the United States and Mexico, is of course that of the difference that comes of being an offspring of the United Kingdom vs. being an offspring of Spain.

    Either you’ve never seen Spain, or you’ve never seen Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Clyde says:
    @Tyrion 2

    one thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty? Amnesty for anyone who can get 100 miles form the border and remain unapprehended for two years? Do we finally get tough? Exactly how do we get tough, e-Verify, prosecutions of employers? If so, do we start that now? I want to hear a pro-amnesty person get grilled on this stuff, in detail.
     
    I sense that in America the Democrats and their media enablers simply see amnesty as the step before winning an election on a Latino tidal wave. All of this hysteria about how borders are bad really is that superficial, for the most part.

    As for what happens after this, they don't care much. They don't believe in much anyway. Winning the game of Democracy via the irreversible strategy of demographic victory is self-esteem boosting enough, to just think about, that they're not motivated to think any further. I suppose they have vague thoughts of humiliating the NRA, or humiliating anti-abortion states or humiliating whomever currently annoys them...

    I doubt they feel the need to think of any terms greater than this. Modern, especially progressive i.e post-modern i.e nihilist, democracy seems to have become a sport, a form of entertainment, where the participants play for the same reasons that sportsmen play any sport. They get jobs, money, fame and the great feeling of beating and humiliating your enemies when you win. That democracy is supposed to improve a nation for its citizens is practically crimethink.

    It is certainly as incidental to the motivations of the progressives in the 3 legs of the entertainment industry (movies/tv etc, 'news' and 'acadaemia') as worshipping Mars is incidental to the competitors in the Graeco-Roman wrestling events at the modern-day Olympics is.

    To be fair to the Democrats, half of the Republican side only stand against amnesty for exactly the same reason! The game has become the point. The purpose has been forgotten.

    Very good explanation of the motivations of today’s Democrat Party, liberals, the left and the cultural left -cultural Marxists. Nihilism and more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Lagertha
    I thought Mitt was a Stepford Wife! I watched the entire spiel....scary.

    The best thing Mitt Romney ever did was have a big family, and Ann Romney can take most of the credit for that.

    Mitt Romney will continue the mass immigration enthusiasm of Orrin Hatch if Romney wins the US Senate seat in Utah currently held by retiring mass immigration fanatic Hatch.

    The leaders of the Mormon cult have lost their marbles from trying to ape the lunacy of the ruling class of the American Empire.

    Romney needs to eat some cheeseburgers to look like the rest of us walruses in America. He’s over 6 feet tall and has a 25 inch waist. Trumpy looks likes a retired linebacker in the NFL. Romney, in person, is wispy thin with no shoulders. Trumpy is a man you wouldn’t insult just for the hell of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    The no immigration, of especially: hostile ethnic groups of religion, is the caveat. Mormons are a whole lotta' stupid, even 30 years ago. If they are stupid, eff them; - social Darwinism is at our door.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Hibernian says:
    @John Gruskos
    "Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s."

    The first step in the establishment of the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine was the slaughter of a French Protestant settlement that had been previously established at the same location.

    The French surrendered to the Spanish on the condition that their lives be spared, but the Spanish treacherously slaughtered the French once they had them at their mercy, reasoning that no faith need be kept with "heretics".

    They commemorated their deed with a monument stating "We did this not to Frenchmen, but to heretics".

    When Florida was surrendered to the British empire after the Seven Years War, the Spanish inhabitants unanimously decided to move to Cuba rather than live under the unholy rule of Protestants.

    America is a nation born from the 17th-18th century Protestant settlements, mostly English but also Scottish, Dutch, Swedish, German, and French (with minute sprinklings of Czech Moravians and even Italian Waldensians), established along the Atlantic coast of North America north of Florida and south of Canada. They were almost all seeking refuge from the Counter-Reformation, either as refugees from the victorious Catholic monarchs of Spain, France and Austria, or as refugees from the High Church Anglicans of the Stuart dynasty, who seemed to be always on the brink of converting back to Catholicism and bringing the High Church in the British Isles with them.

    As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed.

    If the Spanish and their Catholic French allies had the power to do so, they would have exterminated these settlements as they had previously exterminated the first European settlement within the boundaries of the current United States, the French Protestant settlement in Florida.

    Ever step of the growth of the American nation was marked by conflict with the evil Spanish Empire and its successor state, Mexico.

    “As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed.”

    You’re ignoring Switzerland and the Netherlands, at the very least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Switzerland and the Netherlands have always been about 60% Calvinist, 40% Catholic.

    Scotland had a higher percentage of Calvinists than Switzerland or the Netherlands, but they still had significant High Church Episcopalian and Catholic minorities, especially in the Highlands.

    Before 19th century mass immigration, America was almost 100% Protestant, and almost all of them were Low Church Calvinists of one type or another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Charles Pewitt

    Wilkinson is a jack Mormon and it’s poking through there.

     

    If Wilkinson is a Mormon, he is following the party line on mass immigration from the ruling class of the Mormon cult. Mitt Romney and the Huntsman styrofoam egg shell people all now say they love mass immigration.

    I once asked Jon Huntsman Jr. about immigration, and his answer led me to the conclusion that the plutocrat Mormons are just as evil as any member of the Bush or Clinton organized crime syndicates.

    Like many Manichean religious sects, whose active and enthusiastic membership constitute tiny minorities in America, and who identify with immigrants whose culture depart from the Melting Pot norm, they seem to think that can convert the immigrants to their religion and immanentize the eschaton (a term-of-art meaning to hurry along the arrival of the End Times or the Golden Age or whatever the end goal of the religion).

    If we are talking multi-culti, the preponderance of Latter Day Saints, in the U.S. where they originated, are as white bread as one can imagine, but they do not see themselves as part of the broader Anglo founding culture of the U.S.. They think of themselves as much as strangers here as the German Annabaptists (Amish are but one sect) or perhaps adherents to religious Judaism or even Roman Catholics, when you think about it.

    Indeed, they cannot think of any other way than loving mass immigration by people who are culturally distinct from the Melting Pot norms because they think of themselves that way, and inasmuch as the immigrant norms are not compatible with Mormonism, they appear to believe they have the power of their religion to fix that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Ganderson says:
    @Arclight
    So to get this straight, the descendants of the first Euro conquerors/colonizers of parts of North America have an inviolable claim to it, rather than the much more successful second wave of Euro colonizers?

    Contra Wilkinson, the issue is not that a large part of the American citizenry cannot accept people of Spanish descent as 'real Americans' it's that a large part of our elites believe they are preferable and superior to their actual countrymen, and usher in huge numbers of future voters to wrest political control away from people who have been here for generations.

    It’s not Americans of Spanish descent I mind- it’s actual Mexicans

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

    This guy’s more than just wrong. The reason the Mexicans invited Anglos, Germans, Alsatians, and others into Texas was that the land (particularly in the northwest) was not yet controlled by Mexico, but by Plains Indian tribes (primarily the Comanche and Apache) and these tribes were constantly raiding Mexico. Big, long-distance raids. These Plains Indians were bitter enemies of the Mexicans. The Texans were invited to settle in the hope that they would act as a buffer and make Mexico safe:

    Texas:

    “…Hoping that more settlers would reduce the near-constant Comanche raids, Mexican Texas liberalized its immigration policies to permit immigrants from outside Mexico and Spain…”

    Comanche–Mexico Wars:

    “…By the time the United States army invaded northern Mexico in 1846 during the Mexican–American War the region was devastated. Comanche raids into Mexico continued until 1870. The Comanche were finally defeated by the U.S. in 1875…

    …The Comanche raids deep into Mexico created fear that the Comanche soon might even be seen “on the streets of Mexico City.”…

    …The Comanches had turned northern Mexico into a “semicolonized landscape of extraction from which they could mine resources with little cost.”

    …Traveler Josiah Gregg said that “the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned, and the people chiefly confined to the towns and cities.”

    …When American troops invaded northern Mexico in 1846 they found a devastated landscape and a demoralized people. There was little resistance to the Anglo-Americans…”

    Ironically, one of the reasons Mexico was willing to sede so much land to the US was that the US promised to control the Comanche (they were not able, for a couple of decades):

    “…the end of Mexican–American War in 1848… the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo… the United States pledged in the treaty that it would police the border to prevent Indian invasions of Mexico. The US had little more success in curtailing Comanche and Apache raids than Mexico. If anything the tempo of the raids increased in the 1850s. In 1852, in perhaps the most far-ranging of all Comanche raids, they reached the Mexican state of Jalisco in the tropics near the Pacific Ocean, 600 miles (970 km) from their usual crossing point of the Rio Grande, near Presidio, Texas and nearly 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from their Great Plains homeland..”

    Comancheria:

    “…the name commonly given to the region of New Mexico, west Texas and nearby areas occupied by the Comanche before the 1860s…

    …the Comanches were the dominant group in the Southwest…

    …In attacking Mexico, the Comanche seemed motivated by opportunity, economics and revenge – their animosity toward non-Comanches sharpened by decades of war and reprisals. Thus, their raids on Mexico became increasingly bloody and destructive…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @anonymous
    This guy's more than just wrong. The reason the Mexicans invited Anglos, Germans, Alsatians, and others into Texas was that the land (particularly in the northwest) was not yet controlled by Mexico, but by Plains Indian tribes (primarily the Comanche and Apache) and these tribes were constantly raiding Mexico. Big, long-distance raids. These Plains Indians were bitter enemies of the Mexicans. The Texans were invited to settle in the hope that they would act as a buffer and make Mexico safe:

    Texas:


    "...Hoping that more settlers would reduce the near-constant Comanche raids, Mexican Texas liberalized its immigration policies to permit immigrants from outside Mexico and Spain..."

     

    Comanche–Mexico Wars:


    "...By the time the United States army invaded northern Mexico in 1846 during the Mexican–American War the region was devastated. Comanche raids into Mexico continued until 1870. The Comanche were finally defeated by the U.S. in 1875...

    ...The Comanche raids deep into Mexico created fear that the Comanche soon might even be seen "on the streets of Mexico City."...

    ...The Comanches had turned northern Mexico into a "semicolonized landscape of extraction from which they could mine resources with little cost."...

    ...Traveler Josiah Gregg said that "the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned, and the people chiefly confined to the towns and cities."...

    ...When American troops invaded northern Mexico in 1846 they found a devastated landscape and a demoralized people. There was little resistance to the Anglo-Americans..."

     

    Ironically, one of the reasons Mexico was willing to sede so much land to the US was that the US promised to control the Comanche (they were not able, for a couple of decades):


    "...the end of Mexican–American War in 1848... the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo... the United States pledged in the treaty that it would police the border to prevent Indian invasions of Mexico. The US had little more success in curtailing Comanche and Apache raids than Mexico. If anything the tempo of the raids increased in the 1850s. In 1852, in perhaps the most far-ranging of all Comanche raids, they reached the Mexican state of Jalisco in the tropics near the Pacific Ocean, 600 miles (970 km) from their usual crossing point of the Rio Grande, near Presidio, Texas and nearly 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from their Great Plains homeland.."

     

    Comancheria:


    "...the name commonly given to the region of New Mexico, west Texas and nearby areas occupied by the Comanche before the 1860s...

    ...the Comanches were the dominant group in the Southwest...

    ...In attacking Mexico, the Comanche seemed motivated by opportunity, economics and revenge – their animosity toward non-Comanches sharpened by decades of war and reprisals. Thus, their raids on Mexico became increasingly bloody and destructive..."

     

    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.
     
    With good reason:

    Early in his life, Geronimo became invested in the continuing and relentless cycle of revenge warfare between Apache and Mexican. On March 5, 1851,[27] when Geronimo was in his 20's, a force of Mexican militia from Sonora under Colonel Jose Maria Carrasco attacked and surprised an Apache camp outside of Janos, Chihuahua, slaughtering the inhabitants which included Geronimo's family. Col. Carrasco claimed he had followed the Apaches to Janos, Chihuahua after they had conducted a raid in Sonora, taken livestock and other plunder and badly defeated Mexican militia.[28][29] Geronimo was absent at the time of the attack on the Apache camp, but when he returned he found that his mother, wife, and his three children were among the dead.[30] In retaliation, Geronimo joined in an extended series of revenge attacks against the Mexicans.[31] This event left Geronimo with a bitter and very personal hatred for Mexicans, and he often killed them indiscriminately and with a special vehemence.[14] Throughout Geronimo's adult life his antipathy, suspicion and dislike for Mexicans was demonstrably greater than for Americans.[32]
     
    I have killed many Mexicans; I do not know how many, for frequently I did not count them. Some of them were not worth counting. It has been a long time since then, but still I have no love for the Mexicans. With me they were always treacherous and malicious.

    — Geronimo, My Life: The Autobiography of Geronimo, 1905.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo#Life_after_the_massacre_at_Kas-Ki-Yeh
    , @Lagertha
    I always heard from "Indians" that Geronimo was a thug, and he was ready to sell out anyone, anytime (totally possible when one thinks about the terrain) and he was such a nuisance to both Mexico and the USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. syonredux says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.

    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.

    With good reason:

    Early in his life, Geronimo became invested in the continuing and relentless cycle of revenge warfare between Apache and Mexican. On March 5, 1851,[27] when Geronimo was in his 20′s, a force of Mexican militia from Sonora under Colonel Jose Maria Carrasco attacked and surprised an Apache camp outside of Janos, Chihuahua, slaughtering the inhabitants which included Geronimo’s family. Col. Carrasco claimed he had followed the Apaches to Janos, Chihuahua after they had conducted a raid in Sonora, taken livestock and other plunder and badly defeated Mexican militia.[28][29] Geronimo was absent at the time of the attack on the Apache camp, but when he returned he found that his mother, wife, and his three children were among the dead.[30] In retaliation, Geronimo joined in an extended series of revenge attacks against the Mexicans.[31] This event left Geronimo with a bitter and very personal hatred for Mexicans, and he often killed them indiscriminately and with a special vehemence.[14] Throughout Geronimo’s adult life his antipathy, suspicion and dislike for Mexicans was demonstrably greater than for Americans.[32]

    I have killed many Mexicans; I do not know how many, for frequently I did not count them. Some of them were not worth counting. It has been a long time since then, but still I have no love for the Mexicans. With me they were always treacherous and malicious.

    — Geronimo, My Life: The Autobiography of Geronimo, 1905.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo#Life_after_the_massacre_at_Kas-Ki-Yeh

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

    this is by far, the dumbest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Lagertha says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    The best thing Mitt Romney ever did was have a big family, and Ann Romney can take most of the credit for that.

    Mitt Romney will continue the mass immigration enthusiasm of Orrin Hatch if Romney wins the US Senate seat in Utah currently held by retiring mass immigration fanatic Hatch.

    The leaders of the Mormon cult have lost their marbles from trying to ape the lunacy of the ruling class of the American Empire.

    Romney needs to eat some cheeseburgers to look like the rest of us walruses in America. He's over 6 feet tall and has a 25 inch waist. Trumpy looks likes a retired linebacker in the NFL. Romney, in person, is wispy thin with no shoulders. Trumpy is a man you wouldn't insult just for the hell of it.

    https://twitter.com/JoshMcElveen/status/560559959210225664

    The no immigration, of especially: hostile ethnic groups of religion, is the caveat. Mormons are a whole lotta’ stupid, even 30 years ago. If they are stupid, eff them; – social Darwinism is at our door.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Lagertha says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Geronimo of the Apaches really hated Mexicans too.

    I always heard from “Indians” that Geronimo was a thug, and he was ready to sell out anyone, anytime (totally possible when one thinks about the terrain) and he was such a nuisance to both Mexico and the USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Hibernian
    "As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed."

    You're ignoring Switzerland and the Netherlands, at the very least.

    Switzerland and the Netherlands have always been about 60% Calvinist, 40% Catholic.

    Scotland had a higher percentage of Calvinists than Switzerland or the Netherlands, but they still had significant High Church Episcopalian and Catholic minorities, especially in the Highlands.

    Before 19th century mass immigration, America was almost 100% Protestant, and almost all of them were Low Church Calvinists of one type or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "Switzerland and the Netherlands have always been about 60% Calvinist, 40% Catholic."

    I think you're overstating your case by using the 60/40 ratio and the word "always." See below:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ons%27_Lieve_Heer_op_Solder

    (The Church of Our Lord in the Attic) - Dutch Catholic house church

    Also, Anglicanism was established in the Southern colonies (including Maryland after about 1690) up to the time of the Revolution. (I'm aware of Calvinist influence on Anglicanism.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…Before 19th century mass immigration, America was almost 100% Protestant…”

    I don’t know if it’s strictly true, but I’ve heard it said that at one time America (was) the world’s most Protestant nation.

    I suppose that’s all gone with the end of religion (Praise Be to PC).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @syonredux

    Anglos civilized the West, but they tended to be outcasts (Mormons!)
     
    Mormon influence was heavily concentrated in a few areas (Utah, etc).

    and they did not clear the culture begun by the Spaniards, Tejanos, and Californios.
     
    Sure they did. By the 1870s, for example, Spanish/Mexican California was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Only New Mexico demonstrated real cultural continuity.

    Even in the 1990s, my schoolboy history stressed the importance of the Spanish missions as much as it stressed anything that George Washington ever did.
     
    LARPing. Beginning in the late 19th century, Anglos in CA, desiring a colonial past to match what existed back East, phonied-up a romantic vision of Spanish CA that never existed (Ramona, Zorro, etc)

    It’s misguided to pretend that most Americans today have any sort of ethnic or cultural connection with that distant Anglo America.
     
    Seem to recall a census study that showed that approx half of all Americans are substantially descended from people who were here in 1800.

    “[only] half of Americans substantially descended from someone here in 1800″ kinda proves my point. And what % of that half can trace most of their ancestry to the late 1600s/early 1700s? Not many, I imagine. The Central, Southern, and Eastern Europeans soiled the British seed! (They also were glad to be here, unlike a non-trivial proportion of post-1960s immigrants.)

    Re: California history, I agree there was some 19th century LARPing going on, but come on, most of our missions are well preserved because people cared for them long before Zorro.

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

    Other than eating at Chipotle or Taco Bell, Mexican culture is not part of the daily lives of the average White Gringo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. MBlanc46 says:
    @Art Deco
    one thing that I’ve never heard explained by the pro-amnesty people, is What is your vision going forward? Assuming amnesty now, people will still come? Do we repeal our immigration laws and go with open borders? Do we have periodic amnesties? A rolling amnesty?

    Wilkinson was a philosophy student, and has a master's degree in the subject. What does that suggest? (a) innumerate and (b) likes to play with abstract ideas. What Chesterton said: the trouble with a madman is not that he is illogical, but that he is only logical.

    Apparently, you know little about philosophy majors, at least those of my generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @John Gruskos
    "Spaniards established settlements in Florida in the 1560s."

    The first step in the establishment of the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine was the slaughter of a French Protestant settlement that had been previously established at the same location.

    The French surrendered to the Spanish on the condition that their lives be spared, but the Spanish treacherously slaughtered the French once they had them at their mercy, reasoning that no faith need be kept with "heretics".

    They commemorated their deed with a monument stating "We did this not to Frenchmen, but to heretics".

    When Florida was surrendered to the British empire after the Seven Years War, the Spanish inhabitants unanimously decided to move to Cuba rather than live under the unholy rule of Protestants.

    America is a nation born from the 17th-18th century Protestant settlements, mostly English but also Scottish, Dutch, Swedish, German, and French (with minute sprinklings of Czech Moravians and even Italian Waldensians), established along the Atlantic coast of North America north of Florida and south of Canada. They were almost all seeking refuge from the Counter-Reformation, either as refugees from the victorious Catholic monarchs of Spain, France and Austria, or as refugees from the High Church Anglicans of the Stuart dynasty, who seemed to be always on the brink of converting back to Catholicism and bringing the High Church in the British Isles with them.

    As a direct result, the Americans were the most completely, deeply, profoundly Protestant nation which ever existed.

    If the Spanish and their Catholic French allies had the power to do so, they would have exterminated these settlements as they had previously exterminated the first European settlement within the boundaries of the current United States, the French Protestant settlement in Florida.

    Ever step of the growth of the American nation was marked by conflict with the evil Spanish Empire and its successor state, Mexico.

    This tends to get forgotten. The biggest threat faced by the early English settlers of North America didn’t come from the Indians but from other Europeans, especially the Spanish.

    I remember reading an article about the excavations in Jamestown, in which someone expressed incredulity that the settlers had brought with them heavy body armor – totally unnecessary for fighting Indians. Nobody mentioned what should have been obvious: this was for fighting Spaniards not Indians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Hibernian says:
    @John Gruskos
    Switzerland and the Netherlands have always been about 60% Calvinist, 40% Catholic.

    Scotland had a higher percentage of Calvinists than Switzerland or the Netherlands, but they still had significant High Church Episcopalian and Catholic minorities, especially in the Highlands.

    Before 19th century mass immigration, America was almost 100% Protestant, and almost all of them were Low Church Calvinists of one type or another.

    “Switzerland and the Netherlands have always been about 60% Calvinist, 40% Catholic.”

    I think you’re overstating your case by using the 60/40 ratio and the word “always.” See below:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ons%27_Lieve_Heer_op_Solder

    (The Church of Our Lord in the Attic) – Dutch Catholic house church

    Also, Anglicanism was established in the Southern colonies (including Maryland after about 1690) up to the time of the Revolution. (I’m aware of Calvinist influence on Anglicanism.)

    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?