The Proposition

The other day, a long time reader and frequent commenter made the argument that America is a “propositional nation.” This is a popular assertion, one that has no basis in American history, but popular nonetheless. Its popularity on the Right is largely due to neocons peddling it as a part of their efforts to redefine and co-opt the Right. It has also been useful in justifying open borders and endless military adventures on the fringes of civilization. These days, the biggest fans of this idea are the Civic Nationalists.

The argument is that America is an exception among nations because it is organized around a set of ideas and principles, rather than blood and soil like other nations. The foundation of the proposition comes from the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To be an American means accepting that and all that flows from it.

Over the years, lots of smart people have pointed out the errors in the propositional nation argument. The fact that the Declaration has no legal standing and that it is full of obvious contradictions should be enough to kill the idea. The Founders had plenty of time to figure out how to bake the argument into the founding documents, but were never inclined to do so. The “proposition” is nowhere in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The proposition is nowhere in their deliberations or commentary on them.

There is, of course, the fact that America was a Christian nation at the time of the Founding. The men who wrote and signed off on “all men are created equal” rather obviously did not believe it in the modern, secular sense. They were Christians so they believed that only two people were ever created, everyone else was born. They certainly did not think people were born equal. To believe that all people are equal in the corporal sense or the political sense is to believe that reality is a social construct.

The Founders were not academics in a gender studies department. They were practical men of their age. They crafted practical legal documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to establish the political order of the new country. The men who wrote the Constitution did not craft a metaphysical framework, so the people would behave in a virtuous manner. They assumed a certain type of people with a common morality and common culture. They accepted reality and built a political order to reflect it.

Even so, nations create their own myths and legends in order to bind themselves together emotionally, as well as practically. Rather than dismiss the “propositional nation” idea, let’s take it at face value and say we accept that whatever the origins, America of today is a nation of ideas. The glue that binds one American to another is a common belief in that mythological founding creed. Regardless of race, religion or national original, you can be an America as long as you accept and believe in the civic religion that defines America.

The implication is that no one is born an American. You cannot be born in agreement with a proposition. At some point, you reach an age and level of understanding that allows you to accept the deal on offer. This assumes that the deal is offered, and that is the underlying assumption of the propositional nation. It is available to anyone. You get to be an American as long as you accept the organizational ideas that make up the civic religion of America. That is not the law or present reality, but that’s the theory.

The other side of this coin is that you can stop being an America as soon as you no longer accept the national creed. For example, if you don’t accept that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” then you are not an American. If the propositional nation is going to be anything more than lip service, the proposition better have some teeth. That means someone like former President Obama, who is an atheist and rejects the idea of natural rights, is not an American and he never was.

The bigger implication of the propositional nation is that it argues against having a country at all, at least in the physical sense. Rejecting the blood and soil definition of a nation does not stop at the blood. If America is just a collection of people, who agree on the same set of principles about the nature of man and his political relationship to other men, what’s the reason to maintain a physical space? The clear implication of the propositional nation is that the physical aspects of the nation are, so to speak, immaterial.

Finally, the nation of ideas cannot be a nation of permanent ideas, unless the the Founders were gods, who handed these ideas down to us. Agreements among men, even deeply principled agreements, are open to revisions over time. That’s central to the propositional nation argument. It is how the promoters get around things like slavery, limited suffrage and indentured servitude. If the propositional nation evolved, it means it will keep evolving into the future. That’s the Progressive argument in favor of a living Constitution.

To return to where we started with this post, the commenter stated that you cannot have a nation without a common set of organizing principles. This is obviously false, but let’s assume nation in this context is limited to those with a consensual government. If those principles are arrived at by consensus, it means they were arrived at by men. The nature of that consensus and therefore the resulting principles must spring from the nature of the men who forged them. In other words, we’re back to a nation of men, not ideas.

This post has already been linked to 4712 times!

Leave a Reply

124 Comments on "The Proposition"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Member
But what do the propositionists propose to do with heretics? Not burn them at the stake but maybe exile them (“you have to go back”)? Dismantle the democratic parts so the heretics can’t control the levers of power? The propositionists don’t say for two reasons: 1. they haven’t thought it through. 2. The few who have realize that the darkest pogroms of other purges are insufficient so worse would be REQUIRED. I find myself in the latter camp. I do not want to be an ethnonationalist, first, since I’m Polish (though their rosary anti-Islam crusade gives me pause) and not… Read more »
TomA
Guest

I don’t think you can have a nation without people, and I think this group of people must share at least one common denominator that unites them in some significant fashion. Most likely, these folks will share many common denominators, some of which may change over time and also the composition of shared beliefs may vary somewhat among them. In other words, asserting a singular correct definition of what constitutes a nation is an exercise in demonstrated stupidity.

Jak Black
Guest

Hmmmm…it’s almost as if all of human experience might lend some insight here.

Wilbur Hassenfus
Guest

Yes, for example, over time you may move from ordered liberty and yeoman farmers, to a Big Man and limited ceremonial cannibalism. Along the way the original population may be exterminated, but that’s OK, because the nation still has an organizing principle. The nation endures, because there are still people living on that patch of land.

Member
Actually, if you read what I wrote the other day, I said precisely the opposite though your sarcasm is noted. I said that because of a small group of people engaging in open rebellion against our organizing principles, the nation is in peril. We don’t lack organizing principles in the United States. We have a minority of the population which has decided to rebel against them without consequence. My point about the alt/dissident right remains though. There is no unifying organizing principal to whatever you want to define that group as. I read one of the commenters here the other… Read more »
Rob
Guest
The America you knew, is long gone, and not coming back. Western Civilization has long ago peaked and died. What you see now, are the maggots feasting on the carcass. We have no homelands left to call our own, and the people who control what were once our nations, have every intention of replacing our people. All of our moralities, philosophies, hopes and dreams will die with our people. Every institution our people have created, is now in some way being used against us. It is an error to think this mess just recently began, as over a century ago,… Read more »
Member
Re: “We have no homelands left to call our own, and the people who control what were once our nations, have every intention of replacing our people.” You re correct. As long ago as the 1950s, socialists like playwright Bertold Brecht were asking, “Would it not be better to dissolve the people, and elect another” – explicit proof of your statement, wouldn’t you say? The bad news is that western civilization has fallen to an ideology – cultural Marxism – which means to eliminate white (European) civilization. The good news is that what’s good for the goose is good for… Read more »
EBL
Guest
As a mixed-race person, whose family was subjected to racist, bigoted and unconstitutional actions by the US government before, during and after WWII; your red herring comment about alt/dissident right causing all societal issues pisses me off far more than the BLM drivel that we hear so often on MSM. I certainly don’t believe in purity of race elitism, but the so-called Nazi’s to which you referred, in absence of non-defensive assault, murder and criminal abuse, have as much right to their beliefs as you do. Use your bloody brain and think. What happened in Las Vegas last week and… Read more »
Vincent Benton
Guest

Google Wilbur Ross. Another Trump crook.

America was once a white Christian nation but thankfully is becoming something better. If you don’t believe diversity is an asset and that white supremacy is the evil That must be destroyed than you are not an American

Jak Black
Guest

Other than Pad Thai, can you please give a short summary of the benefits of diversity? I’m genuinely curious.

Calsdad
Guest

You don’t need a Thai to make Pad Thai – you need a cookbook. Or you need a cook that went to a Thai cooking school.

Member

The best Pad Thai I ever had was cooked by an Australian ex-SAS guy who’d lived several years in Thailand.

He reckoned the Thais didn’t make it hot enough.

His was blissfully hot. Deliciously hot. Hotter than the hinges of Hell, but wonderful: each part of it was distinct and full of flavor.

I will always wish that I could do that.

Member

My Grandmothers phrase was
“As hot as the Hobbs of Hell”.

Member
The founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, understood well the balancing act that was required to maintain a healthy society – between the old and the young, between the native and the foreigner, between the familiar and the unfamiliar. A society which closes itself off to outsiders completely, as did some of the Chinese dynasties in the middle years of the last millennium, risks becoming sclerotic and crippled by their myopia. A society which embraces openness to too great a degree risks losing sight of its own past, identity and traditions. Clearly, a balancing act is needed in-between the two… Read more »
A.T. Tapman
Member

I once again smell porch monkey, does it interject just to be insulted? It is the best argument against diversity.

Calsdad
Guest
LOL. “Something better”. I would like to see a return to reality. ZMan has laid out what reality is in a couple of his recent columns. One of the problems with this “Christian nation” is that they have the scourge of charity – in all the wrong places. I see the reality that ZMan laid out (blacks killing each other with wild abandon) – as a self solving problem given enough time. The actual problem there is not that they’re killing themselves off and that the term “black family” is an anachronism on the level of “military intelligence” – but… Read more »
Al from da Nort
Guest
CD; Your analysis of gay marriage *assumes* that gayness is genetic and also dysgenic. It may even be genetic, but millions of research dollars have failed to find it in reliable (i.e. replicable) studies. As for qualitative evidence, if gays really believed gayness to be genetic, they’d be fanatical pro-lifers, but they’re just the opposite, if anything. OTOH, if gayness is created or spread by other, non-genetic, means such as, oh let’s just say, molestation of vulnerable boys by trusted, closeted gays (pedo-clergy, bachelor uncles, scout leaders, etc.), then the bad old ways make sense by creating deterrence. Deterrence of… Read more »
Calsdad
Guest
I think you’re applying too much logic when you say ” if gays really believed gayness to be genetic, they’d be fanatical pro-lifers”. There’s plenty of evidence out there that positions that people should logically support – are overridden by their ideological beliefs. ZMan and plenty of other people have documented copious examples of this from lefties. I don’t think your point holds up when compared against numerous other examples (especially on the left) of positions people have taken against their own self interest. My “gayness is genetic” argument – comes from gays themselves – who (at least at one… Read more »
Al from da Nort
Guest
CD; I was saying that if one wants to know what folks, as a group, actually believe, one is better informed if they look at what they do, not at what they say. Based on that, plus the lack of valid scientific evidence for genetic gayness (not for lack of effort) I’m not inclined to put great stock in that theory. Of course you’re right that reliably inferring belief from actions is not 100% accurate. As you say, plenty of people individually believe dysfunctional things and act in dysfunctional ways. And for that reason alone deterrence can be needed. That… Read more »
Member

If a gay “gene” were discovered (don’t worry, it won’t be), you would see a flip in the debate over abortion nearly overnight, along with calls to advance human embryo genetic engineering programs to ensure more gay babies are born.

Gar-un-teed.

Member

If “gayness” is genetic how come the wife of the current Mayor of NYC can never remember the clowns name) decided to stop being a dyke and married the clown?

Calsdad
Guest

Because she’s a woman – and because like anything that’s a behavior – you have the capability of changing it. Especially if there’s a benefit to be gained.

D&D Dave in the Bubble
Guest
D&D Dave in the Bubble
Diversity is not a strength, its a weakness or an excuse to cry racism. Perfect example, some years ago a good friend of mine (honky) takes the exam to become a state trooper in my state. Scores very high and should be a shoo-in for moving on. Whoa, not so fast there. He is told while he had a high score, none of the female black applicants passed the test. They failed, but the state requires a percentage of female blacks on the force. In order to meet the percentage, they have to take one of the females who failed… Read more »
Tully Bascombe
Guest

Oh look, Tiny Dick aka Trent Denton is back

Allan
Guest

Your “diversity” is just a tactic for dividing society during the race war in which you’ve affirmed yourself to be engaged.

Joey Junger
Guest
We’re back to a fundamental rule that addresses the causality underlying everything: “Das Urbild ist das Bild und Spiegelbild.” The original image is the image and the reflection. We do live in a propositional nation, proposed for and by Europeans whose worldview was an accretion of European thought and deed from antiquity to roughly the French Revolution. It’s the duty of white, Christian Europeans and their descendants to protect it, and anyone who is not white, Christian and European, and is invited to partake, should be grateful, and if they behave like a blackguard or don’t like the premise/proposition, they… Read more »
Jak Black
Guest

I’d say their idea was quite clear:

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

“POSTERITY — 1. Descendants; children, children’s children, &c. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from the progenitor… — 2. In a general sense, succeeding generations; opposed to ancestors.” An American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1828),

ffarkle
Guest
The “propositional nation” has a basis in world history. We gave it that basis. Big time. There is no need for the declaration to have legal standing for its proposition to be true, or widely accepted. The constitution and the bill of rights embody the proposition pretty well. The “contradictions” you purport are derived through misinterpretation. The founders did believe men were born with equal rights. Not identical in qualities. If anyone refuses to accept the social contract, there are ways to break it. If any malcontents need official legal structure for such it could certainly be created. That does… Read more »
Jak Black
Guest

This is a totally sound argument…assuming you ignore all of human history.

Ideas mean nothing against blood and relations. Our “human nation” is currently in the process of unmitigated balkanization. How’s that working out for you?

ffarkle
Guest
[The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”] Was Mr. Franklin ignoring all of human history here too? I never made any argument that a particular proposition or arrangement would last forever. I said the idea… Read more »
Jak Black
Guest

That’s a nice anecdote, but you know that there were republics in the past that were not founded on propositions, right? Ideas last forever, but nations that are not based on blood and relations do not. I can cite examples from here to tomorrow if you’re interested.

Member

We have a name for “blood and relations” groups of people: Tribes.

They don’t last because no blood lasts forever. Eventually the king dies without an heir.

Member

You’re being obtuse because my point is that if you organize a society around blood and relations, you’re going to get a lot of inbreeding, for one, and you’re also going to not have anything that is based on popular rule, for two. That means a monarch, king, head tribesman, whatever, and those blood lines eventually die out.

It’s not like humans haven’t tried that a couple thousand times to no avail.

Member
You’re not going to untangle that knot without some sort of organizational principles upon which you’ll build it that will actually attract people TO your society. You’ve decided that Christianity is just someplace men go on Sundays out of a sense of habit and obligation (you’ve written of this many times), and the Constitution is a musty old rag in a museum which no longer has merit or purpose (just today, but not the first). California is starting to figure this out with their own secessionist movement. Really the only parts that are truly secessionist are in the major urban… Read more »
Calsdad
Guest

Umm – what is blood? And what does a king have to do with it?

When I can send in some skin cells from the inside of my mouth – and get a result back from the gene testing lab that says : ” You’re 34% Nordic/German heritage, 55% English heritage, 7% French, and 4% Jewish heritage” – I’d say that’s a pretty good sign that blood for all intents and purposes – does last “forever” – or at long enough in human terms that it definitely is something to be taken into account.

Member

See above. The discussion is about organizing principles for a society, not your sperm count.

Humans have already tried organizing around “blood and relations”. It played out in feudalism, monarchies, etc.

Calsdad
Guest
Again – another LOL. Two in one column. 50 years? Where the hell have you been? I see this kind of historical ignorance among right wingers all the time. If you’re talking about the Republic the way it was originally conceived and constructed – the problem goes back more than 50 years. The fact that so many on the right don’t seem to grasp this is a good part of the problem why we have such a pervasive leftie problem these days. “Conservatives” just want to conservative an older version of the left wing’s vision of what this country should… Read more »
Karl McHungus
Guest

let’s put a number on it: 1861

Wilbur Hassenfus
Guest

“and are true to them in organizing and running society”

Mexicans and Somalis and Indians (dot) will never be true to our ideas, which are alien to them and are no part of their history. They prefer their own varied ideas. Even Irish and Italians and Scandinavians reinterpreted our founding ideas to mean something different and more congenial to to them. Jews generally seem to see our founding ideas as a set of rules to be gamed to benefit their own people.

Or by “true to them” do you just mean meaningless lip service to a set of symbols?

Member
This guy said it pretty good: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether… Read more »
Member

^^ all those negative votes up there? After that guy did what he did, the United States within 80 years would conquer the planet and produce the strongest, wealthiest, freest, nation the world has ever known…and that just gets us up to 1945.

I’m waitin’ on the alternative….because whatever you guys have in mind, it better produce a hell of a lot better results if you hope to win over any support.

RDG
Guest

I support your argument. Except for Europe, is anyone trying to get into any of the worlds sh@tholes? No. How many Americans have illegally moved to Mexico or Venezuela or Cuba. Not even Michael Moore or Sean Penn. Liberal hated of America is so much fake self-centered crap. God would I love to deport every liberal to Sudan or Mogadishu or even North Korea.

Member

When something bad happens in the world, an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc. NOBODY ANYWHERE hopes that the Russians and Chinese are on the way.

The flag and faces which bring hope to the world are American.

Calsdad
Guest
The Constitution was a coup. This has been covered extensively by people who have looked at what actually happened – IN SECRECY – in that hall. https://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf ——- This book is the history of a deception. I regard this deception as the greatest deception in American history. So successful was this deception that, as far as I know, this book is the first stand-alone volume to discuss it. The first version of this book appeared as Part 3 of Political Polytheism (1989), 201 years after the deception was ratified by representatives of the states, who created a new covenant and… Read more »
Dutch
Guest

It is almost as if the country was in trouble due to paralysis of the government, as then organized, and the Powers That Be of the day cast about for an acceptable alternative. Once a marginally acceptable governmental alternative had been drafted and implemented, then it was dressed up with trappings that suggested permanence and moral righteousness. Just pondering here.

smitty1e
Guest
“There is, of course, the fact that America was a Christian nation at the time of the Founding. The men who wrote and signed off on “all men are created equal” rather obviously did not believe it in the modern, secular sense. They were Christians so they believed that only two people were ever created, everyone else was born. They certainly did not think people were born equal. To believe that all people are equal in the corporal sense or the political sense is to believe that reality is a social construct.” The units of analysis in Christianity (here on… Read more »
Member
“That means someone like former President Obama, who is an atheist and rejects the idea of natural rights, is not an American and he never was.” This is a true statement, and that is central to why he rejected the propositions captured in the Constitution, and just went about doing whatever he felt like at the time…which were generally against the better interests of the “blood and soil” Americans he was elected to govern. “Agreements among men, even deeply principled agreements, are open to revisions over time. That’s central to the propositional nation argument.” Which is why the Constitution has… Read more »
Wilbur Hassenfus
Guest

Here’s a visual demonstration of a Proposition Nation in action:

https://youtu.be/5fXN7x7a5So

Severian
Guest
I never realized how spergy the “proposition nation” argument had gotten. I always assumed that “proposition nation” was shorthand for “those who come to America, and other not-fully-assimilated subgroups within America, should do their best to act like White Western Christians.” It’s an ideal to aspire to, not a club with membership requirements. Similar to being a “Roman citizen” in the 1st century AD — some hick from Spain will never hobnob socially with the Catones, but if he’s “Roman” enough to fight his way to the top of the legions, he could be Emperor. I thought this was obvious…… Read more »
Al from da Nort
Guest
Severian; You are on to something with the Roman example. What you illustrated was that ‘Rome’ was a civic *culture* and not a ‘nation’ as that term came to be defined starting with the French Revolution. The Romans had no (or not much of a) civil *religion* but it was pretty clear what it meant to be ‘a Roman’ and what one had to do, affirm, and avoid to be part of that culture. Rome’s civic culture encompassed creation myth, language, laws, economic arrangements and social norms, but not ‘blood’, ‘soil’ or ‘religion’ (other than the divinity of Caesar). As… Read more »
Alex
Guest
This strikes me as a defeatist argument in that we are well beyond the stage where organizing around blood and soil is feasible. The “hispanics have entered the barn”, to mangle a saying. I just don’t know how we get to the other side of it. I agree with your assertion that an “American” is someone more than just a person with their feet on the soil of one of these fifty states. I’m just not quite sure how we go about defining it given the facts on the ground (“minority majority” in thirty years, and all that…). I am… Read more »
Wilbur Hassenfus
Guest
“They were Christians so they believed that only two people were ever created, everyone else was born.” Are you serious? At the time people referred to God as their “creator”. They knew where babies come from but they thought God was your Creator. That’s the way they looked at it. It didn’t strike them as a contradiction, so if it strikes you as one, you’re not “getting” them. They meant that the English class system was invalid and immoral. This is old English dissident theology/politics, centuries old even then: “When Adam delved and Eve span, Who then was the gentleman?”… Read more »
George Orwell
Guest

The proposition nation so beloved of Responsibile Republicans is “…the Progressive argument in favor of a living Constitution.”

Proving once again, Conservatism Inc. has been and will remain the trailing edge of the Prog wing.

Guest
Guest
I have a lot to write about this topic but no time today. In the interim, here’s a dispatch from the front lines. Short story: another bleeding heart hit piece on deportation of illegal alien. Daughter, a senior at Yale, attends on scholarship and is about to graduate with a degree in ethnicity, race, and migration (WTF?) and hopes to attend law school in the fall, where she’ll no doubt focus on immigration and poverty law. And this is how Americans subsidize the army that attacks our values. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/17/colorado-man-detained-getting-green-card/ You can see the hate in her eyes when she’s looking… Read more »
Guest
Guest
Member
I am one of those who supports the ‘nation of ideas’ concept, primarily due to the singular protection of individual rights and liberties the Constitution provides. I’m also aware of the limitations therein, and the fact that the Prog elites took over the management of the nation in a way that has largely destroyed those protections, and continues to redefine the tenets so as to further erode the rights of those who are not considered to be worthy of protection (i.e. non-elite whites, Christians, straight people, etc.) The freakout these groups are having is that the non-protected Americans aren’t accepting… Read more »
Member
“Beyond that, what would any of you have us do?” I agree with a lot of what I read here, but I’m at a loss to answer that question short of genocide and ethnic cleansing. You cannot un-bake a cake. Californian’s who want secession are figuring this out. They’re fun to watch because all the maps I see show the present State of California sort of cleaved off into its own country. The reality? Pretty much anything 70 miles inland stays with the United States, to include the mountains, farmland, and all of the water. Most of N. CA stays… Read more »
Member
I’ll say this much for the tan nationalists – they want ‘justice’, and they say explicitly how they want it: make white people give them jobs, money, prestige, and power. The pushback against them, however, comes in two forms – pleading ‘how dare you’ and ‘you’d be nothing without us, darkie.’ That is completely insufficient, and even the efforts to point out the failure of the documents to protect us from the predations of elite overlords – while a great diagnostic tool – fails to even hint at what can be done about it. In a previous comment, I’m made… Read more »
james wilson
Guest
Since Madison actually wrote the Constitution we might want to know what he thinks of propositions. “I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of …men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery….who would either desire or dare…. to betray the solemn trust committed to them. What change of circumstances time, and a fuller population of our country may produce requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part… Read more »
Member
Yes, people can become Americans. And being born in the US does not grant anything but legal citizenship. I offer a proof of either argument: Sarah Hoyt, the author. Born in Portugal, I would say she epitomizes that which is required to “Be American”. My mother and father, too – born in Panama, both came to the US in their childhood and both served in the armed forces, naturalized, and earned professional degrees. To demonstrate the fallacy of birth as justification for being American, I can offer Barack Obama….but he perhaps was not born in the US: Despite being President,… Read more »
Optingout
Guest

And you, of course, would claim self-interest has no bearing on your position. What you are offering, bub, is Portuguese and Panamanians in tricorn hats. Still not Americans.

Member

I was born here (the first in my generation in my family). I’ve also served defending the US (and was wounded in combat) and received professional degrees….

Self interest? Maybe, but if you seriously wish to claim I am not an American, GFY.

Optingout
Guest

“I was born here.” Bully for you; no such thing as magic dirt.

“I’ve also served defending the US. . .” No war of the American Imperium in the last 100 years involved defending America or its people.

“. . . and received professional degrees.” High IQ fetishist much? Because earning degrees is another job Americans just can’t do?

Self-interested economic and professional opportunist/=American patriot.

Member

OK, so you are not an American and disdain the concept. Good for you. Now, GFY.

Member
This is why they’re marginalizing themselves. My wife is Vietnamese, a physician, naturalized US citizen, and smarter than fully 90% of the people on this blog. The SAT tests prove it! hahaha Her dad fought with the US against the Viet Cong, and the USAF got them all out of the country before they could be killed or sent to re-education camps. She, like me, also served in the USAF. She has more appreciation for what being an American means than just about everybody I’ve read here today. But she’s not allowed in the club because, you know, reasons and… Read more »
Member

Well, I can trace my lineage back to the people who loaned the colonies the money to buy ammo. BTW, we never got repaid…

Ryan
Guest
The proposition behind the proposition nation is nothing but post war left wing activism. America was founded on the prog agenda, donchano. They really believe it too. Last Christmas my mom told me she believed America was designed and founded to be multicultural/multiracial society. I told her that was the most historically inaccurate thing I had ever heard. “You do realize that the first immigration law passed by congress was explicit in only allowing white people to be naturalized, right?” No matter, articles of faith aren’t about facts. I’m not mad at my mom, reason’s not a girl thing. But… Read more »
Tom
Guest

The Manchus pushed the idea that China was a propositional nation. Since they followed the Confucian rites,(and incidentally lost their language and culture) the Manchus told the Hans that they shouldn’t complain about being ruled by racial foreigners.

Amateur Brain Surgeon
Guest
Amateur Brain Surgeon

Do the neocons and other members of The Tribe ever take the time to look u the definition of “nation?”

Doug
Guest

I am born an American.
Thats puts myself and my fellow natural born American’s interests, politics, prosperity, happiness, faith, freedom & liberty, natural law & God given rights before any cockamamy proposition invented out of whole cloth and backed up by an artificial series of narratives, fabrications, wishful thinking or otherwise, by a cult of consummate pathological history revisionist liars.
I don’t give a rats arse about any of their stuff.
Thats the beginning and end of it for me.
Everything else is total bullshit and unacceptable.

Member

^^ Nihilism, it’s what’s for dinner.

Member

As I’ve said before, the importation of 2 million Eastern European Talmud Parsers between 1980-1920 was an utter fucking disaster.

Jimmy
Guest

Excellent post and accords with my way of thinking and comments in the past (ergo, excellent post 😉 ).

One other point that irks me is the presumption of such civic nationalists that this “propositional nation” malarkey is uniquely American.

What about the first French republic? liberte egalite fraternite?

What about the Soviets? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

I wonder if the results of those two nations are related to the curious silence in popular opinion when discussing “propositional nationhood”.

Member

Life (now see Roe v Wade), liberty (now see the 1964 Civil Rights Act) and the pursuit of happiness (now see Harvey Weinstein).

Member
Nihilism is not a governing principle either. Having read all the comments today, the list is long in complaints and short in solutions. Also, others stated that my original post the other day claimed we are a propositional nation. Somebody else chose to interpret what I wrote that way, but I never used the term, and didn’t imply it. I said that the alt/dissident right lacks organizing principles. I can point to a Declaration which more or less sets out Why, and a Constitution which sets out How, and historical events from the Revolution to the various rebellions to the… Read more »
TomA
Guest

“long in complaints and short in solutions.”

Exactly. Endless eloquent bitching may be cathartic and a therapeutic way to pass the time, but it doesn’t enable (or even enlighten) the path to a solution to the mess we are in. Why not offer up some constructive ideas for winning once in a while?

Al from da Nort
Guest
Hok; You make some excellent points. IMHO, what you are talking about re organizational principles is a *civic culture*. The Roman’s had one (as well as a cap. C larger Culture) By contrast, the Classic Greeks had a larger Culture that overlaid the varied individual civic cultures of the many Polii (plural of polis_?) of the time. A civic culture can be a religion, blood and soil ‘nation’ but need not be. Being a Roman did require adherence to Roman civic culture but did not require Italian birth or any particular religion (aside from affirming the divinity of the current… Read more »
Member
I would think the Colonists saw themselves as British with a different ideological bent. The Declaration was a rebuke of not just the Monarchy but the idea of a monarchy and the letters of Confederation and Constitution support the idea there was no blue bloods or royalty. When the said all men are created equal I think they had the idea of royalty in mind so I don’t think the proposition is a fantasy. Like fish don’t know they’re on water we don’t think about that as a proposition of consequence since monarchies have been essentially dead so long nobody… Read more »
Reed Hill
Guest

Yes, the equality clause in the Declaration of Independence was an explicit rejection of the Divine Right of Kings and the British noble caste’s discriminatory practices in the various social and political institutions. Like many things the Founders did and wrote, it has been warped into a cudgel so that the Progs can beat us with it.

I tend to agree with you that the country as currently composed has a real chance of avoiding the coming balkanization.

wpDiscuz