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. 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. 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 those claims.

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 us 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 is 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 do not 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 is 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 Founders were gods, who handed these ideas down to us. Agreements among men, even deeply principled agreements, are open to revisions over time. That is 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 is 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 us 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 are back to a nation of men, not ideas.

124 thoughts on “The Proposition

  1. 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 thinks about them.

    Of course the colonists were in their own fish bowl in that the entire country was European descendant so they probably didn’t see at the time any reason to define it along racial lines. Defining it that way would make it indistinguishable from the country they split from.

    But it was a white and mostly Christian country and it’s not entirely clear that a country that even embraces those original propositions without the same demographic makeup could be successful.

    • 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.

  2. 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 Indian Wars to you name it which formed that which we are today. Some good, some bad,

    But mostly good.

    Proponents of propositional nation advance the belief that ideas alone propel America forward. I disagree with that. Our laws and history propel us forward. Events around us propel us forward. Human nature propels us forward. As Z says, no people, no nation.

    As nihilists tear down every single institution of the country – the idea advanced here today on this very blog that Lincoln was a traitor, the Founders were clueless morons seeking only to preserve themselves, that a wide swath of the people who presently call themselves “Americans” not only aren’t, but have no right to the claim, that’s just right wing nihilism. The Left does this too with their flag burning, anthem kneeling, religion hating selves.

    I’m not sure how that wins you the allies you will need.

    • “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?

      • What you are describing is change from the inside. People in power, but in dissent from the majority in power, offer alternatives that can be debated. That’s not what is happening today. The people in power are unified. The dissent is from outside, starting on the fringe and slowly moving inward.

        The model is critic, complaint and mockery in an effort to de-legitimize the prevailing order. The hope is to win enough people over to gain critical mass. At that point, real disruption and a real challenge can be contemplated. Alternative polices and alternative solutions begin to bubble up at that point.

        • If the message is complete and total hopelessness, that the country is incurable evil, nobody will care, and the odds that they’ll participate in reforming things rather just just blow it all up and start over is highly unlikely.

          Was 1789 a really long time ago? Yes. Could anything even remotely similar be accomplished today at any level?

          Nope. That’s why when Mark Levin writes books to make money spouting about Article V conventions he gets ignored. Why? Because even though that convention can legally be limited, everybody knows that half the country would show up just to tear up the US Constitution and replace it with TBD. We no longer possess, in any faction or grievance or interest or racial group in the country the kinds of people necessary to formulate a country.

          If all the institutions get ripped down, we’ll have lots or wreckage, and a lot of war and death and suffering, and everything we see in North Africa except worse.

          • Reform is only possible when things are working pretty well. Reform is always about improvement. When things are beyond repair, then reform fails. The political structure of a nation is its software. In a company, the decision to upgrade the software is about improvement. When improvement no longer seems possible, then the company starts to think about buying a new system.

            After the Revolution, America bought a package called The Articles of Confederation. It was terrible so it was quickly replaced with the Constitution package. Accounting hated it, but production loved it. So, accounting got everyone in production fired and put in a bunch of verticals and add-ons to the system sold to them by a man named Lincoln. That system worked for a long time, but now it is no longer up to the task.

            Time for a new system.

    • 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 Caesar).

      We had an American civic culture as well as an American Culture when I was young. Americans abroad were (and are) identifiable as Americans but were/are not fully participating in American civic culture. And, the idea that you should have a political voice while rejecting American (or any) civic culture was as ridiculous then as it would have been to the Romans or Greeks or any other ‘national’ civic culture thru-ought history.

      The Prog. attack on American civic culture began post WWII with an attack on the very concept of an inherently American civic culture via the twin doctrines of multiculturalism and multinationalism.

      So a very good place to start would be to re-assert that America had an acceptable (not perfect) civic culture, but that it may need tweaking on account of sustained Prog subversion. Further, that we reject outright the nihilistic Prog. utopian religion, most particularly their obviously false doctrines of blank-slatism, hard multiculturalism (some cultures really *are* better than others) and hard multinationalism (every polity, however it defines itself, has the inherent right to put it’s own people, however defined, first in all things).

      After that we can all argue about who’s in or out with the stipulation that if you reject American civic culture 1.1 you can and should have no voice in how it’s run. The idea that foreigners can just show up unbidden and demand to be accommodated is preposterous and unprecedented in all human history.

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

  4. 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”.

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

  6. 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.

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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 I do despise the men who filled her head with so many lies. This issue is important, though. The dissident right has to start by discrediting the “conservatives” who accept prog agenda as propositional nation assumption. Zman gets it, probably an blog post a week on the subject. In war you kill traitors first and the enemy second. Same reason Bannon is spending all his efforts trying to primary RINOs.

  10. 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, I would not count him among “Americans”. I can also offer vermin like Bowe Bergdahl, or Bradley Manning; Bill and Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelozi….the list is long…

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • “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.

        • 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 stuff.

          Anyway, you’re not a real “American” unless you can trace your lineage back to Fort Necessity in 1763, though the 38 people who trace back to Jamestown won’t invite you to the good parties. My parents are Irish/Italian, and so they’re not “Americans” either. You see how this works.

          OH! And we’re Roman Catholic. I’m truly fucked.

          Great for your parents, and great for you too. Just because some jackass loser watching too much porn in his mama’s basement doesn’t like it, you’re a Great American, sir.

  11. 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 of my pretensions.” No part.

    We have accumulated so many pretensions that they maintain invisibility within our pride of civic nationalism. The first thing that has to go will be the last to go.

  12. 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 the ‘new proposition’ the elites created through co-option of the commanding heights, and were not expecting us to effectively use the tools still at hand to fight back, tools that we have specifically because of the Constitutional protections.

    And that’s where the beauty of the founding documents comes through. By at least having to pretend allegiance to these documents and principles, there is still a mechanism short of bloodshed to regain our rights and liberties, and to put the brakes on ethnic replacement and subjugation.

    It isn’t a perfect solution, but short of genocide, there is no perfect solution to the situation we are in right now. And by at least giving us the means to slow down the process via elections, and then through actual enforcement of laws, we have a chance to both have the debate and change the direction moving forward.

    As always in my comments, I fear abandonment of the ideals and structure we have because there has been no viable, peaceful alternative put forth. The problems we face are likely not fixable via goverment, but we are seeing a resurgence in people looking to address the problems through culture.

    This article ( on the gun debate mirrors what has been said here and elsewhere:
    “For example, we don’t really have a single America with a moderately high rate of gun deaths. Instead, we have two Americas, one of which has very high rates of gun ownership but very low murder rates, very comparable to the rest of the First World democracies such as those in western & northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea. The other America has much lower rates of gun ownership but much, much higher murder rates, akin to violent third world countries.”

    Without the protections the Constitution enshrines, the above would be prosecutable hate speech. Hell, most of this site and it’s comments would have landed us in prison if we were anywhere else.

    And the idea that we should… well, that’s the problem. I’m not seeing many ideas on what or how else to be. It’s fist at the sky laments, big talk and dystopian future prophesying, but no call to action or ideas on how to make things better (the lone exception being the way to become an American comment above, which I like).

    I’ve put out there that a Constitutional convention designed to put some teeth into punishments for violating the liberties the Constitution and Amendments were meant to protect.

    I’ll add to that term limits for all elected offices, and a military ‘up or out’ system for all bureaucrats, a sunset clause for all laws, and a similar public vote similar to Amendments for all Supreme Courts changes to current laws should be enacted. More power and responsibility needs to be moved from Federal to State, State to County, County to Municipality, and the punishment for crimes commited by anyone in a government position (elected, appointed, career) needs to be a minimum of the average sentence for a common citizen.

    Beyond that, what would any of you have us do?

    • “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 in the USA, and we keep all the deep water ports.

      Sometimes people have fun ideas, but they don’t think it through.

      • 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 reference to Ben Franklin negotiating with the Crown right up to the end, and I’d like to think many of us are taking on that role, attempting to defend a structure that can work against an all out war that only guarantees one outcome – a government that will not provide the liberty and freedoms we currently enjoy.

        A lot of us don’t want to live in a homogenous state of constant surveillance and restricted options of thought, speech, and association. We want to retain/rebuild the protections of our liberties, and use the ballot box to stem the tide of invasion before it is too late.

        Meanwhile, potential allies and our most ardent adversaries are declaring it too late, time to man the barricades, a-race-war-is-a-comin’.

        I’m not there yet, and, frankly, the people that are should frighten us all, no matter which ‘side’ they fall on.

  13. 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.

    You can see the hate in her eyes when she’s looking at her white attorney in the photo at the bottom of the article.

  14. 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.

  15. “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?”

    — John Ball, d 1381

    • Yes, I am serious. I’m also a native English speaker. They capitalized “Creator” for a reason. Regardless, it is beside the point and an effort to distract from the main point. Men are the product of their parents, not mystically created from nothingness. The Founders were quite familiar with the basics of human biology. They certainly did not believe men were equal on the mortal plane.

  16. 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 also uncomfortable with the idea that my political identity is only defined by a set of venerated, yet dusty documents that some of my back woods ancestors may have had trouble understanding at the time they were created.

    Interestingly the hurricane in Puerto Rico has revealed the divide on this issue in America. The PRs and anti-Trumpers all jumped on his seeming lack of interest in assisting/rebuilding the island, while the rest of us are thinking, “They’re not Americans like me, they’re Puerto Ricans…”

      • Uhh no. I think that unfortunately we’re in a “Possession is 9/10ths of the law” situation right now, as it pertains to minorities inside the wire.

        I’m looking for a practical/feasible way out of the mess the Boomer/Progs created over the past 60 years. I am not sure (but could be wrong) that rallying around a position that defined by a soon to be minority status will work.

        Also, as a recovering History Major, I’d like to confirm we’re never past it, or biology.

        • “minorities inside the wire”

          A very good argument for moving and re-stringing the wire, with most minorities outside, in their own countries, where they can live according to their own lights, and accept any propositions that they like.

          Look, guys, it doesn’t really matter whether America was founded on a Proposition, a people or some combination of both. America was a great country once, and I still love it deeply, in the way that a man loves his deceased parents, but it’s done, it’s over, it has ceased to be.If someone you love is gone, there’s no sense in propping the corpse up, and pretending that they are still alive, a la Norman Bates. The only question now is not, “what was America founded on?” , but, “what will our new country be founded on?”

          Now that’s a debate worth having…

      • I will enjoy reading the plan which un-bakes the cake, and which resorts the ingredients – unspoiled – into their respective containers.

  17. 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… guess I should read National Review more. If you don’t want to use “cuckservative,” I propose “Sperg-Right.”

    • CivNats cleave to the propositional nation argument because they need it to be true, just as Progs need the blank slate to be true. In fact, you cannot accept the propositional nation stuff without accepting the blank slate either.

      • Oh, I dunno – the Confederates had a “proposition nation,” too. 🙂 Their propositions were front-and-center; the main one being slavery. Funny how the “proposition nation” folks never mention that, or the Hartford Convention (if the Founders intended us to be able to propose new nations at will, they surely would’ve said so in 1814), etc. Why, it’s almost as if they’re committed to ahistorical twaddle…. “Civic Nationalism is just Progressivism in a tricorn hat.” I’m stealing that.

        • The funny thing is, the CivNats could solve their problem by fully adopting the Jewish model. It is not an accident that the Tribe cooked up the propositional nation argument. It is a very Jewish idea. One is a Jew if born to a Jewish mother or a “righteous convert” to Judaism. So, Saul marries Betty Ann Prescott, but she then converts before bearing him children. Problem solved. Plenty of women for the men. It is a clever and practical solution to a real biological problem.

          The CivNats should insist on the same. A non-American female can convert to American, if she marries an American. Non-American males are out of luck.

          • A nation of Elliot Rogers or Emma Sulkowicz look-alikes? No thanks.

            There’s a reason, however, that historically American mothers who married foreigners could not transmit American citizenship to their offspring. I can’t recall from my long-ago consular course specifically when the law was changed to permit it, but the original idea was the same. Still, even then racial considerations also held sway. There were some real issues for the WWII servicemen who married Japanese women. Change your suggestion to specify said females are White Europeans and said American males are at least 4th generation and it might work.

    • 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 you said, a Spaniard could become Caesar, hence being Roman didn’t necessarily include ‘blood’. A person could, obviously, be a Roman despite being born outside of Roman territory or be born a slave inside Roman territory, hence not necessarily ‘soil’ either.

      The American founders deliberately set out to create a new civic culture parallel to that of Rome in that it explicitly didn’t encompass ‘blood’ or ‘religion’ (but did include ‘soil’). That effort most definitely included the D of Independence, among many other contemporary writings. In this they were largely successful.

      The French Revolutionaries, who also set out to create a new civic culture, included a new religion (the Enlightenment) disguised as secularism plus a redefined ‘blood and soil nationalism’ (Enlightenment Religion + French soil + French Blood + French Language = a sacred French Nation). Classical ‘nations’ were defined by language, ‘blood’ and culture but not necessarily religion, soil or rule.* The French model came to prevail throughout Europe, largely due to it’s politico-military utility against the prior norm of multi-ethnic empires.

      Early Progs., who idolized Prussia/Germany in the 1880s (a ‘blood and soil nation’ if there ever was one), smuggled this model into the US, creating an American civic *religion* to subvert the prior American civic *culture*. Post WWII Progs. deliberately conflated American civic culture with a revised civic religion (civic nationalism – propositional nation, etc.) the better to subvert via creating confusion. In this they also were largely successful, witness the argumentation here about ‘America’ even means.

      *A good historic example is the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” proclaimed by Karl der Groesse in Aachen in 800 AD. In theory it encompassed all Germans everywhere, no matter who ruled them plus all lands where Karl was sovereign, no matter who lived there. IOW, ‘nation’ =/= soil or rule.

  18. “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 a couple of different Amendment procedures…because things change…and the founders knew this. I think they also somewhat anticipated – but did not put in sufficient protections – the problems the Courts could cause. There’s a Jefferson quote about this I read recently.

    “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.”

    True, hence Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase, and Hawaii. And maybe soon, Puerto Rico. There are of course limits to this. I’m not suggesting the propositional nation is without its limits. All things in nature have their limits. That’s why Puerto Rico isn’t a state yet. They see themselves as a unique culture and society, plus they get all the benefits of being Americans without all the taxes.

    As I wrote the other day, you can form your country around left handed people who like lemon meringue pie, but without a common set of organizing principles – rules and behaviors and accepted commonalities among the group – your country will fail. You might have better success if all those left handed pie lovers are the same race and ethnicity – because the more alike people are, the easier time they have getting along – but eventually even your fellow left handed pie lovers are going to start questioning the rules.

    Just like 1/3 or more of whites reject the idea (whether they have been taught to do so or came to it on their own is immaterial) that the future belongs to those who are going to vote their race. People need something larger than themselves than race to identify with and get behind. In the absence of religion, what is that going to be?

    Nobody has an answer for that right now. Therefore, a propositional nation organized around a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and flowing from an imperfect, but still utterly relevant Declaration of Independence, is all we’ve got. I’m not saying you cannot try something new, but if you cannot identify what it is and why it’s better…then we’re sticking with what we’ve got.

    • True, hence Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase, and Hawaii.

      Manifest Destiny had nothing to do with national borders. The Louisiana Purchase was the explicit confirmation of national borders. We bought land owned by the French. Hawaii was ceded to us by the Spanish.

      You are arguing against your stated position here.

      • I’m arguing that borders change. Manifest Destiny had everything to do with borders. We also fought two wars to make it happen. Ask Mexico if Manifest Destiny had nothing to do with borders.

        Hawaii was annexed by the US in 1898, mainly because we didn’t want any European countries to annex Hawaii. We had a lot of business interests there at that point (e.g. sugar). It wasn’t ceded to us by anybody. The Brits were the first ones there (Cook, 18th century). We recognized them as an independent country in the 19th century, got deeply involved in their trade throughout the 19th century, and annexed the country during the Spanish-American war to lay full claim to it.

        • Right. Borders change when the people in one area of land, conquer the people in another area of land. Usually, but not always, the result is the conquered are massacred or run off. Either way, their “nation” ends.

          No people, no nation.

          • “No people, no nation”.

            I never said otherwise. Borders, Language, Culture as the man put it.

            What I have said is that those people need a set of organizing principles that are elevated above mere personal identity. Race is the tie breaker in a sea of choices. Obama and McCain were pretty much the same candidate. Race – the opportunity many saw to cleanse the nation of its original sin – was the tie breaker. It didn’t work out the way they hoped, in fact they made things worse, but I’ve always been glad that that tinpot senator didn’t win.

            It’s why I hope Bannon succeeds in destroying the GOP whether his candidates go on to win the general election or not.

            It’s not that we lack the right organizing principles. It’s that we’ve thus far proven insufficiently hostile in destroying those in rebellion against it.

      • Hawaii was ceded to us by the Spanish.

        Actually, this isn’t correct, and I don’t say this simply to be a pedantic dick. The story of the annexation of Hawaii has some relevance to the current topic.

        A native kingdom was established in the Hawai’ian Islands in 1795, and it tried in fits and starts to “modernize” as the islands came increasing in contact with the West, initially through the American whaling fleet (though of course Captain Cook was the first to show up).

        Sugar plantations were established by foreigners (often American missionaries and their descendants). These big business interests were hostile to the monarchy, and tried a few times to overthrow it. They succeeded in 1893, and sought annexation from the US. Anti-expansionist Democratic President Grover Cleveland was strongly opposed to this, and a half-assed republic was proclaimed.

        The situation changed with the inauguration of pro-expansionist Republican William McKinley in 1897, and the swift victory over Spain the following year made the “necessity” of annexing the islands indisputable (from a geo-political point of view, at any rate). The US navy had long been aware of the strategic value of Pearl Harbor, and not just the annexation of the Philippines but also imperialist moves by Britain, Germany and Japan in the Pacific made the annexation a “no brainer” in Washington, where the deal was worked out in the summer of 1898.

        So, what happened to the Hawai’ans? First, western diseases wiped out something like 90% of them starting in the late 18th-century. And then the agricultural interests were keen to import foreigners (generally Japanese) to work as laborers in the cane fields. And once the islands were part of the US, there was no stopping the influx of foreigners. “…in 1878, the native population had dropped to an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 people. At that time, Native Hawaiians still comprised about 75% of Hawaii’s total population. However, over the last 120 years, the Native Hawaiian population (those with pure Hawaiian blood) has continued to decline. There are fewer than 8,000 pure Hawaiians living today, but the number of those who are part-Hawaiian, has increased steadily over the last century. Most Native Hawaiians today have less than 50% pure Hawaiian blood.”

        So, if we’re talking about Blut und Boden, it would seem that the Hawai’ans have lost both. And while they never seem to have fully recovered from the huge losses in population caused by the European diseases, it’s clear that the major players in “big (agro) business” were only interested in their own economic benefit, and didn’t give a damn about the natives, manipulating government policy for their own benefit.

        Big business swamping the country with foreigners for cheap labor, to the detriment of the native population. Now where have I heard that before?

        Oh, and for the “muh constitution” types, there’s a nugget of amusement in this sordid story. When McKinley came into office, the “Republic” immediately went back to trying to get the US to annex the islands and made a proper offer as a sovereign country. McKinley wasn’t sure he could get the 2/3 majority necessary in the Senate for the approval of a treaty, so instead he had the two houses of Congress pass a resolution in favor of annexation, which required only simple majority votes. As it turned out, the two resolutions passed by 2/3 majorities, so the legal scam turned out not to be necessary. But the fact remains that skirting around legalities to get what you want is a long-standing tradition in Washington. The Constitution means what the people in charge say it means. Nothing less, and nothing more.

        Anyway, the Hawai’ians are in the dustbin of history, and that’s a shame.

  19. “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 Earth, anyway) are: (a) the individual and (b) the local church body. “Christian nation” is a bugaboo.

    “Christians so they believed that only two people were ever created” is a dodgy assertion. See Psa 139:14 “…I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

    “They certainly did not think people were born equal.” is also suspect. “Whosoever” in John 3:16 points to human *theological* equivalence; whereas the Parable of the Talents explicitly discusses existential inequality among people.

  20. 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 not imply that no one is born American.

    The “bigger implication” you suggest is false. Until we discorporate like Heinlein’s Martian Old Ones, physical territory is required for us flesh and blood entities to gather together purposefully.

    Ideas can certainly be permanent. As long as we are humans, they can. Modifying the constitution is not the same as “a living constitution”, and saying so is false. The regressives want to pervert the constitution by reinterpreting it, not honestly amend it. That is what they mean.

    I think the commenters statement about organizing principles is true. Every prison compound on earth has common organizing principles.

    If men have ideals, and are true to them in organizing and running society, then we have a nation of ideas. Not a perfect one, a human one.

    • 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?

      • [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 could last forever.

        Is there any doubt in any of Z-man’s readers that our elites and politicians have been voraciously undermining our ideals for at least 50 years?

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • Up until last week, all societies were organized around ethnicity. Somehow, we made it all the way to here.

          • 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 centers. Also, much of their resource-rich areas (where the water is, for example) are vulnerable to the fact that the United States wouldn’t accept the loss of those resources, and in fact would divert that water back into US territory.

            It always sounds good on paper until you try to figure out how you’ll organize it, then things get messy. Which is why fighting for what we have is worth it. Fighting for a version of what America was 135 years ago really isn’t because America 135 years ago kinda sucked too.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • And it played out very well. We went from foraging for food to building great civilizations and conquering the natural world.

        • 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 be instead of the original Republic as designed.

    • This is sophistry. Whether or not anything in the Declaration is true is irrelevant. None of it was incorporated into the legal organization of the country. Many of the founders had a fondness for sweets. That is true and has nothing to do with the organizing principles of the nation. Those principles exist only in the ;legal foundation. No where else.

      The wily-nilly inclusion of ideas and concepts explicitly not included is a Progressive argument. You are claiming that there are no fixed principles and the founding documents are simply a guide, a set of suggestions. Once you argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not the sole limiting documents, you are argue that there are no limiting documents and therefore no principles.

      This is how Jefferson’s letter to those Rhode Island baptists became a weapon against Christians.

      Then we have your mention of the social contract, which is a Lockean concept. The social contract is of and between men. Yet, the DOI explicitly rejects that proposition. They clearly state that the rights of man are from God, not the result of the social contract.

      Frankly, your comment ranks up there with the dumbest ever posted here. It’s a steaming pile of Progressive bullshit that even Lefty blushes at these days.

      • The entire Preamble was put into effect through the Revolution itself, and the Government(s) formed afterwards. The indictments themselves led to many of the restrictions on the Federal power, led to specific amendments in the Bill of Rights (such as quartering of troops, and the rendering of the military as subordinate to Civil power).

        The Declaration was an explanation of “why”. The Constitution was the Founders’ attempt at “how”. Both are imperfect. Both did assume a relatively uniform citizenry – even though the founders were of quite a few different Christian sects, with Protestants, Catholics, and even some Deists.

        They even managed to put some language in there limiting the power of slave states. The whole 3/5th compromise gets slandered today, but it was the deliberate ticking time bomb that led to the end of slavery while allowing the country to be formed in the first place.

        The United States was hardly the uniformly even blanche people sometimes make it out to be. There were huge, principled, disagreements which people sorted out, compromised on, etc.

        At some point, you have to be able to learn to live and work with the other people in your country. You’ll never agree on everything, not ever.

        • No, the Articles of Confederation came after the revolution. The Constitution came after all those airy platitudes turned out to be a terrible way to run a country.

          • In a propositional country, things change, and that is not always and everywhere a bad thing. The key of course is that the people doing the organizing have to agree and compromise on what those organizing principles need to be.

            That being said, there are a large number of very specific elements of the US Constitution which have a straight line back to the Declaration, of which I mentioned two. But I could also add the power to tax residing in the Legislature, specifically the House, and other grievances they had against the King and Parliament.

          • Many elements have an ever straighter line to Rome and Athens. Should we include their principles in our legal definition of the country? You see your error? Once you jump the track and go outside the actual organizing documents of the nation, you have no organizing documents. That’s the reason the Constitution is just a museum piece now. People bought into the propositional nation argument. The result is the nation is a leonine proposition, made up on the fly by whoever happens to be in charge.

          • You’re correct in your observations about current events specifically because I am correct in my understanding of organization. No shared organizational principles = chaos.

            The alt/dissident right is chaos too, because the alt/dissident right ALSO has no shared organizational principles. At least not anything the vast majority of this country would buy into.

            At some point, if you’re going to have a movement, you’re going to have to convince people to join it. They’ll show up for a meeting or two because it’s fun complaining about how the honky is everybody’s asshole today (to paraphrase Steven Miller), but they won’t stick around because there’s nothing beyond that to do but complain.

          • “The difference between a Constitutionally-limited republic and Leviathan is about four score and seven years.”

          • I’m beginning to think that the difference between a Constitutionally-limited republic and a Leviathan is a lot of people complaining about something that largely doesn’t affect them at all on a day to day or even a year to year basis.

            Remember, the Government Party doesn’t hate government shutdowns because of the damage those shutdowns do. They hate shutdowns because shutdowns remind people that the Government has almost no influence on them whatsoever for months and months on end. Basically, if you pay your taxes on time, you can go many years without ever encountering the Feds or needing the Feds for anything short of a natural disaster (at which point NOBODY complains about “Leviathan”).

        • The country was founded on a coherent set of propositions. The country was founded by people who didn’t really agree with each other and enacted some shaky compromises. Pick one.

          • I’m not the one who seeks to throw it all away, so it’s not up to me to re-litigate the past. The burden is on the people who seek to replace it with….well….something….it’s not clear what….or when….or how or who or where….and the why is a little murky too.

            Results matter. I can look out my office window – in fact, I am looking out my office window – and survey a landscape which 150 years ago was buffalo and Indians and sage brush. It is today a sprawling, wealthy, suburban paradise where I can snowboard, mountain climb, bike, pick from any of a number of jobs based on my interests and economic goals, and I don’t have to ask anybody permission to do just about anything.

            You have to have an alternative to my coherent but conflicting sets of principles enshrined in an imperfect but successful set of Laws enacted by a flawed and error prone people who seem to have succeeded despite ourselves.

            What is your alternative?

          • Throughout this thread you have astutely avoided clearly stating what the “coherent principles” you keep referring to are. Beyond no man is nobler than another by virtue of birth, I have no idea what you think you mean.

    • “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?

    • 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 fitting and proper that we should do this.

      But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

      • So, Lincoln is father to the country and his random utterances supersede the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

        Again, this is the logic employed by libels to crush Christianity, on the basis of a “separation between church and state.”

        As I keep saying, Civic Nationalism is just Progressivism in a tricorn hat.

        • Z, if you’re going to have a movement, it’s going to have to start accepting people into it. It’s going nowhere if Lincoln gets shown the door. There’s a small number of people who think Lincoln was a dictator, but about 98% of the country disagrees.

          Like I said, fully 1/3 of just the white people in the US don’t accept the proposition that people need to vote their race. If you cannot persuade people on your team, you’re done, and there is no movement.

        • yes, Lincoln is the father of the country if you accept the notion of a propositional nation. It was Lincoln worshippers who started the notion. Mainly, i think, to justify the “War of The Rebellion,” Reconstruction, and the first American Empire. As history instructs dead dictators are useful.

          • I don’t have the “accept the notion of a propositional nation”. We are living in one as a matter of literal fact.

            There are things I do not like about our present state. That does not erase the fact that our utterly failed and contemptuous propositional state has produced a country where the average person earns $46K per year when the average globally is about $18K and 1/3 of the world earns under $900 per year. That there is no country now or ever that stands a prayer against us militarily (virtually no threats). And we have a population on the whole which is the most generous the world has ever known.

            “Propositional nation” is in fact what is allowing this conversation to take place today. All the wealth you have, the free time to blog, the job you have, the Welfare State we all complain about but IMMEDIATELY join at age 65, all of it flows from the Propositional Nation.

            Propositional Nation has also raised about 3 billion people out of abject depravity and poverty. At the turn of the 20th century, two popularly elected governments. Today? 120+

            Seems like things have worked out pretty good. We’re mainly bitching about, what?, idiot NFL players too stupid to realize they average one arrest per week, about 20-30 high crime metro areas in a sea of peace and tranquility, violent crime rates the lowest in 30-40 years, stocks up 25% in the last 8 months, and a President who actually is trying to keep his campaign promises despite a 5th column operating from within the walls of Stratos.

            We have virtually nothing to be complaining about that some tighter immigration enforcement and term limits for judges and elected officials couldn’t fix.

        • “Civic Nationalism is just Progressivism in a tricorn hat.” If you said it in precisely those words before, I missed it. Either way, very well put. I’m going to steal it and use when the urge to comment (rather infrequent of late) strikes. Kudos, I guess, re your patience in arguing with idiots. I have none. I just want them all dead and gone.

      • While we’re at it with Lincoln, how about some of his other pithy sayings, like this one?

        “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

        Kinda makes you think Lincoln was not all that serious about men being created equal.

        • Doesn’t bother me in the least. He was a product of the age in which he lived, and he was correct that living together would likely be impossible in terms of social and political equality.

          And he issued the Emancipation Proclamation anyway.

          What am I to make of a movement that discounts so many members of its own team on the trip to Lake Wobegon?

          • Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but held slaves anyway.

            That’s why you can’t base the law on lines from speeches and letters.

          • Which is why having an organizing principle is much, much, more preferable than sort of vague aspirations of “Well, we don’t know exactly that it’ll be, but it won’t be Christian because nobody goes to church other than out of obligation or habit, and the Constitution was a disaster from Day 1 all observational evidence to the contrary aside. Whites can barely agree on anything, but will suddenly come together to vote their interests, but we’re not sure what those are because ideas are no basis for …..” ugh.

            You can’t base law on blog posts either, Z.

            The burden isn’t on me to justify the actions of a bunch of dead guys. The burden is on the people who wish to change a nation from one which basically rules the planet and has the wealthiest people who have ever lived into…



      • ^^ 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • The Constitution was a coup.

      This has been covered extensively by people who have looked at what actually happened – IN SECRECY – in that hall.


      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 a new nation by their collective act of ratification-incorporation.
      This new covenant meant a new god. The ratification of the United
      States Constitution in 1787–88 was not an act of covenant renewal.
      It was an act of covenant-breaking: the substitution of a new covenant
      in the name of a new god. This was not understood at the time, but it
      has been understood by the humanists who have written the story of
      the Constitution. Nevertheless, they have not presented the history of
      the Constitutional Convention as a deception that was produced by a
      conspiracy. The spiritual heirs of the original victims of this decep-
      tion remain unaware of the deception’s origins. Most of the heirs go
      about their business as if nothing unique had happened, just as the
      original victims did after 1788. But a few of the heirs rail against the
      humanistic historians who have told the story of the new American
      nation: a “grand experiment” in which the God of the Bible was first
      formally and publicly abandoned by any Western nation. They have
      argued that there was no deception, that America is still a Christian
      nation, that the Constitution “in principle” was and remains a Chris-
      tian document, and it is only the nefarious work of the U.S. Supreme
      Court and the American Civil Liberties Union that has stripped the
      Constitution of its original Christian character. There is no greater
      deception than one which continues to deceive the victims, over two
      centuries after the deed was done.

      Political conservatives call for a return to the “original intent” of
      the Framers of the Constitution. If only, they say, we could just get
      back to original intent, things would be good once again. America
      would be restored. Christian conservatives follow close behind,
      affirming this recommendation. Problem: political conservatives are
      deceived theologically because they do not recognize the implications
      of the intellectual shift from the deistic unitarian god of Sir Isaac
      Newton to the purposeless universe of Charles Darwin. They do not
      comprehend that the Darwinian god of man-controlled organic evolu-
      tion (Lester Frank Ward)

      has replaced Newton’s god of the balanced
      machine. Process philosophy has replaced natural law theory. The
      conservatives’ allies, the Christian conservatives, also do not see this.
      This book is my attempt to teach a Christian remnant the true and
      long-ignored story of how this nation was hijacked politically in 1788
      by the spiritual heirs of the self-conscious spiritual disciples of Isaac
      Newton. Then, in 1789, a social revolution organized by the victors’
      spiritual cousins began in France.


      There’s plenty of people on the hard right wing – who believe that TRUE nation – was co-opted by the Constitution – and that the Articles of Confederation are a better representation of nature of the people who made up this nation at the time the Constitution was written.

      Kenneth Royce has also addressed the deception that is the CONstitution :


      Civic Belief #1

      Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

      Civic Belief #2

      The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict constitutional bounds.

      If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

      As Lysander Spooner described it over a century ago:

      “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”

      Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design, or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from axles to yarn.

      So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!

      For example, the feds “monitor” themselves through the Supreme Court, like students grading their own tests! Where is any “check and balance” in that? There is no constitutional way to repeal Supreme Court rulings, and this was no accident. The Framers could have (as did the swiss) quite easily confined the Federal Government, but they didn’t want to.

      The “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have an unchallengeable government today. Cleverly designed to be weak, the Constitution is more form than substance, or else Freedom would ring in America.

      Kenneth Royce proves that the States and the American people were politically “checkmated” 210 years ago, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior to the imminent insurrection now brewing. Hologram of Liberty is truly the groundbreaking, vital analysis of the Constitution.


      “conservatives” cannot even seem to elaborate clearly what the nation truly is. They constantly fall back on the Constution as an argument. And for 100 years or more – their argument has been failing out here in reality land as that Constitution never seems to inhibit the left. This is why Kenneth Royce is able to make his argument – because the reality is proving him correct.

      • 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.

  21. 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),

  22. 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 should have the option to leave. Not letting them in in the first place (especially Eastern European, non-Hellenized Jews) would also have been a good idea. I’m frankly tired of looking at John Lovitz in drag (Kagan) and the Gargoyle (Ginsberg).

  23. 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

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

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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 extremes – something in the sensible center, to coin a phrase.

        “Diversity” was once a fine word, a perfectly serviceable word whose meaning has now been perverted by the cultural left. The cultural Marxists don’t even really believe in true diversity at all; they are interested in other cultures and ways of living only insofar as these things advance their ideological agenda. Folks like Hillary Clinton endlessly speak of “diversity” as if they live, sleep and breath it every our of every day, but if one actually visits the places the Clintons live and work, they are as lacking in “diversity” as can be. Lilly white, rich, and intolerant of outsiders, to be exact.

        True multiculturalism, true diversity, seek out what is best from each culture and adopt those ways to one’s own society. By that standard, very few westerners – including Americans – practice real diversity and multiculturalism. Such is nothing to apologize for, since each of us is hardwired at the genetic level to prefer the company of those like ourselves.

        The diversity/multiculturalist movements seldom benefit ordinary people. These movements do benefit the elites, the ruling classes and the globalists, however, since enforced “diversity” is a sure-fire way of creating social disharmony and mistrust, qualities which serve to sever the bonds of comradeship which bond fellow countrymen together. Thus atomized, individual people are vulnerable to blandishments of the globalists and their program.

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

    • 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 rather that we cannot seem to understand the basic economic principle of “what you subsidize – you get more of”. White America’s charity problem has subsidized black collapse for decades and prolonged it. Remove the subsidies – and black America will kill itself off given enough time.

      Problem solved.

      Christians do seem to have a problem – and that is that their religion seems to prevent them from seeing the solutions to their problems when those solutions are staring them in the face. I’ve had this argument with a few Christians in regards to the gay marriage thing. Some people believe that homosexuality is nature – and some believe it is nurture. Either way – the gay marriage thing is part of the solution. If there is indeed a gene for homosexuality – then that gene propagates thru reproduction. In a society where homosexuality is severely frowned upon – a homosexual will go underground and often go overboard to fit in. That means marrying, having a lot of kids – etc. I know a couple of gay men who did exactly this. They married women just long enough – to have kids. Once that task was accomplished – they left and suddenly “discovered” they were gay in their early 30’s. Allowing gay marriage – encourages homosexuals to be honest about who they are sooner rather than later – and sooner or later removes the gay gene from the pool since it encourages gays to live openly – and (hopefully) encourages women to avoid reproducing with them. If the gene is removed from the pool – then you’re just left with the nurture and societal influences – and that is something that is rather easily changed.

      So sooner or later gays unbreed themselves out of existence.

      Problem solved.

      Societal pressure to hide gayness – is a subsidy to continue spreading the gene. The same way that welfare to the black community is a subsidy to continue breeding and continue spreading the problem. The main task at hand should be to increase pressure on whites to discontinue subsidizing black disfunction.

      The Obama years greatly encouraged this realization among whites and the insane rantings of people like Vincent Denton only serve to remind white people where their heads should be – so I say keep it up Vincent – you’re digging your own grave.

      Just to rub it in – all I typically need to do is quote the figures used by Zman and refer to the FBI crime statistics – and that pretty much always does it to shut up a white person who is arguing that there isn’t a problem among the “black community”.

      The next economic downturn will turn white people against black subsidies in a serious way IMHO. And that one is already baked into the cake.

      Keep up the good work Vincent – you’re making my job easier.

      • 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 molestation by social sanctions (if that’s the vector) would then achieve the ends you seem to favor of reducing the incidence of gayness.

        What could we infer that gays seem to actually believe as demonstrated by their incessant demands that their conduct be not only tolerated but actively affirmed_?

        To validate your hypothesis one would need to follow up the kids of the closeted gays with normal women (I know a couple of examples too – devastating to the women involved). If they are above average in adult gayness, then you’d be right. Good luck getting *that* study funded.

        • 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 point) – were arguing very loudly that “it’s genetic” as one of their reasons why they should have gay marriage, cannot be “converted” – etc.

          As far as the bad old ways – I’m not seeing where it created deterrence. The gayness thing has always been there. Enough deterrence should equal – no such behavior. Even in Islamic societies there is massive deterrence – but we still see people getting thrown off the roofs of buildings. Death isn’t even a deterrence.

          Just for the record : I believe it’s a little of both. Inherent genetically – and adopted behavior.

          • 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 deterrence isn’t 100% effective doesn’t mean that it’s not regrettably necessary.

            Re your valid observation about the persistence of gayness under Islam: There are some intriguing theories percolating on the margins of respectability that gayness is caused by some as yet unknown infectious agent striking at a critical phase of brain development. IOW, there is a gay germ, not a gay gene. It might be sort of like the cat parasite that spreads by infecting mice brains and making cat scent attractive.

          • 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.


      • 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?

        • 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.

    • 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 the test and kick out my friend who scored very high on it. He never bothered to try again because what was the point of taking the test if they could bounce you in order to fill a quota?

      Ergo you are not getting the best and the brightest, you are getting the unqualified in the name of diversity. If I am running a nuclear power plant and I need the 5 smartest applicants to ensure a safe operation and they all happen to be Asian, then I am hiring everyone of those mofos, screw Jesse and Al who cry there is not enough diversity on my workforce.

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

  24. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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 day saying something along the lines of, “Well, we’re going to have to accept that the Nazis have some good points.”

        Yeah, no. We do not have to accept that a bunch of lunatics worshipping a dead former dictator who we defeated in a war 72 years ago might have some good points. That idiot will let 10 people in the door who should be shot on sight at the expense of 10,000 people who are not crazy, and who agree the country is a mess and needs reform.

        • 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, the hard left began talking about destroying the White race.

          If you are White, there is only one question that matters:
          Do you want the White race to survive, or not? Yes, or no?
          There is no gray area, no waffling, no indecision.

          If, your answer is “No”, then do nothing, as White Genocide in all forms goes on around you.

          If, your answer is “Yes”, then you must make hard choices, and be ready to do hard things.

          The scraps of Western Civilization will only go to the living.

          • 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 the gander.

            The “long march” through western civilization and its institutions by the cultural Marxists which saw them begin as outsiders looking in and end as the ones in charge – can just as easily be done to them in reverse. Getting to the top of the mountain is one thing; remaining there is quite another. They’ve thrown us off; how about we throw them off in return?

            Re: “All of our moralities, philosophies, hopes and dreams will die with our people.”

            Perhaps, perhaps not. As long as the old ways live in some people, they have the potential to live on in other people. Good ideas persist; bad ones may flourish for a time, but are eventually tried, found wanting and then discarded.

            Cultural Marxism has been spectacularly successful in destroying a civilization it had no hand in creating, but one suspects that the nihilists will have a considerably tougher time building something new and worthwhile upon the ruins of the old than they did in destroying it in the first place.

            Cultural Marxism, like other forms of leftism, is fundamentally a dead-end, because those who believe in it aren’t builders; they’re only destroyers.

            Therein lies the opportunity for those who wish to build something new and good to arise out of the ashes. We can’t turn back the clock and restore the western civilization of old, but we can do the next-best thing: build something new that honors the best of what our civilization once was.

        • 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 why did it happen at a predominately conservative event? Do you really think that it was an alt-right that shot up a “right-leaning” group? Were the antifa protests and violence in Berkeley caused by alt-right? How about Charlottesville? How about Occupy Wall Street? Let’s go back a few years. How about Kent State? How about Chicago in ’60? Were Weather Underground and Black Panthers alt-right groups?

          Can you name one alt-right led violent event of any substantial size in the past 20 years? How about 30 years? 40? We can go down the path of OK City, but you may not like what you find.

          I am not going to condone the Nazi’s actions. Hitler did horrific things, yet he was a leftist, nationalist socialist (~20M dead). So did Stalin (~20-40M dead), Mao (~60M dead), Pol Pot (~6M dead) and our last fearless leader B. Obama (how many are dead from the Arab Spring and aftermath?), who were/are all alt-left leaning Marxist-socialists.

          Let’s consider the US-involved, Great Wars in the 20th century. Wilson, an alt-left socialist, used his religious beliefs to justify entry into WWI. Roosevelt, another alt-left socialist, allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, even though he knew the date and time of the attack. Was Truman alt-right? Johnson, another alt-left socialist, used the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify going to war, and rumors to this day suggest family financial investments in the country. Don’t believe the alt-left label? Look at the government and social programs initiated by them.

          I am not going to excuse the ME and Baltic wars of Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, but I also don’t put any of them into an alt-right classification.

          You freely disparage the alt-right, but did you ever consider that it’s not the alt-right that is the problem?

          It seems to me that someone needs a bogey-man (propoganda) to blame for political reasons, and you fell into the trap where Nazism, the KKK and “alt-right” are easy smears to label a political opponent.

  25. 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 “southern” or “english”. Second, because I’ve done the calculation on what exile or worse of the anti-Americans, including Citizens, would involve, and the politicians that would lack the stomach (I’m not sure if I would).

Comments are closed.