In the fullness of time, whoever is writing the story of the American experiment will marvel over the fact that the United States never understood itself and as a result, was eventually destroyed in a struggle with itself. A land with vast resources and a capable people could never move past a central problem that stepped off the Mayflower to start the American story. That problem is how can you build a society that derives equality from inequality?
At every step in the American story, we see this conflict. One the one hand, what drives the efforts of the American people is the desire to equalize not only American society, but the society of man. On the other hand, there is the grudging acknowledgment that what lies between here and the egalitarian paradise if the impenetrable barrier called the natural inequality of man. Despite the unconquerable truth of the human condition, what drives America is the desire to overcome it.
This conflict is right there in the founding myths. The colonists rebelled against the symbol of hierarchy and innate inequality, the King of England. They did so on the grounds that all men have the same rights. It is right there in the powerful opening of the Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest celebration of egalitarianism ever written, but written by a man who was the gold standard of both the natural inequality of man and the necessity of hierarchy.
This contradiction is right there in the life of Thomas Jefferson. He was a man of aristocratic stock, born into a wealthy family. He was living proof that Mother Nature does not distribute her gifts equally. He supported the redistribution of land to the poor, despite the fact he was a wealthy planter and slave owner. Despite the reality of his life, he was also capable of expressing the egalitarian spirit in such powerful and direct language that it continues to haunt the nation he helped create.
Modern America, the Global American Empire, is the product of the innate American egalitarianism, but also the willingness to use violence in the unequal relationship between America and the rest of the world. The regular speeches we hear from politicians about America’s role in the world would be familiar to Thucydides. On the one hand those speeches are a form of the funeral oration of Pericles and on the other hand the frank dialogue with the people of Melos.
The present crisis of America is the product of this great contradiction. In his majority opinion in Student for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Chief Justice John Roberts struggles with this very question. Much of the opinion, in fact, is a recitation of how the country has struggled with this question. Often, Roberts laments that the court has failed to live up to those ideals of equality, but then he acknowledges that impenetrable barrier called the natural inequality of man.
In his discussion of Plessy, the case that established the doctrine of separate but equal, Roberts argues that despite the intent and the remedies to address defects in the doctrine, the result was institutional inequality in education. Roberts writes, “the
inherent folly of that approach—of trying to derive equality from inequality—soon became apparent.” The remedy was to scrap it entirely in the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
Note that in a 237-page decision lamenting the history of discrimination and challenges in addressing it, the central problem lies in just one sentence. You cannot derive equality from inequality. If Mother Nature does not distribute her gifts equally, a truth not only visible to the casual eye, but supported by mountains of data, then the equality of man is impossible and any effort to achieve it is folly. Despite this immutable truth, the court continues its quest to reach the egalitarian paradise.
Right there is the beating heart of the current crisis. For going on three generations now, the moral arbiter of America society, the Supreme Court, has demanded that we press ahead with a project it knows is impossible. The moral regime that makes the open society as the highest good and discrimination as the worst evil, which grew from the Brown decision, is all about finding, at long last, some way over or around that impenetrable barrier called the natural inequality of man.
The moralizing is clear in the text of the decision. Roberts often blurs the lines between legal discrimination and general discrimination, because to make such a distinction suggests the latter is acceptable under the right conditions. Instead, the starting place is the assertion that discrimination is always immoral, but for now certain exceptions must be made until we work out a few things. Affirmative action, for example, is a temporary fix until equality is achieved.
Think about how many social problems could easily be solved by simply acknowledging that impenetrable barrier called the natural inequality of man. If the court said that Harvard is a private college and so it can admit who it likes for any reason it likes, this case never sees a courtroom. Public universities, on the other hand, must admit everyone that meets the objective criteria for admissions. Debates over college admissions would vanish instantly.
Simply acknowledging objective reality about human beings would solve many of the problems in present day America, but it is impossible. The belief in the equality of man is too powerful with the managerial class. John Roberts and his staff wrote 237-pages of text to cover over “it is folly trying to derive equality from inequality.” Since the middle of the last century, all efforts have been mustered to defeat that simple truth, but it remains that impenetrable barrier called the natural inequality of man.
If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!
Seems to me the problem in the USA (and the rest of the Western empire) is not about acknowledging the inequality of people within the same ethnic group — I think most everyone is fine with that. The problem seems to be acknowledging inequality between different ethnic groups. Even in the face of incontrovertible statistical evidence of differing crime rates, educational levels, career trajectories, family formation, and so on. And since the evidence cannot be faced up to, the alternative is a sort of magical thinking: inter-ethnic inequality cannot be there, and so it must not be there. It can… Read more »
Exactly. The problem isn’t our inability to acknowledge inequality; it’s our inability to acknowledge inequality among various races. This returns to my point that the founders screwed up for not answering the basic question of any organization: Who are we?
Right?
The progs/Marxists/libs want to claim that the, “the American people,” are everyone on Earth.
If that were true, then no one would be an American person.
I at least partially disagree with this. The managerial class believes in equality among all individuals, perhaps with only minor exceptions. We spend enormous resources on this fantasy.
The fundamental belief in equality (and magical thinking) is what drives universal education, for example. It is deeply ingrained in education. If a kid fails a grade, the problem isn’t the IQ or work ethnic of the kid, it’s that the school somehow failed him. Given the right method of instruction, there is no subject he cannot master. This is why they always attack the concept of IQ.
By their own rationale, we white deplorables should all be managerial class, yet somehow we aren’t.
I think Managerial class believes in equality amongst all individuals except for Whites. In the case of Poor Whites, they deserve to be where they are because Meritocracy.
The Managerialists *know* that they are ‘better’ than the snaggletoothed pickup-driving yahoo up in the backwoods mountains and have no problem trumpeting the fact.
I disagree that most acknowledge inequality among individuals. The fantasy that everyone can be a high achiever at anything given enough time and effort is deeply ingrained. With the sole exception of sports/athletics, most Whites (in AINO/Canda/UK/AU/NZ) vociferously deny that intellectual and even social gifts are not evenly distributed. When over half the class at a Christian school achieves ‘high academic honors,’ no one questions that perhaps standards might be made more demanding or restrictive – the parents all celebrate their budding geniuses. The mostly-White upper class in mixed societies (most of Latin America) is the only group that –… Read more »
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think much the same for, “but is this good for the White race?”
Whites are not all equal. What is good for one is not going to be good for another. And it’s a fool’s errand to even try. One way or another, fools will eventually be the ones making the decisions.
This was actually supposed to be a response to Arshad’s post but it works for CSC’s as well. One aspect of the modern Leftist mentality that has always seemed bizarre to me is their extremely strong tendency to compartmentalize information. For instance, most Lefties are hardcore believers in the basic story of human evolution. If you go into the details of that you find that some human groups have been separated completely from one another by thousands of miles and as much as 40,000 years. If you understand evolution at all you can see that it would be extremely shocking… Read more »
Racial differences are the key issue in the problem of Equality. The Founding Fathers ASSUMED a European Christian population of Good Moral Character, not the Camp of Saints which is currently washing up on our shores.
And we all know what happens when you assume.
Do not assume. Make explicit. If the Founders had done that, America would probably still be alive and well.
I hear ya, but really —cut the Founders some slack. A fish doesn’t know it swims in water. Second point, the Founders could not predict the bastardization of the common meaning of language and therefore interpretation. If the Constitution were to be rewritten today in the spirit that it was intended to be “understood” in the Founder’s time, it would be a thousand page document and therefore unknowable by the common people.
I wonder how much the Founders knew or understood about faraway East European Kazars.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was quite explicit: “free white persons of good character.”
Naturalization Act of 1790 – Wikipedia
America had multiple revolutions in its time, and it was only sometimes accompanied by a Constitutional Amendment. After Civil War – yes. FDR’s reign – no. Civil Rights Act was a law, not an amendment.
I dispute the idea that the Founders being explicit would have changed this. After all, they made explicit that there be no income tax, right?
Agree with your comment and can’t add much to it. Differences among racial groups have a strong genetic basis that no amount of environmental manipulation can overcome.
Yep, and let’s face it, there’s one particular ethnic group that all this equality/inequality crap is based on, period.
Well, sort of. The biggie are the Blacks, but not all would be *well* if this were solved. Compare Hispanics and you still double your crime rate as compared to Whites. Sure there is confounding with SES and such, but it’s there if one simply looks back to their homelands. I won’t even comment upon Middle Eastern immigrants.
Even blacks are better suited to the US than Middle Easterners, at least today. Both their religion and culture are totally incompatible with Western Civilization.
At least Muslims have (“had”, perhaps) culture and civilization worthy of the terms.
But they are such bigger problems. Blacks bring a generalized chaos through their dumb decisions, criminality and grievance. But Muslims bring a whole different and worse set of problems. Look at the grooming gangs in the UK. Deliberately targeting White girls while protecting and limiting their own children. They are smarter and better organized than blacks too. They are, from what I can tell, as tribal as blacks. When a Muslim is arrested in the UK, it’s not uncommon for a thousand Muslims to show up at the police station and demand their release. Then there is the constant agitation… Read more »
No, your insight is well taken on today’s Muslim. But the radicalism is much more recent wrt Islam. Your most populous Muslim nation is….Indonesia (IIRC). Anyone hear of the same shenanigans over there? Not defending Islam as much as criticizing radical religiosity.
One rarely hears of radical Buddhists blowing up apartment buildings with car bombs.
The problem is radical Islam plus Arab genetics.
Plus rampant inbreeding, Ostei.
Aye, SAGEB. Never a good idea.
That’s a fair point. You can’t have a clash of civilizations with a people who are fundamentally uncivilized. And while one may have some respect for the notionally civilized–Sand Hutus–they are also potentially more dangerous. Negroes are incapable of coming up with a fiendish plot such as 9/11, let alone executing it.
True enough, but when all the White jackoffs were yammering about their “brothers and sisters” back in the ‘60’s & 70’s, they were only referring to blacks – not Indians (feather and dot), not mexicans, not chinese, japs or muslims. They, as a group, are the absolute center of the equality/inequality issue that all the bogus laws, amendments and court decrees have been based on and we all have to pretend there is no intellectual inferiority or proclivity towards violence and criminality. But I hear you on messcins – I’ve lived around them my whole life.
Yes – that ethnic group that weaponized all the others to destroy White, formerly Christian societies. The group that demands they are both special and equal simultaneously, and don’t you dare notice otherwise. This in no way absolves blacks, mestizos, east/south asians of their anti-White animus, but without the power and money (international and hundreds of years’ old) of the chosen, people’s natural sense of identity and family preference would quickly smash the lie of both individual and racial egaliltarianism.
Do not forget the the “Puritan” part of the axis. White Leftist malefeasance is easily the equal of the Finkel variety.
Many Puritans in France?
Rule of thumb for how broken a formerly Western country is might be the murder rate: France has one of the highest in Europe.
Interestingly, Russia has the highest in Europe; even higher than that of the US!
Their actions belie their professed belief. The magical thinking is to a large degree mere rhetoric.
Every empire, over time no longer serves its citizens. They are supplanted by international interests, same happens with the corporations who conquer the domestic market. Fighting over cultural issues is just cover, an excuse to keep the charade of “democracy” semi believable. The rich care not about abortion, or your 4.0 GPA average from state school rah rah rah, they just want you to accept the way things are and shut up. We often find ourselves asking, why would you promote stupid? The answer is because you’ll spend all your time fighting the stupid, while they continue to loot anything… Read more »
Spot on. People, I think, have started to realize that following the laser pointer is a waste of time.
A plus for that analogy.
This is as My Cousin Vinny said, “Dead on balls accurate!”
Divide and conquer.
The ruling class of the Roman Republic was in the process of self-destruction even during the transition from republic to empire. Ethnic Romans in the ruling class of the empire were gradually replaced by non-Roman provincials with self-interest in its continuation. (1) The Roman people, the working class, were doomed the moment they had no ethnocentric organizers. The late stage empire saw Roman farmers evicted from their farms to make way demobbed legionaries when there was no longer any new conquered territory on which to settle them. At least they were mostly admixed with Germans and Greeks to eventually become… Read more »
True, and an aspect that most who study Roman History never mention but i think it applies: They capped their source of cheap energy (slaves) when Augustus decided the empire should no longer expand after Varus lost his legions. I view cheap oil and slavery as essentially the same
“The ruling class of the Roman Republic was in the process of self-destruction even during the transition from republic to empire.”
Replace self destruction with consolidation and you’re correct.
I can hear a loon in Mexico City shrieking “No, no, no it was the Christians that did it; it was the Christians that destroyed Rome”, like the good little Nietzschean he is.
Not only is the inequality not real to them, but they explain away all of the differences in outcome as White racism. There can be no other reason.
Every race seems to have its “race hustlers” or “grifters”. They of course, need to promote racism to guilt Whites into forking over the loot. But there is also, it seems, a fairly universal reason to put the blame for inequality on racism—refusal to be held accountable for one’s place/status in society. Much easier to blame others than look within yourself for solution/cause.
Perhaps just as important is the inability to acknowledge the inequality of sexes; i.e., men and women are interchangeable except for reproductive plumbing and secondary sexual characteristics. Advancing women into positions for which they are completely unsuited leads to a lot of unhappiness and is one of the major reasons for the cratering fertility that the Z-man mentioned last week. It may, in the long run, prove more pernicious than the failure to acknowledge inequality between races.
America could have withstood the race-grievance scam. But it cannot withstand feminism, the turning of all females into Special Class Citizens superior to males. That one will finish you.
Good catch. Race inequality is perhaps *secondary* to sex inequality in our national “tale of woe”.
“…a sort of magical thinking: inter-ethnic inequality cannot be there, and so it must not be there.”
Or alternatively, “the absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence”.
They won’t even admit race exists, let alone differences across race. Pay attention to the way they talk about it. Most of them deny race altogether or define race as skin and other superficial physical differences. But these minor differences just happen to coincide with race making it easy to “see” race. They appeal to our sense of fairness based on this ridiculous assumption. “What if you had more melanin and were black?” This leaves out that if you were black, you wouldn’t be you. We’ve been cursed with having our racial diversity being between Europeans and Africans as opposed… Read more »
I love it when one discusses such in front of me. A brief reference to medicines and medical conditions related to race usually gets them flustered.
“Most of them deny race altogether or define race as skin and other superficial physical differences. “
This kindergarten level construct is easily one of the most destructive in modern conversation. Literally nobody cares about skin color, nor do does anyone “hate it” like they hate a red coat for a blue one. It’s about the behavior patterns easily spotted in relationship to melanin levels.
The focus on the melanin levels prevents the conversation from happening entirely.
Removing/abolishing the concept of disparate impact would go a long way in helping matters.
Disparate impact is the alleged result. The evidence that supports the thesis. You can’t remove it or ban it, as it is just an observable black box output. Look around any neighborhood. The kind of people there are determines what kind of neighborhood you have.
What we have to figure out how to explain is that black box inputs were the cause of the output, rather than the black box.
I always interpreted Equality as Equality under the Law. As in, no exceptions to the rules, using nepotism, bribery or judicial legerdemain. An equal public playing field. So that those who were born without means, yet who were worthy could rise in a meritocratic fashion.
Enforcing Equality beyond that is tinkering with Mother Nature. Pure Idiocracy. Our current leaders put Diana Moon Glampers to shame.
Yes. The underlying assumption of the “ glory days” of the Civil Rights movement was that race “ inequality “ was a white man’s problem. Once we “ leveled the playing field” of any exterior barrier, the natural equality of the black minority would naturally emerge. Decades on, it didn’t.
It simply doesn’t exist, whether by “ nature or nurture”.
And Jefferson knew that too.
“a white man’s problem”
Yes. I’ll add that there was a further assumption held by white reformers was that the non-white races shared the reformer’s desire to see each person as an individual, not as a member of a competing tribe. The white reformer expected that the other races would reciprocate the desire to move past a world of competing races, which didn’t happen.
Whites were like pacifists who threw away their weapons on the assumption that every other competing group wanted a world without fighting, but no other group threw down their weapons.
The egalitarian dogma has always held that Whites were uniquely and specially racist while other groups had the “correct” view that everyone was the same. In today’s Grievance Studies “literature” you see this fully developed into a kind of secular notion of original sin that only applies to Whites. Of course, the reality is just the opposite. Whites are virtually the only race that falls for stupid and self destructive racial altruism. Every other race looks after its own and maintains a certain degree of hostility to other races. Of course, this is exactly what evolution would predict since favoring… Read more »
I’ve always understood the Declaration’s assertion of equality to be a denial of the divine right of kings, and by extension, of hereditary aristocrats.
That denial being necessary to clear the way for independence and self-government by Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” of men of proven worth.
Exactly. This assertion only means (music by Pink Floyd) “We don’t need no king or monarch. We don’t need no aristocrats. No rules to avoid making money. Did you leave the rich alone? Hey! Noble man! Leave the rich alone”
The Founding Fathers justified their rebellion based on rights that they denied others (tge Whiskey rebellion).
But saying the truth was not pretty. It was easier to say “all men are created equal”. This only means:”nobles don’t have better blood than burgeois”. But after this was taught in schools as the higher good for centuries, the rhetoric took over
It appears in context that Jefferson meant “Our aristocrats on this side of the pond are equal to your aristocrats”. It was not a general equality of men, at least given his life. The War for Independence makes no sense without that immediate context of the French and Indian war that had just been fought. The British would ignore even basic advise from colonials on weather and the locals, simply because they were colonials. “Yankee Doodle Dandy” was written by a British MD mocking the Americans he met. George Washington would only be allowed captain, I believe simply because he… Read more »
Yes. Fred Anderson’s Crucible of War, for example, makes a compelling case that the British condescension toward the colonials during the French and Indian War set the stage for exactly the kind of assertion of equal aristocracy you describe.
But that condescension extended to the common man as well. The British regular infantry was typically seen as superior to their undisciplined colonial counterparts, who were frequently assigned the most menial tasks.
The “colonials” had been planning separation for a long time.The excuses used such as equality or snobbery were justifications for the local elite to seize power from the distant elite.
Also, Jefferson or Washington whining about having their feelings hurt is kinda funny considering their misanthropic tendencies.
Sure. In Anderson’s telling and in that of most honest historians the founding generation comes off as just as venal, hypocritical, sanctimonious, scheming, etc. as any other generation. They were, in other words, human.
Doesn’t change the fact that British attitudes toward them helped fuel the revolutionary situation.
This is so true, and still happens to this day, look at Soros and his son retrieving his biden medal of freedom. lol What a joke they are. It’s only going to get worse for them now.
Another important point is China and their ‘mandate of heaven’ thievery. All these mfers and their mandates. We are in for a treat to watch them go down in their arrogance.
I remember seeing a commercial for one of those for-profit colleges that said something like “talent is distributed equally, opportunity is not.” I remember being totally shocked that someone would say something so dumb, even in an advertisement. It’s so obviously untrue and silly that we might as well say that we are all born with zebra stripes. Yet, I looked on the internet and found that this is actually a pretty common saying in certain circles. It seems like something people say to signal they are part of the group, but as with every other thing taht these people… Read more »
‘Talent is distributed equally’ is a religious phrase repeated by adherents of the Church of Prog. They ignore the evidence of reality before them — that talent is distributed very unequally — and choose instead to believe a convenient lie. Cult behavior.
Yeah, here it is right from Harvard. Accepted as a truism:
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/talent-is-equally-distributed-opportunity-is-not/
Points to NBA.
An NBA based on measurable ability would be far less black, basketball nerds found out when they started taking their stats as seriously as baseball nerds do.
So the nerds STFU and GTFO, lest they be pantsed. That’s a significant part of the league’s declining popularity, and the ever-increasing “diversity” of its remnant audience.
A league with just as many stars from Serbia and Peoria as from the ghetto (they’re not, but that’s the story) would be a more successful business, but American corporations aren’t in the business business.
This. Liberals, conservatives, left, right – take your pick – they all start from the same, pernicious false assumptions of egalitarianism.
Jamestown is the oldest English colony in the New World. It was founded on the belief that Englishmen would continue to live as they always had, but in the New World. It is the foundation of The South and Red State America. Both the plantation owner replicating a facsimile of the medieval manor and the hillbilly vanishing into the mountains come from these men. A decade later Puritans arrived a few hundred miles north (and on the other side of the Dutch). They would create a city on the hill cleansed of the Old World and its Catholic Church. A… Read more »
Yes people forget that there were two ‘foundings of America’.
It’s funny how the 1619 Project dummies didn’t realize Jamestown was founded in 1607.
Going further back, the Spanish founded St. Augustine, FL in 1565.
The Puritans (rather than the southern Calivers) won Mr. Lincoln’s War. Thus they won the “rights” to the origin story of the US. Thanksgiving, while very wholesome in it’s nature, is about very much about resetting the US’s orgin story. (Thanksgiving was also started by Lincoln and I think not very much celebrated in the South for a long time.)
It’s the world’s dumbest origin story, too. It’s about a group of people unable to navigate to Virginia lucky enough to stumble on some natives that let them survive until the next summer. But yipee I guess.
Howard, it’s worse than that. The 1619 Leftist crowd are well aware of the date of the Jamestown founding. 1619 is said to be the date of the first import of African slaves into the future USA. Therefore it is the date of our “original sin” and all US history begins there. Our nation was conceived in sin and the Left has been preaching (White) repentance ever since.
A return to the right to free association would solve some of the problems we have created. The Z man has written about this and our original states practiced it, the people of Pennsylvania or Maryland were free to be different than the people of Rhode Island or Massachussets to the point of excluding people whom did not accept the state religion of those states.
We had it at the beginning, we need to return to some form of free association rights again.
Free association with no immigration. The free association isn’t going to be that great in a Camp of the Saints America.
Agree
But that’s forced association. It’s go-gooders being allowed, nay, directed to force their proclivities on others. Same with the faggot parades and all the rest of the insanities of the leftists.
Only White people are not allowed to have free association. Every other group can associate with their own people in any way they see fit. I just read an article about how Indians are pushing back against anti-caste discrimination laws. They want the ability not just to come here, not just to bring over their entire family down to the 18th cousin, not just to bring over all the people of lower caste so they can rule over them with an iron fist, but also the ability to do so legally – and they’re doing it. It’s only racist if… Read more »
Agree, but the founders also screwed by not answering the ultimate question of any organization: Who are we?
They never laid out just what was an American, or, at least, they didn’t make it explicit. Yes, they said free white men and our posterity, but they never addressed it directly. In their defense, they probably didn’t see the need.
We are a country that can’t answer that basic question, which means that we aren’t a country.
The first immigration act indicates the Founders knew full well who we are, and likely assumed (wrongly) it was so glaringly obvious that it didn’t merit terribly much explication.
True. It shows that words on a piece of paper aren’t a magical defense against a people losing their way.
It’s the people, not the paper.
Yes, the founders screwed up, and now we’re constantly scolded with, “that’s not who we are!” “Who we are” is now something the founders wouldn’t recognize.
The “that’s not who we are!” people usually point to the Emma Lazarus poem and the Israel Zangwill play to tell us “who we are”, not the Founders. The “that’s not who we are!” people hate the Founders.
Jefferson was well aware of this problem. His words in the Declaration have been misused entirely out of context. Jefferson’s 1813 letter to John Adams deserves to be quoted at length: “…I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial… Read more »
The artificial aristocracy was further rebuked by Jefferson in 1826 when he wrote:
“The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
I’ve always liked that thought, but never concluded it meant to support equality of all men.
Consequently they formed a government of limited and enumerated powers, which had no ability to impose equality upon the population. but that would mean the constitution is just “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you.”
Why was the Founder’s vision of a “government of limited and enumerated powers,” “a charter of negative liberties,” so easily defeated?
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=33426#comment-439469
Jefferson pointed out to Madison that is not what his Constitution was, though. He warned that Article I, Section 8, clause 1, the ‘general welfare clause” conferred upon Congress plenary power. Anything they could argue was in the “general welfare” was within their purview.
He recommended Madison go back to the wording from the Articles of Confederation — “expressly delegated”. We know how that came out. Which, to me, argues strongly that Madison et al. wanted a Congress with plenary powers.
Steve, do you believe that if Madison would have implemented Jefferson’s recommendations that whites would be in a substantially better situation today?
Were a few phrases in the Constitution that significant?
In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson recommended that blacks be emancipated, as slavery was a violation of their Natural Rights.
He then argued that they must subsequently be deported to their own country…
I don’t know. I do know that the Articles held the line very well, though they were only in place for 8 years of peace. Well enough that not only did they have to lie about its flaws, but that those lies became the accepted Truth. The Constitution didn’t make it 2 years before the Whiskey Rebellion, and 3 before the obviously direct carriage tax, resulting in Hylton decision the next year.
The Federalists damned the experiment in federal governance, with their craving for nationalism and power and wealth.
Thank you for addressing the basic assumption behind ‘woke,’ political correctness, the ‘left,’ and whatever other group of reality-denying misfits you choose. I would emend your statement that the managerial class is the main reason for AINO’s fantasy – they may be the group with the most overt power, but they are merely the tip of the spear. Every grunt who counts Jose as his good buddy, ever churchian who welcomes Chien and Oluwa and Sandeep to his neighborhood and ultimately his family, provides the overwhelming numbers and buttresses the managerial class. All of the readers and commenters with Han… Read more »
‘Every grunt who counts Jose as his good buddy, ever churchian who welcomes Chien and Oluwa and Sandeep to his neighborhood and ultimately his family, provides the overwhelming numbers and buttresses the managerial class’ It is so. And yet, the most valuable and effective allies of the managerial class turned out to be the parents — especially the dads — of daughters, who almost to a person steered their princesses away from marriage and children, and towards a Hard Charging Don’t Need No Man career. . . . yea to college, where the educational emphasis was on teaching her to… Read more »
Yes, those same girls hammered incessantly by Dad to go to those schools on an athletic scholarship, many times fulfilling, as best they can, Dad’s desire for the son he was not granted. When they should be playing with dolls they are running around on a soccer field, little would-be gladiators, as the defeminization process gets off to a roaring start.
Do you still believe old white people, boomers I believe it was, deserve abuse from immigrants in old folks homes? Or has your attitude changed any?
It sure is a wild coincidence that the solutions proposed by these equality obsessed Europeans always has the effect of ethnically cleansing the West of Euro blood. Its like africans wanting to live authentically, they don’t explicitly think to themselves they want to reduce civilization to dust but that is always the end result of them acting on their genetic will. Some of the founders like Jefferson & Washington believed islamic goatfuckers would be a great fit for America so long as they believed in God & were hard workers, respectively. Some things just never change. Well except the White… Read more »
I’d say it’s more accurate to consider the real problem to be, not so much that Nature distributes her gifts unequally, but that she does not distribute them randomly. I think the American project could happily manage a random distribution of gifts, but because blacks are a cursed race, they will always be greatly underrepresented in any endeavor not involving running, jumping, or chaotic violence.
Thus their claim that the very nature of a White society and a White society’s rule are by their nature, racist. They are entirely correct in this claim
Equality before God and the law. That’s basically the American ideal put forth by the Founders. Stuff like equal outcomes and affirmative action is just a load of old bollocks, not what Jefferson et al intended.
Yet we can all see that “equality before God and the law” that you praise was not a stable cultural belief. Instead, “equality before God and the law” became “bake the cake bigot” and “you’ll be fired if you don’t use the tranny’s pronouns.”
Why was “equality before God and the law” so easily defeated?
Whites seem to have acquired a willful blindness, a suicidal naiveté, about non-whites. My guess is that our unique compassion and love for abstraction made us vulnerable to a blind universalism, which was exploited by those who mostly control our media.
God wins.
Right. For some strange reason they don’t want equality before God and the law. What could be the reason for that?
‘Simply acknowledging objective reality about human beings would solve many of the problems in present day America, but it is impossible.’ Sadly, correct. Facing reality would cause Hurt Feewings doncha know, and already Hurt Feewings will get you a long jail term in Britain. Equality exists exactly nowhere on Earth or in heaven, and yet is the spiritual and legal cornerstone of America. Not a good plan. One man is not equal to the next; this isn’t the business of ‘Mother Nature’, because she doesn’t exist. It is the business of God the Father, who bestows His gifts AS HE… Read more »
You can’t lay this on Jefferson — he believed in natural aristocracy, one of virtue and talent, versus the artificial aristocracy of family status. The problem arose when men who on their best days aspire to mediocrity want to include themselves in this natural aristocracy.
Roberts is one of millions of such. Midwits believe that they are of the natural aristocracy simply because they hold a government office. They are Federalists. Or maybe their hangers-on. You see around you not the detritus of Jeffersonian “equality”, but of Federalist hogwash that the virtuous are elevated to office.
They didn’t believe in the equality of all. They demanded equality before the law, because Britain did not hold them as equals under the law. Even that was aristocratic. They were not lords and so they were not treated as nobles by the law. To get farm boys and trappers and Hessian mercenaries and blacksmiths to sign up for their revolution they promised them freedom and equality before the law. America’s problem was it became a mercantile empire that thought, ‘Hey! we can just import more people to do more jobs and we can keep growing!’ Now look at the… Read more »
I disagree a bit. Aspirational equality, for want of a better term, was supplanted by legally enforced non-discrimination only after World War II. As you point out, profession of the creedal variety prior to that point was more ritualistic than a reflection of actual belief. Even as much as I loathe the Puritan, when you read the works of abolitionists, to cite on example, they almost all fully expected blacks to be repatriated to Africa. The professed beliefs were not sincerely held, in short. The transition to the current fantastical legal regime actually started with KRAMER, which ended restrictive racial… Read more »
How does the next stage of forced busing factor into your optimism? By that I mean, dumping tens of thousands of aliens, not just from your own country but from anywhere in any part of the world, into your home town, countryside … … It certainly ends all talk of an experiment and opens things up as another historical case of malevolent despots resettling a new people to dispose of the old ones. It is not at all clear that being rid of Mayorkas, if we are even rid of him now that he is slithering back to HIAS or… Read more »
Fair. The new round of bussing does make things worse. The biggest obstacle to overcome, though, is mental. That has started to happen, and I never thought it would. In some ways, many not pleasant, the invaders will be relatively easy to check, but that could not happen previously. The problem is Mayorkas and his ilk and the mindset that allowed them to flourish.
Speaking of inequality of IQ and achievement within the same race, different brains seem to work differently. For instance, although I don’t consider myself particularly stupid, any sort of basic arithmetic or math simply cannot “sink into” my grey matter. No amount of after-school tutoring helped. Straight “F’s” year after year. Even though I did okay in other subjects, they kept flunking me until I finally dropped out. On the other hand, for some natural reason, I can master any musical instrument that touches my hands or mouth, even though I’ve never had formal lessons and can’t read a note… Read more »
“If the court said that Harvard is a private college and so it can admit who it likes for any reason it likes, this case never sees a courtroom. Public universities, on the other hand, must admit everyone that meets the objective criteria for admissions. Debates over college admissions would vanish instantly.” Not so! What would happen is hundreds of private colleges would spring up allowing high performance students to gain entry. State schools would see a massive outflow of talent, and their racial demographic would shift to the point where a visitor could be forgiven for thinking they woke… Read more »
Luxury belief meets cold hard reality. One incident at a time.
https://www.amren.com/news/2025/01/french-leftist-theatre-faces-bankruptcy-after-opening-its-doors-to-250-african-migrants-for-a-free-show/
As you might expect, this incident is receiving very little coverage from the msm. So little that the Amren article is the 4th result down on page 1 of a bing search. Which is surprising, that bing will still link to Amren. Evidently google doesn’t (unless you search for it directly)
Excellent. The Enlightenment notion of equality, which never meant equality, of course, and never could, has been an engine of positive change but in the end, the anti-natural assumption at the heart of it now produces nothing but misery and insanity.
I realized that 15 years ago on reading Kurt Vonnegut’s (1961!!!) Harrison Bergeron, when it became clear that the natural inequality of man could only be overcome by an ever metastasizing police state. Which we now have.
So, is there a system that acknowledges these natural inequalities and works with them? Given that might makes right in any environment, what would work best?
Or maybe I am asking the wrong question. We should be asking something else. What is good for our people? What is good for Whites? Most of the problem with “discrimination” immediately resolves itself. Or am I taking the wrong direction here?
It isn’t the wrong question as much as the wrong sequence. The first question is how to end the current system, or more accurately since it is imploding, how to speed that along to our advantage.
Good question, but I would point out that we brought the schism with us, the southern migration from Jamestown and the Chesapeake was founded by men firmly grounded in reality, while New England was settled by religious outcasts and their ilk. Unfortunately the “Idealists”won the inevitable war and are now leading us over the cliff into Brackens’ Buffalo jump.
Not so sure there is a particular “one size fits all” system. It is more the quality of the people running that system, and what safeguards can you put in to get/keep those types of people in power. A meritocracy type system seems closest, but who would sacrifice for a cold meritocracy? You can’t really get a away from blood and soil – its simply built into human nature. Seems that one safeguard would be a strong freedom of association right. For too long, FOA has given way to “equality” when they clash – it needs to be the other… Read more »
“…but who would sacrifice for a cold meritocracy?”
“No, Neo. I’m trying to tell you that when you’re ready, you won’t have to.”
You aren’t told you must sacrifice for your garbageman or your plumber or your mechanic. They are just providing a service that you can’t produce for yourself on a cost-effective basis. Why should you sacrifice for neocon warmongers who provide the service of foreign relations? Or a judicial system that provides the service of injustice?
Nobody will sacrifice for meritocracy. People are only willing to die for God, nation or ideology. As long as they believe.
At the risk of sounding edgy, the only system that may work is some sort of nationalist monarchy or nationalist and somewhat totalitarian system (similar to what they have in China, but with God)
Can’t get around the manufactured consent, especially with the female sex, who are easy to zoom, especially when acting as a collective. Herds are easy-peasy psycho-behavioral prey. The techniques were perfected long ago.
Meaning, the Way of the Almighty People failed and failed miserably, and them stale Hope Biscuits ain’t gonna feed the bulldog.
It goes back to Luther’s Sola Scriptura: the idea than anyone, without knowing Greek or Hebrew, nor which texts are canonical because a canon is extra-Biblical, can read the Bible on his own, including Luther’s tendentious translation that omitted James, Revelation and other books, and come to the divine truth infallibly.
I think it starts with monotheism. In a world of competing gods, there are competing moral frameworks. In a world of one god, there must be one set of rules for how that god wants us to live. it then follows that those rules must apply equally to all men.
That competing moral framework is exactly what we’re witnessing now with the end of the GAE. The rise of China, Russia and even Iran isn’t just geo-politics or economic; it’s a competing moral framework for how to organize a society and what a society finds good or bad. Russia’s belief in traditional values is as much a threat to GAE as the Oreshnik. China’s belief in no immigration hurts GAE as much as its manufacturing capacity. That Russia and China can exist, prosper and, especially, stand up to GAE is proof that their moral framework is a good as the… Read more »
Absolutely. The moral alternative in the end is the main threat. The Russian Orthodox Church is a state religion, and it has seen what happened when the Anglicans dissipated.
lol. But because monotheism is true, this is simply a claim that the problem is reality. I happen to agree with that claim.
Quoted for truth, as they used to say.
I don’t think it starts with either religion or scriptural interpretation.
It starts with the discovery and exploration of the Western Hemisphere, and the effect this had on the minds of men. Had Europeans stayed in Europe we wouldn’t be in this mess.
The idea of land without end led to the prideful notion that natural limits, which everyone had heretofore recognized, could be transcended.
1492 began this most Faustian of all baragains.
This. The cause has to precede the effect. So if we were to find such effects prior to Luther, at best, one could argue that effect was caused by the same thing that caused Luther. And, obviously…
Same with the Age of Exploration.
The same thing applies to the one man, one vote of Athens, though, and they were not monotheistic. There’s a deeper cause somewhere.
Science also assumes that, since we all live in the same world, there is one universal truth (which in many cases remains to be discovered, so there is room for disagreement).
Scientism assumes that, yes. Feynman thought that assumption was flawed. Rather than assume a Grand Unification Theory and try to prove it, just do science and see where it leads.
I’ve been reading Peirce lately and had in mind his idea that the ultimate result of inquiry must be consensus — because the a priori logic of inquiry and the notion of truth itself requires it.
Not gainsaying that. Just the “one universal truth” bit. The truth will be objective and materialistic, sure, but will require careful formulation of the question that truth is the answer to.
Will it all come down to GUT? Who knows? It’s a matter of faith.
My use of the word “universal” might have been unfortunate if it suggested something like a Theory of Everything. All I meant by it is contained in the idea of reproducible experiments. Because we are in the same, one world where the same laws apply, you can get the same results as me if you test under the same conditions. The truth established through such experimentation thus commands assent by all rational inquirers — and that is the sense in which it is universal. This idea of one common reality is not new with Peirce, of course. It goes back… Read more »
A king, an idiot, which one has better morals? I think all people are created with inherent knowledge of whats right or wrong. They fucking know. No excuses.
In Islam, apparently, if you can’t read the Quran in Mohammed’s Arabic, you haven’t actually read it.
Is such much different from the Bible? Much of what I read wrt arguments of translation (into English) are just that—quibbles over what the language being translated is expressing. Particularly Ancient Greek.
In terms of popular perceptions I would say yes, definitely.
Right, and Jung feared that the end-result of Protestantism would be the complete loss of the sense of the individual as belonging to a larger community.
How odd that in the so-called “open society” discrimination is not only accepted but often mandated just so long as the victims of discrimination are white or northeast Asian. Discrimination and openness, alas, really are not the issues. The racism of the Power Structure and its desire for retribution against the Blue-Eyed Ice Devils, are.
“L’égalité peut être un droit, mais aucune puissance terrestre ne saurait la transformer en fait.” / “Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.” — Honoré de Balzac
It is a fact if you give God credit for creation. Deal with it.
Surely everyone beyond college age knows for a fact inequality is immutable. But yet to acknowledge the fact publicly in the West is strictly forbidden by public morality.
The Inequality of Man?
More like, The Folly of Man.
The typical attitude of the average American is that he wants legal equality, i.e., no class of people above the law. After that, let the chips fall where they may. Some people will prosper more than others and that is fine. That impulse has been perverted by our rulers into an attempt to make everyone equal in every way. It’s a fool’s errand but it has granted them immense power over us and has ironically produced even more of the inequality they claim to deplore.
Mark Twain said it best-
“Every civilization contains the seeds of its own destruction.”
True. The idea will simply have to exhaust itself as a vital force.
What idea is that?
Beautifully written essay! But my understanding of the Harvard case is a little different….Justice Roberts and the majority relied on US law, which generally forbids racial discrimination based on race for schools receiving Federal money…Private schools not receiving such cash are free to do what they want….Harvard, of course, gets loads of Federal money..The Court has carved out narrow exceptions for limited periods of time and specific purposes, which certainly would not characterize Harvard’s admissions policy, which admitted 1400% more blacks and 500% more jews than a race blind policy would admit..(The previous contrary decision relied on Sandra Day O’Connor’s… Read more »
Which colleges/universities are not receiving federal money? At a minimum, you are going to have students with federally guaranteed loans (personally, I don’t think that should count as “federal” money since it will ostensibly have to be repaid).
I can’t think of single one (Rice University used to be for White males only, funded by a trust – but then it wanted to dip into the federal trough).
Hillsdale.
People need to be brought to the yoke— to be civilized. It’s an ocean of blood that’s gone into it, if we’re being honest. Lots of high-minded justification required to mask the fact. Hierarchy tends to the big— it wants to get bigger, imperial. Justified, it becomes its own cause. We’re a people with a long history of resenting the yoke, long before we became Americans. Our egalitarian streak also apparently needs high-minded justification, also became its own cause, also, strangely, ended up in the same big place. There’s that idealism again, wanting to be big and universal, always asking… Read more »
You will be ruled over. The question is by whom.
Beat me to it. “Who” is all that matters.
“Argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they’re yours.”
— Don’t remember. Some neo-spiritualist, I think.
Yep, but at least you get a say in it if you aren’t docile.
As Bob Dylan sang during his mercifully one-off “Spiritual” LP, “You’re gonna serve somebody. It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord…” Apparently a third option did not occur to him: that we must obey Nature (by which I mean the manifest laws of the physical universe). Indeed, we don’t have any choice in the matter. You are at liberty to obey or not any system of man-created “law.” or even to defy God’s (that darn free will). I’m pretty sure that you don’t have the option to not obey the Law of Gravity if you… Read more »
“Maybe good enough to say we don’t like being ruled over, will only tolerate as much as we have to,” Certainly, but it should be (to me) a bit more nuanced. No one—Whites anyway—argues for legalized killing (murder). Whereas just about everyone seems to hate HMO’s. Why? Laws can broadly be divided into two types: “mala in se and mala prohibita”. The first in general are morally repugnant (White morality) and most folks are in general agreement as to the importance of prohibition and the laws enforcing such. The second are what’s inflicted upon us by an overweening bureaucracy (which… Read more »
Remembering that book about the Scots, especially the Highland Clearances. The modern thing is using economics instead of conquest to civilize. No less effective, it seems.
Might be a reach to think about the nature of money, or maybe not. People on here talk about an evolutionary bottleneck, and maybe that’s it. We’re a warlike people, but we haven’t developed immunity to money and stuff, so to speak. Very hard to conquer, but easily bought off.
Entire western countries criminalized to asking questions that who are we
And heading toward Same trajectory as America, a divided society filled with ugly dysfunctional genetically mutated aliens
UK, France, Germany already started economic and societal collapse
Soon, old Europe meet the same fate as Greece
Just Vacationland surrounded backward people reminds that modern European aren’t the same old European as used to be
America’s rhetoric of equality isn’t as dissonant with factual or natural inequality as it is with Americans’ idea of justice, which is the same as everybody’s: Someone else gets screwed and I get to watch. For example, the conservative’s knowledge of systemic anti-whiteness in all matters public and official—of state, church, and “the market”—vanishes from his mind whenever he’s given a chance to call white people losers. What the system gives John Q Republican is that chance. It’s his compensation for the erasure of his history—and a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life for his posterity. The memetic “boomer”… Read more »
That’s wild, so non-whites see rebellion against whiteness as rebellion against God because he created white people? and vice versa? We have to face it, all of us, that God created us all. Now what?
WRT to repeated attempts to square the circle of inequality with equality, reminds me of what Solomon observed 3000 years ago–>As a dog returns to his own vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.
All men are not created equal, Korean edition – https://www.koreaexpose.com/korea-anger-driven-crime-social-problem/ “On Nov 15, a forty-something Korean woman living in Incheon west of Seoul ended up in a coma after being stabbed in the neck. The culprit was a 48-year-old male neighbor who had been fighting with her and her husband over noise. Two months before that, a man in the southern port city of Yeosu used a knife to kill the couple living above him in the apartment building. The given reason was, again, noise. Complaints over noise in apartment buildings have become a defining feature of the Covid pandemic… Read more »
I’ve never heard a discussion of to what extent Jefferson had a relationship with Robespierre.the Rights of Man sure sound like Jefferson wrote it.
Jefferson was thrilled by the French Revolution. At least early on. Later, as Robespierre became just another tyrant, Jefferson parted ways, and became a harsh critic.
Similar with Paine, but not to the same degree. He loved the way Rights of Man took on the monarch, but not a big fan of its attacks on religion. In Jefferson’s opinion, religion served a critical role in preserving tradition, which was essential to social order. Which is why Jefferson’s version of the Bible retained the philosophy, but discarded the mystical woo-woo. In the end, Jefferson neither endorsed nor condemned RoM.
If whites survive, this quote could provides a great example of cowardice of leadership
It’s the masculine/feminine dichotomy. Egalitarianism is feminine.
It’s probably from a loss of people believing in the ‘Under God’ and ‘in God we trust” base foundations of America. Created equal means God created you all. I mean it’s gotten complicated for no good reason, really.
The left doesn’t care about real equality; like good little Stalinists, they are obsessed with appearances: not the substance.
Failing to grasp this point will lead to the “right” losing the cold civil war that the left is waging against them.
Obligatory Nietzsche quote:
“Men are not equal. Neither shall they become so.”
from Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Fantastic and succinct article Mr. Z man.
Just listening to Biden’s Farewell Address live: America’s “idea of equality is the most powerful idea in the history of the world.”
You know, the thing.
Thanks for your many great posts, loved the description of Jefferson
[…] ZMan lays out some inconvenient truth. […]