Tag: history

Repealing the Zeroth Amendment

The Trump Administration has taken the unprecedented step of pointing out that a propaganda poem is not actually U.S. Federal law. The media, naturally, is astonished by this extremism.

White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller found himself clashing with CNN correspondent Jim Acosta at Wednesday’s White House press briefing.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration. The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,'” Acosta said, quoting from the poem The New Colossus, which was inscribed on the statue after its erection.

“It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or be a computer programmer,” Acosta continued. “Aren’t you trying to change what it means to be an immigrant coming into this country if you are telling them you have  to speak English? Can’t people learn to speak English when they get here?”

Miller pointed out that English is already a requirement of naturalization.

“The notion that speaking English wouldn’t be a part of an immigration system would actually be very ahistorical,” he said.

Miller further rejected Acosta’s reference to the Statue of Liberty, noting that the poem Acosta had cited was added later.

A French statue with a Jewish poem subsequently attached is neither U.S. law nor American tradition. This is the new law.

THE THIRD COLOSSUS

The Lady of Liberty is not a French whore,
We have endured enough; we don’t want any more.
Don’t give us your tired, your poor huddled masses,
Your refugee refuse of conflict and lack.
They may be the finest of your foreign classes,
But nevertheless, they have to go back!

And not only Britain

Peter Brimelow isn’t mourning the societies we have lost. He wants revenge:

In 1940, my father, already in the British Army in which he was to spend 6½ years, was stationed on the English Channel at Folkstone, looking right at Dunkirk. Years later, reading about the German plans for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England, I realized he was right where paratroopers were to land and asked him what kind of resistance his unit would have been able to mount.

He said: “They would have had to give us rifles.”

The Germans never came—but Britain was invaded anyway. By 1990, when my father died, he was bitterly in agreement with Pringle’s interviewees: it wasn’t worth it.

My considered reaction to Dunkirk: People should be hung from lampposts—they should be burned alive—for what they’ve done to Britain.

God send, if only for the sake of my three little daughters, born almost exactly 100 years after my father, that America can be saved from this terrible fate.

I could not possibly agree more. And I have no doubt that there will be a reckoning one day, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

In a day when young girls are raped, not once, but twice, by the non-Western immigrants that are culturally enriching our societies, it is absolutely astonishing that the men of the West continue to meekly endure these daily atrocities.

True diversity is national

As is the case with so many things, the Diversity being pushed on the nations of the West is a lie, a false and evil version of the true diversity that can only be preserved through the various peoples of the world remainingly firmly and determinedly distinct:

By marrying and moving into another culture, the women of It’ll Never Last tried their best to join another nation, and their failure to do so illustrates, rather gloriously, that mankind is still diverse. Our differences don’t just reflect our ideals but define our autonomy.

Far from promising peace, those who sing of no countries are really threatening us all with unspeakable violence, psychic and physical.

An empire, by nature, must trample on nationhood, even its own, for it presents the empire’s ambitions as the nation’s necessities, for how else can you get Americans, for example, to go die and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Though citing love of nation constantly, our Washington rulers are essentially anti-American, and that’s why a genuine nationalist like Edward Snowden must flee to Russia.

Nationalism is simply the love of one’s language, culture, history and heritage, one’s very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.

You really have to watch at least a few moments of the film mentioned, and linked, in the article quoted above. There really is something observably wrong with women who go that far outside their own culture; you can observe the crazy eyes even before they open their mouths and confirm the observation.

With a few evil exceptions, there is nothing good or beautiful about the destruction of a people and their erasure from history through assimilation. The Israelis understand this, for as Martin van Creveld’s wife Dvora once told me, the two greatest dangers to the Jews are a) that they will be hated, and b) that they will be too well loved.

Is this what you wanted, Ms Pankhurst?

Moral abandon, rape, foreign invasion, and the defeat and occupation of England by the Franco-German Union, complete with annual payments of tribute. What a stupid, evil woman. If the anti-suffragettes of the day had had even a modicum of a glimmer of a true understanding of what the price of women’s suffrage would be for England, they would have executed the lot of them faster than the Chinese government’s crackdown on democracy activists at Tianenman Square.

How appropriate that some of the suffragettes wore head scarves. Very forward-thinking indeed.

The Proposition Left

And the white Left is gradually beginning to realize that they have made a fatal blunder in declaring the white Christian West their enemy, as there is no place for them in the various tribes of the global South and East:

It’s anyone’s guess whether the latest round of Russia revelations will flame out or bring the administration toppling to the ground. But either way, the drama is only one act in an ongoing cycle of outrages involving Trump and Russia that will, one way or another, come to an end. That is not true of the controversy over the President’s remarks in Warsaw last week, which exposed a crucial contest over ideas that will continue to influence our politics until long after this administration has left office. And the responses from Trump’s liberal critics were revealing — and dangerous.

The speech — a call to arms for a Western civilization ostensibly menaced by decadence and bloat from within and hostile powers from without — was received across the center-left as a thinly veiled apologia for white nationalism. “Trump did everything but cite Pepe the Frog,” tweeted the Atlantic’s Peter Beinart. “Trump’s speech in Poland sounded like an alt-right manifesto,” read a Vox headline. According the New Republic’s Jeet Heer, Trump’s “alt-right speech” “redefined the West in nativist terms.”

Thus, the intelligentsia is now flirting with an intellectually indefensible linguistic coup: Characterizing any appeal to the coherence or distinctiveness of Western civilization as evidence of white nationalist sympathies. Such a shift, if accepted, would so expand the scope of the term “alt-right” that it would lose its meaning. Its genuinely ugly ideas would continue to fester, but we would lose the rhetorical tools to identify and repudiate them as distinct from legitimate admiration for the Western tradition. To use a favorite term of the resistance, the alt-right would become normalized….

What is at stake now is whether Americans will surrender the idea of “the West” to liberalism’s enemies on the alt-right — that is, whether we will allow people who deny the equal citizenship of women and minorities and Jews to lay claim to the legacy of Western civilization. This would amount to a major and potentially suicidal concession, because the alt-right — not in the opportunistically watered-down sense of “immigration skeptic,” or “social conservative,” but in the sense of genuine white male political supremacism — is anti-Western. It is hostile to the once-radical ideals of pluralism and self-governance and individual rights that were developed during the Western Enlightenment and its offshoots. It represents an attack on, not a defense of, of the West’s greatest achievements.

It’s an impressive feat of intellectual gymnastics that the author is attempting. He’s essentially doing the equivalent of declaring that Democrats are the real racists: the Alt-Right are the real enemies of the West. But that is not true. Indeed, the Alt-Right are the only defenders of the West.

It’s become fairly common for conservatives andthe  Alt-Lite like to play rhetorical games and try to claim that the Alt-Right is really the SJW Left because word salad. But notice how similar this Left-wing argument is to the arguments of the conservative Proposition Nationalists and the Alt-Lite civic nationalists addressing the Alt-Right.

This is why I keep pointing out that the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can play all the word games you like. You can cherry-pick whatever historical documents you like. You can invent whatever contorted and ahistorical definitions you like. You can quote at length from the red-letter edition of the True Sayings of Judeo-Christ. But in the end, so long as you continue to deny that a nation is a group of people related by blood, language, and tradition, and deny that the West is a civilization constructed by, of, and for European Christians, you will end up precisely where the Left is, because a first step into falsehood is always followed by a second, and a third, as your perspective increasingly comes into conflict with observable events.

This is called “missing the point”

The irony, it burns.

It’s sobering to consider the degree to which we have lost our knowledge of and connection to our American heritage. As a result, William B. Allen notes that we have been transitioning increasingly from a society of “independent yeomen” to a society of “wards of the state.” The challenge before us is to determine whether we can rediscover our heritage, and relearn the requirements for becoming good and free citizens while also reclaiming the sovereignty we have ceded to the state.

The first step toward recovery, after our recent celebration of the 241st anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, is to remind ourselves of its unique proposition that because we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, equality and our common commitment to the political implications of that equality—not race and blood—are the founding principles of our nation.

We’ve lost our knowledge of and connection to American heritage because many, if not most, US citizens are not Americans by any definition except paperwork. It shouldn’t be surprising that Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Mexicans, and Chinese never had any interest or ability to transform themselves into the independent yeomen who historically existed only in England prior to the establishment of the United States by predominantly English settlers.

You cannot rediscover a heritage that isn’t yours. You can’t become “American” by a sheer effort of will any more than you can become “Japanese” or “Jewish” that way, no matter how much you like football, sushi, or matzo ball soup. All you can do is decide what your society is to become and then do your best to make it that way. There is no going back in time, so the only possible direction is forward.

The Magna Carta and Posterity

John C. Wright makes an observation that is not insignificant in relation to last week’s debate on the meaning of Posterity:

The effect of the Magna Carta on later charters of rights, on the Glorious Revolution, and on the Bill of Rights of the American Revolution should be known to all educated citizens in America.

To say nothing of its effect on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Does this sound familiar?

We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve and protect the Rights of Englishmen, which of the three alternative definitions of “Posterity” most accurately represents the term used in the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” in light of this section of the Magna Carta?

  1. actual legal descendants and heirs
  2. succeeding generations living within the same geographic boundaries
  3. later times
As the authors of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers also demonstrate, the only possible answer should be perfectly clear.

The “Judeo-Christian” fraud

Needless to say, Diasporans like the Littlest Chickenhawk push it every chance they get, because they are shameless liars.

Tariq Nasheed@tariqnasheed
Trump did a speech in Poland and spoke about Western values. Now we all know what “Western” is a code word for, don’t we?

Ben Shapiro‏@benshapir
Yes, “Judeo-Christian.” You know, the civilization that protects your freedoms.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
“Judeo-Christian” civilization does not exist. There is only Christian civilization, you cowardly fraud. “Judeo-Christian” is anti-semitic.

If you happen doubt my observation that “Judeo-Christian values” is a complete 20th century fraud, have a look at the Google NGram below. There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christianity” or “Judeo-Christian civilization” or “Judeo-Christian values”. You can make a far better case for Islamo-Christian civilization despite the exaggerations that surround the medieval paradise of al-Andalus. Judeo-Christianity does not exist. It never existed. It does not “bless Israel” and it is nothing more than post-Holocaust propaganda directed against Americans. And you will find absolutely ZERO historical references to it in the Western civilization known as Christendom.

Want to see what decades of relentless propaganda looks like? Look at the graph of “Christendom” vs “Judeo-Christian” since 1940. Or, better yet, “Christian civilization” vs “Judeo-Christian civilization” and “Muslim civilization”.

Is America still a nation?

Pat Buchanan asks the $18 trillion question:

In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of “one people.” The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, “We the people …”

And who were these “people”?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs. …”

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

What do YOU think? Do we have more or less freedom now that Trump is in office? Sound off in the WND Poll!

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true, or a tenet of trendy ideology?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things … constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

“Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory … is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again.”

Does this sound at all like us today?

The USA is not a nation. It is a multinational empire. America is a nation occupied and oppressed, the Posterity of We the People, a nation invaded and robbed of its intellectual and geographical birthright, a nation betrayed by its leaders past and present.

The self-serving 20th century lie of the Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants to the USA is being applied to Europe today; the Africans invading the nations of Europe en masse are no more Italians, Germans, or Swedes than the 19th and 20th century European immigrants were ever Americans.

As Christians, we are taught to judge the truth of a concept by its consequences. And the consequences of the Melting Pot, the Nation of Immigrants, and the Proposition Nation are evil indeed.

Biblical evidence

Hattusa, the capital of the ancient Hittites:

One of Turkey’s lesser visited but historically significant attraction is the ruin of an ancient city known as Hattusa, located near modern Boğazkale within the great loop of the Kızılırmak River. The city once served as the capital of the Hittite Empire, a superpower of the Late Bronze Age whose kingdom stretched across the face of Anatolia and northern Syria, from the Aegean in the west to the Euphrates in the east.

The Hittite Empire is mentioned several times in the Bible as one of the most powerful empires of the ancient times. They were contemporary to the ancient Egyptians and every bit their equal. In the Battle of Kadesh, the Hittites fought the mighty Egyptian empire, nearly killing Pharaoh Ramses the Great, and forcing him to retreat back to Egypt. Years later, the Egyptians and the Hittites signed a peace treaty, believed to the oldest in the world, and Ramses himself married a Hittite princess to seal the deal.

The Hittites played a pivotal role in ancient history, far greater than they are given credit for in modern history books. The Hittites developed the lightest and fastest chariots in the world, and despite belonging to the Bronze Age, were already making and using iron tools.

Incredibly, as recently as the turn of the 20th century, the Hittites were considered merely a hearsay since no evidence of the empire’s existence was ever found. This changed with the discovery and excavation of Hattusa, along with the unearthing of tens of thousands of clay tablets documenting many of the Hittites’ diplomatic activities, the most important of which is the peace settlement signed after the Battle of Kadesh between the Hittites and the Egyptians in the 13th century BC.

This account tends to downplay the significance of the discovery, particularly concerning the subject of the historical reliability of the Bible. The problem, as usual, is the near-complete ignorance of even recent history on the part of Christians and atheists alike. For generations, the Hittites were, like the Assyrians, frequently cited by doubters as evidence that the Biblical account of history was false, since there were no archeological indicators that they had ever existed. They might as well have been elves, or fairies.

Then the ruins were discovered and the Biblical account was proven to be true in that particular regard. But did this cause one single atheist to change his mind and conclude that the Bible was, in fact, reliable documentary evidence?

Of course not. And that’s why I don’t bother engaging in discourse anymore with any atheist who claims there is “no evidence” for Christianity. They simply are not honest and there is absolutely nothing that is capable of changing their mind. No matter what logic or evidence destroys their arguments, they will simply move the goalposts and continue to refuse to believe.