I Was Born American – A Blast From The Past 7-4-2014

I Was Born American – A Blast From The Past 7-4-2014

Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents who would no more become American than fly unassisted, (and who desire it less than they wish to have have their heads shaved by a warthog) but I figure that was an accident of circumstance.  What really matters is that I was an American in my heart.  I just had to get here and become one in truth. (And that, by itself, is an American attitude.)

This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.  You can find it (if you know where to look) even when reading British novels.

We’re not like that.  Whether we were born elsewhere or here, Americans — those of us who are proud of the name —  are rebels, revolutionaries, something new under the sun: a people who believe people should be equal in their right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue their happiness undisturbed by either inimical neighbors or oppressive “betters.”

We have no betters.  We are American.  When I got citizenship I had to swear never to accept foreign titles of nobility.  I thought it was silly.  What title of nobility could compare to being an American?

I’m not saying that Americans are for absolute equality.  We’re not.  We’re however for equality before the law (and we want it back, thank you very much. Yes, IRS, NSA, the rest of the alphabet soup and Mr. “I got a pen and a phone” I AM talking to you.  Who are you to arrogate to yourself the authority of the people?)  And that notion, alone, has permeated the country and even in the breach it makes the humblest man feel like he’s able to stand up to the most powerful.  Because they’re equal before the law, and even when our law is corrupt, that equality of free citizens lives on in our hearts.  We can each of us stand tall, American citizens, unbowed.

In the same way, though I was born very far away, in a very (trust me) strange land, I never fit in there.  The hierarchy seemed wrong and contrived.  I evaluated people for what they did, not their clothes or their last name.  And though years later it would take me conscious effort to fully acculturate, the seeds were there.  I had a congenital inability to bow or obey; a tendency to roll up my sleeves and try to fix whatever was wrong, instead of just moaning about it; and a need to look after those people who were “my group”.  All I wanted to do was to shoulder my own life and do the best I could to the best of my ability and to call every battler striving along with me a brother or a sister.

I bought Stranger in a Strange Land, based on the title, because that’s how I felt.  Then I came here and found I belonged here, all along.  The day of my citizenship ceremony, after we came home, I walked out to the mailbox and on the way there it hit me “I am an American now.  I belong, in law as I always did in my heart.”  Then as now the thought is enough to bring tears to my eyes.  Thank you, guys, for accepting me as one of your own.  (And that total acceptance regardless of national origin is nowhere else as complete as in the US.  (Though some other ex-British-colonies come close.))

In Portugal I felt strange because I believed in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I believed in this, in fact:

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Still do.  Those beliefs make me American.

To their defense, I pledge my life, my liberty and my sacred honor, in the full knowledge that, like those long ago signers, I might be required to give them up for the cause.

I have my scrap of flag.

Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Long may she wave over the land.  Long may she wave in our hearts.  The price is required of every generation, to keep this radical idea we call America going.  Our price might turn out heavier than we bargained for, but great things cost much, and what is greater than liberty?

The baton has been passed onto us, and it’s up to us to run with it, even if it means dying on the way.

We are a radical experiment, a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief.

Don’t let it perish from this Earth!

646 responses to “I Was Born American – A Blast From The Past 7-4-2014

  1. First of all, I will say that I do not mean the following as any sort of personal attack. I am merely playing devil’s advocate.

    You say America is a “a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief.” The Soviet Union was that too, as was Yugoslavia. Neither country exists today despite the fervent propaganda of their governments, and the resulting countries aren’t exactly Sweden or even Great Britain in terms of corruption levels or social structure.

    Large, multi-ethnic countries tend toward social instability and absolutism since the ethnic groups don’t trust each other very much, and thus a large and powerful government is put into place to keep them from dashing each other to pieces or to see to the interests of the most powerful ethnic group. And I’ll have you know, Americans are human like everyone else on Earth. They’re not going to be the exception. That alphabet soup you mentioned earlier? Creeping absolutism due to inter-ethnic mistrust.

    The nation “founded on an idea” is not special. In fact, the track record is quite bad.

    • Gah. All of thse were nations of territory and blood to an extent, even if the blood was mythical. Second it’s not the vague idea of utopia, but specific, encoded kaws and people being the source of the state power. And not people as abstract and the government decides who belongs but citizens. And second, the record of nations by blood is goox? Are you an infant? And third, no offense, you re just a messenger boy, sent by greengrocers.

      • Gah. All of thse were nations of territory and blood to an extent, even if the blood was mythical.

        The United States has a defined territory and native population, so it is also “of territory and blood to an extent.” Not much different from the USSR.

        Second it’s not the vague idea of utopia, but specific, encoded kaws and people being the source of the state power. And not people as abstract and the government decides who belongs but citizens.

        Communist countries were and are all about supposed “people power” and had laws against private property for that reason. Also, I don’t see how “All people living in libertarian freedom” is less utopian than “paradise of the proletariat.”

        And second, the record of nations by blood is goox? Are you an infant?

        Blood-defined nations are certainly no barriers to absolutism. However, my point remains: multi-ethnic countries — whether huge constructs like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and even smaller polities like Malaysia, South Africa, and Iraq are unstable. In Europe, the Cold War ended with each major ethnic group getting its own country for a reason — again, Yugoslavia is instructive here. And look at how the European Union struggles today. That too was founded on an idea.

        Note that I’m not talking about political liberty, but social piece, which is a precondition of it. That does not mean, however, that libertarianism is just around the corner for Serbia or Russia, either — in fact, I can say with 100% confidence that no such thing would ever happen in my lifetime.

        I just don’t think this “nation founded on an idea” thing is all it’s cracked up to be.

        • Note that I’m not talking about political liberty, but social piece…

          Aw crap.

          • Wow, the short bus came early today.

            Yup, the US and the USSR were both founded on Ideas. Yup. True.

            We were founded on the _idea_ that all men are created equal. The _idea_ that every man should be free to pursue his own destiny. The _idea_ that free people should be able to say what they want, when they want to WHOM they want. The _idea_ that government is reponsible to it’s people not the people to the government.

            Communism was founded on the very antithesis of ALL of those _ideas_. And frankly the Soviet communists were all but indistinguishable from the Czars which preceded them. Nor is Czar Vlad I.

            In other words, sir, your’e a fucking idiot.

        • “Not much different from the USSR.”

          Nonsense. For one thing, one of the USSR’s method of keeping territories quiet was to engage in involuntary mass transfers of population. For that matter, if one looks at the organization of the constituent SSRs, they’re almost entirely based on blood. Try again.

          “Communist countries were and are all about supposed “people power” and had laws against private property for that reason. Also, I don’t see how “All people living in libertarian freedom” is less utopian than “paradise of the proletariat.”

          You’re dealing with two different conceptions of the term–one Lockean, the other pulled from Rousseau. The American version, which our hostess speaks of here, is based on individuals banding together in recognition of mutual interests. The Communist version is based on individuals giving up their interests for the state. Try again.

          As to Europe–frankly, there’s too much history there to pull the American experiment off. We’re one of the few places in the world that can pull this off–and, furthermore, most multiethnic polities have been artificial constructs built by mashing together previously extant polities. We’re not.

          And, finally, nations based on ideas are the only nations based on something that actually matters.

          • Than you 60. I’m on the tablet and busy so I can’t post anything complex. The predictable party has denounced this post as toxic, I’m told, so minions have shambled over with brainwashed predictability. Thank heavens ein land, ein volk isn’ “toxic”, right?

          • If one looks at the organization of the constituent SSRs, they’re almost entirely based on blood. Try again.

            But the Soviets had a concept of a “Soviet people” unified in mutual love for Communism, irrespective of ethnicity. Ditto for the New Soviet Man.

            You’re dealing with two different conceptions of the term–one Lockean, the other pulled from Rousseau. The American version, which our hostess speaks of here, is based on individuals banding together in recognition of mutual interests. The Communist version is based on individuals giving up their interests for the state. Try again.

            Yes, they’re from different sources, but it is still utopian to expect some ideal state of perfect individualism which has never existed at any point in history. It is every bit as impractical as anything Rousseau or Marx came up with.

            And, finally, nations based on ideas are the only nations based on something that actually matters.

            So what do you do when you have a large number of people who don’t believe in the idea? Expel them all? Put them in prison? You have to do something, because the idea is the sole source of the nation’s existence (Again, look at the USSR’s entire history for the logical conclusion of this.) Plus, if the idea itself changes — and believe me, the ideas change a LOT — then you suddenly don’t have a country anymore. An idea is a pretty thin reed to hang a nation on.

            • Actually, they didn’t. They just continued being Russian, which was founded by a group of Swedish Vikings determined to maintain their tribe’s power by whatever means it took.

              • I’ll point out that in Europe it was very clear that “international socialism” was just a veneer for “Russian imperialism.” NOT a doubt.

                • Not just “Russian Imperialism”, but White Russian imperialism. The only way Stalin (a Georgian) snuck in was through pure bloodshed. Lenin, Trotsky, Gorky, most of the other leaders — all White Russians. Descendants of the Swedes that ruled Moscow and St. Petersburg for 500 years. Rawle, you need to go back and read some Russian history.

            • “But the Soviets had a concept of a “Soviet people” unified in mutual love for Communism, irrespective of ethnicity. Ditto for the New Soviet Man.”

              They had the concept, but if you think the USSR functioned on that basis you’re kidding yourself. Form does actually follow function, at least in government.

              “but it is still utopian to expect some ideal state of perfect individualism which has never existed at any point in history.”

              I know our hostess does not believe in such a thing, because she does not believe that man is perfectible.

              “So what do you do when you have a large number of people who don’t believe in the idea? Expel them all? Put them in prison? You have to do something, because the idea is the sole source of the nation’s existence. (Again, look at the USSR’s entire history for the logical conclusion of this.)”

              And blood-and-soil isn’t even more prone to that nonsense? We’ve seen that road gone down much, much more. Also, as mentioned, the nature of the ideas matters. The USSR’s ideas–insofar as they were not a retread of Tsarism and Russian nationalism with new clothes on–were structured in such a way that the purges and the Holodomor were nearly inevitable.
              Finally, the way you deal with them is called–debating.

              “Plus, if the idea itself changes — and believe me, the ideas change a LOT — then you suddenly don’t have a country anymore. An idea is a pretty thin reed to hang a nation on.”

              Ideas don’t actually change that much. The degree to which I am reminded of debates from the 1850s when watching today’s politics is vaguely frightening.
              Ideas may be thin, but they’re stronger than spider silk.

            • “But the Soviets had a concept of a “Soviet people” unified in mutual love for Communism, irrespective of ethnicity. Ditto for the New Soviet Man.”

              Yep, that’s why they had gulags. Had to get rid of all the people that didn’t fit. If people won’t act the way you want them to then you need to develop new people. That those people can’t exist doesn’t matter.

              “Yes, they’re from different sources, but it is still utopian to expect some ideal state of perfect individualism which has never existed at any point in history. It is every bit as impractical as anything Rousseau or Marx came up with.”

              So because it isn’t perfect we shouldn’t use it. Republican Democracy isn’t perfect, but it works better than anything else that has been tried. A lot less dead bodies and a lot higher standard of living. The freedom to fail is also the freedom to prosper because it give people the incentive to do their best. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. And I haven’t actually seen you come up with any better ideas.

              “So what do you do when you have a large number of people who don’t believe in the idea? Expel them all? Put them in prison? You have to do something, because the idea is the sole source of the nation’s existence (Again, look at the USSR’s entire history for the logical conclusion of this.) Plus, if the idea itself changes — and believe me, the ideas change a LOT — then you suddenly don’t have a country anymore. An idea is a pretty thin reed to hang a nation on.”

              Combined with your statement above that you don’t think a nation founded on ideas is all its cracked up to be, I can only conclude that you are looking for an authoritarian that will make everything better for you. I can see how the idea of America, personal freedom combined with personal responsibility, laws that apply equally to everybody, freedom of belief, expression and association, that what I earn is mine not something granted to me by the state, might be a bit distressing. An authoritarian will give promises to make tomorrow better and will give you someone else to blame if they don’t come true. If he fails at either of these you get to blame him (or her). You don’t have to take any personal responsibility because the strong man will handle everything for you. All you have to do is conform to his wishes. I suggest you look into other countries and find one that better suits your desires. Theodore Beale seems to think he’s doing very well as an Italian.

            • But the Soviets had a concept of a “Soviet people” unified in mutual love for Communism, irrespective of ethnicity.

              Excuse me, but how many Soviet ex-pats do you know? Not only do I count some among my friends today (Nikki and Oleg being the most high-profile) but most of my instructors at DLI were.

              Your claim is utterly absurd. The Soviet Union was very much a Russian empire, with the various other polities that made it up being very much second-class citizens.

              • The Soviet Union was very much a Russian empire, with the various other polities that made it up being very much second-class citizens.

                Which is a point in my favor. I said that the Soviet Union, founded on an idea of socialist brotherhood between all men, failed. Part of the reason it failed was because the reality didn’t match the advertising.

                • Shorter: “I swallowed the propaganda better than the natives.”

                  Does the line floss out the remains of the hook and the sinker as you swallow?

                • Which is a point in my favor. I said that the Soviet Union, founded on an idea of socialist brotherhood between all men, failed.

                  Except it never was. The “socialist brotherhood” claptrap was never anything more than empty rhetoric. Ever. It was always about establishing power for a new ruling class. The “New Soviet Man” was just a relabeling of subject peons.

                  To be a nation founded on ideas you have to, however imperfect the implementation might be, actually mean them. The Soviets never did.

                  • To be a nation founded on ideas you have to, however imperfect the implementation might be, actually mean them. The Soviets never did.

                    They didn’t? Enlighten me.

                    • Every action they made, every one, was not about creating some classless society as claimed in marxist rhetoric. It was about cementing power in a new ruling class.

                      Forced collectivization and the holodomor? Rounding up the serfs and making sure they are kept in their place.

                      This “soviet brotherhood” was never more than lip service. Ever.

                      The “ideas” were never more than an excuse for power.

                    • Got it; thanks. I should look into it a bit more.

                    • This. And those of us who grew up in Europe knew that, unless we were utter morons, aka communists.

                    • “I should look into it a bit more”

                      To quote Senior Drill Instructor Staff Sgt. Rodriguez: “Hey no SHIT huh?”

                • The non-russians escapees/émigrés that I’ve spoken with were all extremely grateful to no longer live under Russian dominance. Czarist/Communist CCCP same empire different line of totalitarian BS.

                • The Marxist-Leninist ideal was that there would be a temporary “dictatorship of the proletariat” as an intermediate step between revolution and full communism, and that the state would evntually somehow wither away. Any theologically informed Christian could have told them, (and many did) that this was pure fantasy and would never work in reality, as indeed it did not and never will. Revolutionary Marxism never did provide any path or mechanism to get from the ugliness of class warfare and hatred, through the reality of dictatorship, to the ideal of communism, and bears the seeds of its own failure.
                  The human reality is that once people get power, they try to keep it. Methods of dictatorship, force, and terror always provoke resistance and counter force. Lenin and his followers wound up copying the methods of the dictatorship that was already familiar to them; the rule of the Tsars, and only managed to exceeded all their predecessors in brutality. Mao tried perpetual revolution, and nearly destroyed his own regime.

              • richardmcenroe

                I’ve known three generations of Russians, froma man who fought Bolsheviks at bayonet point to the latest one who last I heard waspretendinv to be gay scamming the City of LA for contracts. She’s right, he’s wrong.

            • LOL. Have you ever MET any Russians? Worked with them. As somebody who’s done both for decades, I can safely say that Sarah has it nailed and you have NO clue as to what you are talking about. Russians are the most ethnocentric people you can imagine. And they tend to have master-serf issues like you wouldn’t believe. And from all my friends who escaped the former USSR, that utopian stuff is pure BS all the way.

              • Russians are the most ethnocentric people you can imagine. And they tend to have master-serf issues like you wouldn’t believe. And from all my friends who escaped the former USSR, that utopian stuff is pure BS all the way.

                I did not deny that Russians were ethnocentric or that Soviet ideology was BS. I said that the Soviet Union was an idea nation with a lofty goal that failed. Ethnic mistrust was part of the reason for that failure, even though the ideology downplayed ethnicity in favor of Communist unity.

                This does not bode well for other idea nations since the USSR fell apart despite its harsh repressions.

                • The Soviet idea was the ruler’s BS. The American ideals are an actual shared concept that our country was founded on. Thanks Marxist/socialist education system has been undermining the founding ideals for at least two generations.

                • YellowShapedBox

                  Harsh repressions means that no one is supporting the system because they actually like it (except the people directly doing the repressing, and even the heads of your various incarnations of the KGB tended to wind up on the business end of the repression equation.) So as soon as there was any logistical opening for the USSR to fall apart, everyone had at it.

                  The United States, on the other hand, has basically been running on fumes since about 1975. It’s survived so long past the point where its government had an economic or foreign-policy leg to stand on because people really, really love the American idea. Think of it as the best possible interpretation of the fable of the North Wind and the Sun.

                  The trouble now, of course, is that the American idea IS losing favor. Part of the reason, I think, is that people don’t realize that the state side of that equation started losing the thread in the Great Depression, and therefore think that the state’s current failures are because the American idea doesn’t work. Of course, welfare addiction can’t help…

                  • Believe me, I’m concerned about the loss of liberty in the name of so-called “progress” too. Wouldn’t want harsh repressions here.

            • But the Soviets had a concept of a “Soviet people” unified in mutual love for Communism, irrespective of ethnicity. Ditto for the New Soviet Man.

              I think you are taking the Bolsheviks — at least some of them — for the Soviets.

              The problem is that they were a tiny handful with delusions of how easy it would be to propagate their ideas. They really thought, for instance, that the Russian Orthodox Church would vanish like snow in June as soon as its official ties were cut.

          • How does allowing million immigrants in a few decades not qualify as an involuntary mass transfer of persons? Its even worse with the recent influx since so many are here illegally.

            Very few US Citizens asked for them, only the elite did. Its not a holodomor but its still the involuntary destruction of a culture. Mostly Anglo California was a distinct culture in itself and the Elite by action and neglect destroyed that.

            As you might predict that cultural loss has had very bad effects in many areas.

            The US has done this thing multiple times with Germans, Other European groups and now more recently Mexicans, South Americans and Asians among others. The current refugee programs are mass transfers on a smaller scale.

            We’ve even violently mass transferred Native Americans in what historically was a very short period of time ago,

            It worked out so-so with Germans poorer with the other European groups (I’m a mix with some English FWIW) and has been an abject failure after. It murdered the Native Americans leaving them very much a subjugated people.

            The reason that the very Libertarian US started to fail was all that combined with slavery.

            These are deep cultural traits that weren’t interested in the Enlightenment ideas.

            A few immigrants, screened from almost anywhere might have “gotten” that idea, our hostess does . Its not a racial idea but a kind of mutation in thinking that can’t really be taught. A sort of Conservative Living by nature meets Liberal need for “Freedom.”

            My guess and its only a guess is you can’t teach it , it hereditary, mostly found in European people but can be found in any group.

            I understand it, can live in such a society but I don’t have it. Very few people do. I’m not convinced the brain structure is common enough for a country the size of Iceland much less the US

            Most people don’t have it as as such the US has expected gotten progressively more statist , giving us delights like Prohibition, the Comstock Act , the persecution of the Mormons and so many more I’d rather not count them.

            As for a mash together, the US did in fact force by occupation the South to stay in the union against its wishes not to mention genocide entire existing cultures to get this one,.

            We also own territories.

            We’ve even exported this behavior to other countries more recently Bosnia which has not and has never been a province or territory of the US was basically forced to become multicultural .

            We might not be as cruel as the Russians most of the time, school of the Americans aside not as brutal as the Romans but we are in fact an Empire. Fairly benevolent one but again so were Mongols or the Romans in some ways.

            Like most empires, held together by armies , payoffs , ye old panem et circenses, and for the US as yet a lack of a different idea on how to do things.

            Occasional restless provincial, err State governors like Rick Perry threatening succession aside, the identity hasn’t risen enough to force it .

            I totally get the idea of a proposition nations, its just that failed and is dead as a coffin nail having been crushed by Cultural Marxism and deep cultural trends years and years before that.

            I don’t think we can bring it back and I’m not even sure its a good idea,

            What we get instead is the real question. I think everyone other than Hillary or ¡Jeb! supporters gets that, even Rubio ones. Maybe.

            Y’all say Cruz, some of us Trump, some Gray Johnson some Vermin Supreme or Bernie Sanders. At least for all the furor we aren’t shooting at each other and will probably baring supreme stupidity accept the legitimacy which is good enough for me.

            Again I might not be proven right and if Sara and Y’all are right and we can create a proposition nation, I’d be pretty happy to be proven wrong . Its a pretty grand proposition on the whole,

        • The first strong man supporter of the day. And so early too. Wow, aren’t you guys punctual. I bet you can make the trains run on time too.

          The English, Germans, Scottish, Polish, Irish, Italians, and Africans that have come here or were brought here are all Americans now. Only a nation of ideas could bring these groups together. If you pull the ideas out, You get a galvanized clump of ghettos that can only be held together by a strong man.

          Your invoking of the Soviet Union shows you really don’t get how the Soviet Union worked. There is a reason they were often referred to as the Russians. The Russians were the dominant cultural group. Russians received preferential treatment. That’s one of the reasons so many former Soviet provinces hate Russia and ethnic Russians are discriminated against in these places. Yes, Stalin was Georgian, but for all intents and purposes he functioned like a Russian. The Soviet Union always took a strong man to keep the country together. The United States, because of the ideas it is founded on, is much more resilient. If a country needs a strong man and the strong man is shown to be weak it collapses unless the strong man is quickly replaced. It is far harder to kill an idea. A country based on an idea can survive a weak leader so long as the idea remains alive.

          • “The Russians were the dominant cultural group. Russians received preferential treatment. That’s one of the reasons so many former Soviet provinces hate Russia and ethnic Russians are discriminated against in these places.”

            As I said, Russia was founded by a bunch of Swedish Vikings; no matter what they called it, it was always about the tribe.

            ” Yes, Stalin was Georgian, but for all intents and purposes he functioned like a Russian. ”

            And Hitler was Austrian. They both showed the typical fanaticism of a convert, desperate to show they believed perfectly. Kind of like SJWs and Trump followers, when you think about it.

          • The idea you are clinging too is a myth.

            I don’t have much of an issue with the European Union kind of republic we once had, roughly till the early 90’s,. I was born in it and raised to adulthood in it. Its not ideal but had we kept it along with the improvements in gun laws and a functional economy I’d have little to carp about

            It was not however the founders Republic.

            That republic is dead. That idea is dead. It wasn’t that good an idea upfront anyway, being cored out by compromise since you can’t make a free enlightened state on the backs of slave labor or conquest

            The Libertarian Woo isn’t really compatible with well any piece of reality. There is simple evidence in that no such societies have ever existed, All human societies are hierarchical because nearly all humans are like that.

            Its theoretically possible I suppose if one had a spare country to immigrate too or a space colony and could pre-screen for personality to have L/Woo though I’m not sure an entire nation of Libertarians and Odds would work. Be fun to try. I’d like to visit.

            However we don’t have such a colony and certainly the current US , the US going forward and probably never the US much after the Whiskey Rebellion was much like this. Certainly successive waves of immigration basically ended that ideal. Even the US before Roosevelt was not that free at least to the standards y’all think. It was in its own way as tradition bound as Europe and as intolerant.

            And no y’all are not going to get to keep CONUS +2 in any case. Best case scenario, you either have a tolerable level of freedom or maybe a smaller nation to call your own.

            The reason is simple, not enough of you at all with less everyday compared to numbers of others

            Its going to get worse because of immigration of course, those people want nothing to do with what you want and have about as much chance of embracing the Founders Republic or L/Woo as I do of launching an antimatter starship to Alpha Centauri

            Its not going to happen and no amount of magic soil will make it happen . It might be possible to teach it , I honestly don’t know how much IQ is required, what kind of time preference and what else but you don’t have time.

            The fact that Trump is soaring is proof of that

            Had we chosen to have a small amount of screened immigration, we might have kept it but the new people and everyone else as well since they are starting to realize the game, will vote their own ethnic interests, to get what spoils they can and when needed to put boots on necks if they can.

            Its the way all human societies work our being no different

            As for backing a strong man , so?. The world is in a lot of trouble in case you haven’t noticed, its not a peace and in times of trouble, I prefer a stronger leader to weak one.

            And yes the trains will run on time, what good is public transit that is unreliable?

            I do not think however any people will be in boxcars off to a bad end like your insinuation. Deportation? Maybe. Wall? Maybe? Worse?

            That’s not how even the shell of America works nor is Trump the man to do that.

            • YellowShapedBox

              Basically, you’re drawing on a really chestnutty false equivalency of the far left here. “Every world leader was at least somewhat dictatorial – I mean, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves – so really, voting for a bona fide dictator (in this case, a guy who vows to bankrupt anyone who denounces him and otherwise bully every domestic opponent into submission) isn’t such a big deal.”

              Given the alternatives you present, I’ll take balkanization any day. Plenty of these Balkan states would be essentially American. A country held together only by the raw might of Donald Trump… not so much.

              • Wayne Blackburn

                Off topic, but while reading this comment, I realized that for some time now, I’ve been reading Trump’s name as Turnip. Make of that what you will.

              • The Balkans thing doesn’t come out so well most times. That said Trump is I think 72 and while in amazing health (at least according to his Doctor) he isn’t going to hold the Republic together if that’s even a good idea.

                He is too old and not suited to the job. Trumps job is to slow the rot and give us a breather, if he does that which is questionable. If he is elected, he’ll vent the proverbial pressure cooker a tad in any case. Or he’ll prove Democracy and the Republic a sham and tighten the lid down hard. That isn’t a bad outcome either,

                Whoever follows him at the next crisis will be the strong man but baring a military man, I don’t see one on the horizon, American is a nation without much in the way of public leaders.

                A dissolution of the union if ethnic violence can be contained is fine too and if this happens, I hope the Odds and the Libertarian types can find a good place to live as they see fit.

        • So since all countries are defined by blood, then shouldn’t everyone in that country be, y’know, related by blood? Should we have a blood test for who gets to be part of one country or another?

          You can do that for the vast majority of the population in most countries around the world. It’s getting gradually less common, but you can still do that. The United States, on the other hand, was the first successful nation in history set up on the idea that nationality was a choice.

          You claim that the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were both set up the same way. Dude, do you even history?

          The USSR wanted everyone in their own little territories, their own little boxes; spread communism as much as you want, comrade, but don’t you dare try to leave the city without your papers! Oh, you want to go to a large city? Show papers every three blocks! If you are a Serb, you’d better have a good reason for being in Moscow. Ukranian? Go back to gulag! Chechen? Shoot on sight!

          And Yugoslavia? You DO realize that the name means “Southern Slavs,” right? The country was set up on the idea of people of that ancestry having their own unified homeland.

          I must say, you have a very impressive knife. It’s able to split hairs quite well even with very wild swings.

        • “I just don’t think this “nation founded on an idea” thing is all it’s cracked up to be.”
          Not all country-founding ideas are equal in terms of 1) their rationality; nor in 2) their provision for those without inherited access to formal power; nor in 3) their ability to accommodate new circumstances. Nations founded on ideas which reasonably approximate a passing grade in those three areas are resilient.
          The United States has an excellent track record in each of those areas.
          “Ideas” are no more equal than “objects”, and to propose a comparison on the ‘countries with ideas’ argument is just as trivial as a comparison of ‘a breakfast of objects.’ Kenneth eats a bowl of cereal; I had a bowl of chili; so Rufus and Dufus each had a bowl of gravel.
          The outcomes were quite different, which should have been self-evident.
          But, a word of caution: if you want to be the Devil’s Advocate, be aware that you will reek of sulfur.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            To be a “good” Devil’s Advocate, you have to have some intelligence. Doubt if this individual will be a “good” one. 😈

            • Nah, he’s brighter than our usual run of trolls. He might even be sincere. We’ll see if he flips out under the hammering.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                I recognize him from MHN, and maybe MGC, where he wasn’t a troll.

              • *raises hand* I do not think of him as a troll, just saying; since I remember seeing him regularly here and at MGC.

                Just arguing a contrary position for whatever reason. I know it’s a rather scary time and we tend to assume bad position + disagreement = concern troll SJW or some other similar thing, but rawlenyanzi isn’t doing that, to my reading.

                Just raising this, because I remember what it’s like to be the ONLY person in the room defending America or taking the contrary position that is the least popular. =/

                • Yeah. He seems young and open to new information. I was young and stupid once. I learned better. I hope. Older anyway.

                  • I’ve done what he does before, which is argue from the devil’s advocate position, in order to either find the holes I’m having problems finding, or to gain new insight – and yes, I would argue fervently, even stubbornly-seeming, with the perhaps naive expectation that the discussion would not be held against me later on. But I’d be chewing over what I got in replies later, and thinking about it, on my own.

                    From my mental bookmarks, I do not have ‘troll’ tagged to this fellow; but “oh hey, one of the good guys from MHN/ATH/MGC/Brad’s.”

                    But yeah, I’m being a little dissident because I do not remember him as bad and indeed, joining in the discussions well.

        • The problem with idiots is they aren’t smart enough to realize they’re idiots.

          You’re confounding two concepts, one simple and one more abstract. The simple one: there is indeed a territory, a geographical entity. But you’re missing the philosophical one: we hold these truths to be self-evident — that is, axiomatic, the basis on which we will derive our further conclusions — that all men (humans) are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — or Locke would have made it “property” but these two abstractions are closely related.

          People came to this continent, even my aboriginal ancestors, because they were pursuing these unalienable rights. In the Enlightenment, some smart men were able to identify and explain these rights. And people from all over the world have come here in pursuit of these rights.

          “Americans” in that abstraction, to which Sarah and I and a whole lot of other people subscribe, are people who hold those truths self-evident.

          Vox and others have these racialist fantasies that come down to all men not being created equal. Since those are axioms in our system of inference, the two systems are incommensurable. But empirically, the notion that people aren’t created equal in the sense of those axioms has led eventually to bloodshed and oppression everywhere it’s been tried — as, indeed, happened to my aboriginal ancestors.

          For that reason alone, I hold that notion to be “evil” in the only sense I personally buy: it leads to suffering. It doesn’t matter what label you apply: Communist, Fascist, Socialist, syndicalist, technocrat, or our current peculiar system of a Harvard-Yale, Boston-Washington “natural” ruling class.

          The problem is that this is — exactly as Jefferson stated it — an axiom. It is essential to the system, just as Peano’s identification of “1” as axiomatically the successor of “0” is essential to our foundational understanding of arithmetic.

          Because it doesn’t apply this axiom, your reasoning is as nonsensical as a claim that 2+2=3 would be in arithmetic.

          • “Vox and others have these racialist fantasies that come down to all men not being created equal.”

            Vox has said repeatedly that “equality does not exist in any material, scientific, historical, legal, or religious sense.” So that’s absolutely a position of his. You can convince yourself you’re gathering evidence for it, too, by knocking down all the senses in which equality is claimed to exist and actually doesn’t.

            As you said, what Jefferson and the rest of that gang of radicals held to be self-evident was that there is a more fundamental sense in which equality does exist among humans.

        • If you believe the Soviet Union wasn’t the Russia Empire under new management, you’re deluding yourself and need to pick up a Russian history book.

          The only way to accede to power in the Soviet Union was to be a “Great Russian,” or in the case of Uncle Joe the Georgian, be more Russian than the Russians.

          • Funny enough, the Russians have always been pretty open to those who are “more Russian than the Russians”- witness German born Catherine the Great for instance.
            Now, a weak leader- that is the one thing they cannot abide.

    • First of all, I will say that I do not mean the following as any sort of personal attack. I am merely playing devil’s advocate.

      Whenever someone starts a comment like this, it generally indicates they mean exactly what they say they don’t. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt — for now.

      You say America is a “a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief.” The Soviet Union was that too, as was Yugoslavia. Neither country exists today despite the fervent propaganda of their governments, and the resulting countries aren’t exactly Sweden or even Great Britain in terms of corruption levels or social structure.

      OMG, I simply do NOT have enough time to dissect all the errors in that statement. Let’s look at the most basic. The Soviet Union was a nation, for certain terms and definitions of nation, built upon an idea of enforcing the most equal among equals version of communism. It began with the Russian Revolution in 1917. In 1922, you had the “unification” of Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus (or Byelorussia) and the trans-Caucus region (if I’m remembering my history correctly). To infer that the Soviet Union was a single nation in any way, shape or form other than through conquest and terror tactics of the likes of Josef Stalin is to turn a blind eye to history.

      As for Yugoslavia, again assuming I remember my history correctly, it was formed after World War I (circa 1918) and was formed by joining three pre-existing countries: Slovenia, Serbia and Croatia. Like the Soviet Union, there was no common heart, mind or belief. There was force and artificial boundaries placed upon people who didn’t want to be joined.

      Large, multi-ethnic countries tend toward social instability and absolutism since the ethnic groups don’t trust each other very much, and thus a large and powerful government is put into place to keep them from dashing each other to pieces or to see to the interests of the most powerful ethnic group. And I’ll have you know, Americans are human like everyone else on Earth. They’re not going to be the exception. That alphabet soup you mentioned earlier? Creeping absolutism due to inter-ethnic mistrust.

      The big difference you are missing – whether deliberately or not – is that the United States is not one of those nations formed by forcing other countries together into a whole. Don’t start saying that it is because of the Native Americans. I am not forgetting them. It would be hard to do considering my heritage and the fact I have as much, if not more, Cherokee in me than anything else. However, putting that aside, people have chosen to come to this nation. They chose to come here for the idea you seem to put so little importance in. The idea of freedom, of individual rights, etc.

      I suggest you go back and read – and study – history. Yes, countries that are formed arbitrarily by redrawing boundaries and parceling out influence based on treaties signed between so-called allies do tend to lead to problems. But that is not what Sarah is talking about in her post nor is it what the United States happens to be. I won’t say the US, and those settling here, haven’t done some things wrong. As you pointed out, we are human here. But we also bear very little in common with the founding of either the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia or the so-called “ideas” you seem to think they were formed around.

      • Also, don’t forget that many of those Native Americans (most around here still prefer the term Indian by the way) are still extremely patriotic and loyal to America even though they have some profound issues the government and it’s treatment by such. When the (solid organic waste material) hits the (air oscillating machine) and the nation goes to war they step up and volunteer along with everyone else.

        • Absolutely. I prefer “Indian” as well , as do most of those I know who can still claim to be pretty much full-blood do. As for stepping up, right again. Just like the Japanese Americans did during WWI, the Code Talkers, etc.

          • ” (most around here still prefer the term Indian by the way) ” and “Absolutely. I prefer ‘Indian’ as well , as do most of those I know who can still claim to be pretty much full-blood do.”

            Snerk. I maintain that as long as the national Intertribal Newspaper refers to and titles itself “Indian Country”, then I’m an American Indian or Indian. Amerind is acceptable. Cherokee if one wants to be particular. Aniwunyiya if one wants to be precise.

            Although since I’m “full blood” only in the weird sense of BIA regulation and tribal law where one-quarter equals “full”, I maintain that I’m a ‘Breed.

            Which really norks off the PC types. *grin*

            If I really want to be annoying, I say that I’m a quarter-ass Cherokee because my family was dirt poor and couldn’t afford to be half-assed. And then step way back to avoid getting gibbs all over me from the head explosions.

            But I was raised Texan, so Texican takes precedent over anything else.

            • “If I really want to be annoying, I say that I’m a quarter-ass Cherokee because my family was dirt poor and couldn’t afford to be half-assed.”

              This is BRILLIANT. I love it.

          • The last Kiowa war chief earned his status in Desert Storm.

    • I think you have a point buried in here, but it’s less of one that you think.

      In order to have democracy, it’s necessary to have a demos. One people. Where you make your error, however, is assuming that “one people” requires one ethnicity. It doesn’t matter what colors we are or in what proportion, so long as we all (or at least a critical mass of us) continue to think of ourselves as American first and foremost, and recognize our allegiance is not to “people who look like us” but to Americans. Those like our esteemed hostess, who come here eager and willing to join the tribe, are no threat to that unity, whether they come from Portugal, Kenya, or Barsoom.

      This is, however, the reason that the “multiculturalism” doctrine is so dangerous. Spend long enough teaching children that their primary loyalties should be based on skin color, and eventually they might believe you. And if they do, if they start think that “my people” are only those who share their ethnicity, then trouble starts coming in hard.

    • Seeing as I was born in the USSR, I can address this a bit. The Societ Inion and all its satellites was a nation of FORCED conformity. What you people who have never been there don’t understand is that dissenting ideas were punished. Dissenters were either killed outright, incarcerated, or forced out of society and jobs until they drank themselves to death. The indoctrination began in nursery school and continued throughout people’s lifetimes. The free flow of ideas was suppressed as much as they could suppress it. That’s a marked difference between the US and the former USSR. It was the eventual flood of free ideas through the wall of oppression that helped end the Soviyet Union nearly as much as their failed economic policies!

      How you can compare that to the nation of ideas and ideals we have here is positively boggling.

      • The Societ Inion and all its satellites was a nation of FORCED conformity. What you people who have never been there don’t understand is that dissenting ideas were punished. Dissenters were either killed outright, incarcerated, or forced out of society and jobs until they drank themselves to death. The indoctrination began in nursery school and continued throughout people’s lifetimes. The free flow of ideas was suppressed as much as they could suppress it.

        Upthread, I mentioned that a nation founded on an idea, like the USSR, would have to do things like what you mentioned to keep the legitimacy of the idea nation intact.

        Thus, the idea of a US proposition nation exposes a fatal contradiction — if the ideal is ordered liberty and free association (an ideal I myself hold dear), it cannot do what the USSR did, and it shouldn’t. But all around us, the original libertarian ideals are being replaced by various shades of absolutism based on racial and religious animosity and mistrust, from governmental entities like the all-powerful Presidency to the all-seeing NSA to private groups like the ever-annoying SJWs calling everyone and everything racist. Because their ideas have nothing at all to do with liberty, there is no contradiction anymore and they crack down with gleeful abandon.

        I’m not saying I find absolute rule good or desirable. Quite the opposite — I find the original American ideals desirable and the current anti-liberty trends frightening. But due to a fundamental lack of trust between different races and ethnic groups, we are fast heading down the road of authoritarianism. We have seen this is virtually every other multi-ethnic polity as well.

        I don’t doubt Hoyt’s sincerity or yours. But not everyone is like Hoyt.

        • Not everyone is me or Sarah. That’s true. But at the same time, I think you’re making a fundamental error in conflating race and ideology. A person from another nation who comes here can very well develop the love for the ideals that make this nation what it is. Their race is not going to make that more challenging, especially if they know why they have come here in the first place. The problem is the actual power seekers and authoritarians in power, who cater to a small, but much more vocal minority, making them seem much more significant than they actually are. I would submit to you that if you look at the numbers of immigrants who come to this nation every year, you will see that the vast majority love this nation, and love its ideals more than many others who were born here and take those ideals for granted. Why? Because they come here for specific reasons.

          We’re not heading down the road of authoritarianism because of a fundamental distrust between the races and the ethnic groups, but rather due to the continuous power grabs by the statist class.

          • We’re not heading down the road of authoritarianism because of a fundamental distrust between the races and the ethnic groups, but rather due to the continuous power grabs by the statist class.

            But keep in mind why the power grabs are happening; it is because segments of the population do not trust one another and thus call out to a strongman or other authority figure to keep the “others” (defined differently by different groups) from screwing them over.

            Oftentimes, though, the most politically powerful group simply captures the state apparatus to promote its own interests, as everyone pointed out to me about the USSR upthread — and I agree with their assessment. Such capture is also a consequence of low intergroup trust.

            Good job getting out of the USSR, by the way; I could scarcely imagine living in such a place.

        • We have seen this is virtually every other multi-ethnic polity as well.

          Crap, I did it again! Should be “in.”

    • What you miss in this description, is that part of the set of ideas that America is founded upon is the concept of equality before the law. Yes, I know that this is not upheld as well as it should be, but it’s better than it is even in other countries who claim it, and it was certainly not a concept in the USSR.

      Oh, sure, maybe most of the people at the bottom were treated somewhat equally, but ANY status at all changed the whole picture, and was regularly (not as an aberration, as it is here) used to prevent punishment when someone had done something wrong. On the other end of that spectrum, the Soviet concept of “nation of ideas” meant that the government would tell anyone who they needed to where to go and what to do when they got there. There, it was merely more of the same, while here, it is a cause of righteous outrage, even, sometimes, when it is actually employees of the government being told.

      There’s an old joke about two men having a conversation, one American, on Russian. The American said, “You know the difference between your country and mine? I’m free to go to Washington, D.C. and protest my country’s involvement in the Viet Nam war. You can’t do that.” To which the Russian replied, “Oh, no, comrade. I am free to go to Washington, D.C. and protest your country’s involvement in the war, too.”

    • The Soviet Union was the Russian Empire following an even stupider ideology than the divine right of kings.

  2. “I am an American now. I belong, in law as I always did in my heart.”

    Welcome home.

  3. Christopher M. Chupik

    I see over at He Who Must Not Be Named that this post has got him very riled up today. 🙂

    • The sad part is that this will still not be enough to convince certain parties that there is a difference between sad and rabid puppies.

      • Oh I can see a difference and I’m a Brit democratic socialist (with a dash of libertarian I guess).
        I’ve a sneaking suspicion Immortan Vox has manufactured this whole controversy in order to drive a wedge between SP and RP so that, come the Hugos, his own slate outdoes whatever the Sad’s concordance is, thus rendering the Sad’s obsolete and making him the de facto thought leader on SFF’s right. At least that’s how he might see it in his head; another one of those ‘long game’ ‘puppet master’ farces of his. And that would be a shame, because the current SP movement, roughly speaking, offers a way for right wing SF fans who feel disenfranchised from fandom to get stuck in and just talk about good books (which, if I recall, was what all this Hugo stuff was originally about). In fact if there’s any hope of healing the political wounds in fandom it lies in Sad Puppies, at least to one extent or another.
        He fears you lot. Just check his blog: he’s already reduced to talking about bench pressing and how he can beat anyone up. Get out and vote. Get out and discuss the books you love.

        • Meh. Again, I don’t care what he thinks; he started going nuts when I said — with no reference to him — that I don’t like Trump. SHRUG. I have a million problems, he’s not one of them.
          And if anyone here doesn’t know this about me, concerning tweets alleged to be from me: I don’t tweet. All I do is echo this blog. I don’t like twitter. The alleged tweet is not something I’d say, and I’ve either been traveling or crazy busy, or on the tablet — you can tell when I’m on the tablet because typing gets gifted — last thing I’d do is engage in a blog war right now. If he’s looking to have a war, he picked a really wrong time. I have a million problems now and for the next couple of months, all of them existential. He’s NOT one of them. His poo-flinging monkeys are annoying, but h*ll, we’ve had annoying on this blog before.
          Hey, guys, remember the war with GQ?

          • War with GQ? That must have been before my time. Any chronicler of the blog have record or can tell the tale?

            • Free-range Oyster

              I think that was back when a bunch of media outlets were libeling Larry Correia and anyone connected to the SP crowd. IIRC, we got a decent sized wave of idjits from a hit piece at GQ as part of that. A couple of decent chew toys, but mostly large numbers of driveby morons. None of them were as disciplined as the ball of weeds we’ve got now in their message or presentation. I’ll give him that much: he’s a dull sort of troll, but a dedicated one. I don’t think we gained any regulars from the GQ dustup, which is too bad. We’ve had a few people over the years that showed up to argue, weathered the blowback from their… overly enthusiastic entrance, then stuck around. We’ve seen a little of that again this weekend, to my pleasure.

            • if you ask me when I’m home, I’ll give you links.

    • It often seems to be the case that the loudest voices in racial identity politics, are the ones whose own genetic heritage is . . . less than pure. And He Who Must Not Be Named is himself mixed-race by his own admission, no?

      Basically, Vox has jut turned himself into the Rachel Dolezal of the alt-right.

      I agree with Vox on a number of issues, including **in part** his stance on immigration. Immigration went from a source of strength for this country to a threat just as soon as the establishment decided that they didn’t like the existing American electorate, and decided to import a new one in pursuit of cheap labor and cheap votes . . . even to the point of openly encouraging human trafficking and the exploitation of minors. Vox is right to describe the result as an invasion.

      The ongoing scandal with H1-B visa abuse – where companies like Disney fired their American workers and replaced them with cheaper foreigners – only further beclowns even *legal* immigration. And then there’s the current fetish on the part of “right-thinking” people to just throw open the borders to people from war-torn Muslim lands that *hate* us. As Daniel Greenfield over at Sultan Knish commented regarding the ongoing feud between Apple and the FBI over the San Bernadino shooter’s iPhone: “”This is not an iOS problem. It’s an immigration problem.” And we’re now being forced to choose between open borders and a police state.

      http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/02/immigration-or-iphone_26.html

      So yeah, Vox is right as far as that goes. Where I draw the line at is Vox’s failure to draw a distinction between immigrants like Sarah who genuinely want to become American and believe in traditional American values, and those who are just here for a paycheck and the welfare bennies. I can think right offhand of plenty of actual American citizens with that attitude, and if we could swap them out on a one-for-one basis for Sarah Hoyts or Nicki Fellenzers or Michael Z. Williamsons . . . 🙂

      But this wouldn’t even be an issue if we were getting a million Sarahs or and Nickis a year; we’d have this awesome, permanent Reaganesque Morning-In-America going on, and it would be the Democrats demanding we build a border fence and likely mine the coasts as well. And if we were getting a million Michael Z. Williamsons we’d all either be living in the Freehold right now, or building a truly awesome space program to get us there . . . and it would be the Canadians and Mexicans who’d frantically be building border fences, to keep out the hords of desperate, panicked wetback Democrats.

      Either way, I expect Vox would still be in Italy.

      • Part of the issue is legal immigration too — I want to make it CLEAR I’m not for open borders. I was once an internationalist libertarian, but I was young and stupid. It can’t work when most of the world is kleptocracies who think they’ll become rich if they come here, instead of being allowed to work to become rich — I don’t know how to close the border. I do know that regular patrols and actual enforcement will reduce the immigration, but I wonder if a “rebuild mexico” program is the ultimate answer.
        HOWEVER our legal immigration is worse. I probably could have come here, because I had a job offer here when falling in love, etc, complicated life. BUT that was because I had some extensive and rare skills and because on paper, being Latin and having a degree in the humanities, I conform to the left’s prejudices.
        Since the 70s, legal immigration has been severely slanted to “refugees” and being the welfare state of the world.
        Making it more about us and improving the US would mean a more Australian immigration policy.

        • There have been times when I have wondered if it would not be, over the long term, cheaper to just take over Mexico, and start patrolling Mexico’s southern border instead.
          Then I slap myself for being an idiot.

          • Cheaper yes. More moral, no. Like the coming down to the butcher’s bill, it will change us in ways we don’t like.

            • Ask the resident “retired” undead Imperator what happens when a Republic throws up it’s hands and absorbs the neighboring troublesome polity; Whether it’s Gaul or Mexico, that’s the path to true empire.

              And to boil it all down to brass tacks: Just as the passes through the Alps are obviously easier to defend than the Limes Germanicus along entire 350 mile length of the Rhine and Danube, I would not want to be the person in charge of defending hundreds of miles of jungle against modern people walking when the other choice is the US desert southwest.

              • I’ve read the history. This is why I said no, though… Lord is it tempting sometimes.

                • It truly is tempting at times.

                  One of the things that makes the whole “American Empire” and “American Imperialism” shtick so irritating when people throw it out there is that, as Steven den Beste pointed out at length once, we have for quite some time had a number of the trappings and outward appearances of an empire, without ever having had the actuality or the perquisites of actually being an Empire.

                  Yet.

                  I suspect that that’s actually the next logical stage in our evolution as a nation, and that it will follow the loss of one or more U.S. cities to a terrorist attack(s). It’s more likely than a collapse into a new dark age after a civil war, even though it will be a symptom and extension of the Endarkenment Age. Rome went from Republic to Empire, and then breakup and collapse.

                  The Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and was recognizably Rome all the way through.

                  I’ve read the history as well. Histories.

                  I’m not entirely sure that it will change us in ways that we won’t like or know, however. Sure, we won’t be recognizably “American”, but we haven’t been for awhile now. We’ve been recognizably the United States. It’ll be distasteful, sure: but so will any and every other option after that eventuality.

                  It’s amazing how one can swallow distaste when survival becomes imperative. And Americans are adaptable.

                  Great Britain survived being the British Empire for a long, long time while remaining intrinsically British. They only began to cease being British after the Sun Set on the Empire, whereupon they began the decline into… whatever the hell they are now.

                  *shrug* The Mexico southern border is shorter and easier to block than the southern U.S. one is. I’m pretty sure the Republic of Texas can close the Rio Grande Valley after we secede and leave the other however many miles up to ya’ll to worry about.

                  • I haven’t given up on the Republic yet, but yeah, if it comes down to Empire I’d strongly prefer that it be someone else bending the knee, not me and mine.

                    The trick is getting Augustus or Trajan rather than Caligula or Elagabalus.

                    Trump isn’t Augustus or Trajan. He’s Tiberius. At best. Maybe Commodus.

                    This is, I think, one of the most confusing things about America to foreigners. We kicked Hitler’s ass (and Tojo’s ass) in WWII, then…went home. We won the Cold War and then somehow refrained from going all Genghis/Nappy/Hitler on the Russians.

                    There are a surprising number of Canadians who take it as an article of faith that the United States is plotting to take them over, while ignoring the fact that if we wanted to do that, there’s not much they could do to stop us.

                    The historical fate of militarily-weak (I’m speaking numerically rather than about the quality of individual Canadian troops, which is quite good according to all the experts I’ve read), resource-rich, sparsely populated countries across an undefended border from an actual growing empire seems to have made little or no impression on the Canadian psyche. The mere existence of Canada should serve as convincing proof that America has never wanted to be an empire.

                    • YellowShapedBox

                      I wouldn’t say “never”. But in 1812, when we did want Canada, we weren’t materially up to it. Which hasn’t been the obstacle to conquest since, say, the Polk administration.

                      Obama reminds me of no one so much as Honorius. This doesn’t much alter your point about Trump and Empire, which is a fantastic point and one I’ve been forced to mull over myself, but warrants saying anyway.

                    • Well, Canada wasn’t actually a country in 1812. That war was between the United States and the British Empire. 🙂

                    • Hmm. If I had to pick an Emperor to use as a Trump analogy, I’m not sure who it would be. Your guess at Tiberius at best or Commodus is as good as any, I guess.

                      *shrug* There were worse emperors than Tiberius.

                      I don’t honestly think that Trump is going to be the first Emperor of Imperial America. I think that we are still as yet a ways away from that particular point in our political evolution as a nation state.

                      Caveat: developments as yet to be seen may or may not impact on that. Case in point is the potential major attack that destroys a large U.S. municipality, or a significant section of a large population area. Then… all bets are off.

                      At this point, I see Trump more as one of the latter in a series of elected leaders in our analogy of the fading Republic, before the transition to Imperial Rome (or Imperial America in our case.)

                      I’m still going to stand by my Theodore Roosevelt comparison until either a better one suggests itself, or that analogy is proven wrong to my satisfaction.

                    • Point of information: The kicking of Hitler’s ass was largely a Soviet enterprise. We (the Western allies), for all the drama of Torch and Overlord, were basically the guy crouching behind Hitler’s knees while Uncle Joe pushed him over. Certainly the Pacific Theater was a US-heavy operation with the USSR coming in literally at the last minute to grab Manchukuo (sp?) and the Kurile islands. The former, of course set up the table for all sorts of subsequent hi-jinks.

                      And tell my Marshallese friends how the US ‘won the war in ’45 and then went home’.

                    • Only if you’ve been reading an awful lot of soviet propaganda or studied history in Europe. But I repeat myself.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      IMO not just Soviet propaganda.

                      It’s the idiots who don’t want to remember that they “screwed” Germany and then sat around while Germany (even before Hitler) prepared for another way.

                      It’s the idiots who don’t want to remember that France was so “messed up” that they weren’t able to stop Hitler when he was a “five-year-old bully”.

                      It’s the idiots who don’t want to remember that they screwed up and lost France.

                      It’s the idiots who looked down their noses at the US even when they needed our help in WW1 and later in WW2.

                      Of course, many times these are the same idiots who claim that WW2 wouldn’t have happened if the US had joined the pile of garbage called the League Of Nations (which did nothing to stop Hitler).

                      Of course, there are also the idiots (not understanding US politics) who believed that FDR deliberately didn’t get involved in WW2 because he wanted to weaken France & England. Obviously (to their little minds) the US only got involved after England & France were beaten and thus the US could be the World Leader.

                    • Point of information: you’re wrong.

                      Without Lend-Lease the Soviets would have folded like a cheap suit. Brave but unskilled Russian cannon fodder would never have stopped the Wehrmacht. Why do you think Hitler got suckered into attacking Stalingrad in the first place? Hint: it wasn’t for the lovely climate.

                    • ” The kicking of Hitler’s ass was largely a Soviet enterprise. ”

                      Nonsense. They merely suffered the most causalities — mostly because of idiotic strategy. You do not lay claim to the credit because you overcame your lack of quality with an overwhelming quantity.

                    • It should also be mentioned that a large portion of the reason Hitler needed to get his tail kicked had to do with the Soviets.

                    • YellowShapedBox

                      The whole “which Allied power won World War II” debate has the same stale ring as “nature versus nurture” or “works versus grace.” It’s pretty clearly a joint effort where none of the sides could do the job separate from the others, and all else is so much arglebargle. (Well, except for the Hitler-Stalin Pact. That’s fairly relevant, I’ll admit.)

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Yes and No.

                      If it was just a scholarly debate, you’d be correct.

                      However, it comes across as “we got rowed over by Hitler and don’t want to give those “cowboys” any credit in Hitler’s defeat”.

                      It’s worse when you consider the “FDR kept the US out until the US would have been the World Power” and the “WW2 wouldn’t have happened if the US joined the League of Nations” arguments.

                      Of course, I give Churchill lots of credit as if Hitler had conquered Britain, the US would had a very hard time landing troops in Europe without bases in Britain.

                    • The argument against that, however is whether there is actual need to take over Canada when we already get the oil and items we want. The US does have some examples of economic empiricism (especially to those that refuse to accept that you can’t jump from subsistence farming to blue collar 1950s style worker’s market). Plus with how little the country is interested in its mineral wealth, Canada is better off with not being driven into the ground.

          • The governmental corruption at all levels in Mexico would make even willing incorporation a nightmare.

            How would we respond if the bordering Mexican states petitioned for US statehood with the blessings of the Mexican government. Baja, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Drug gangs, politicians, poverty . . .

            • I’m all right with it, *if* those States are willing to accept the Bill of Rights, particularly the 2nd Amendment…I’m convinced that a lot of the issues that Mexico has with gangs would be toned down, if not eliminated altogether, with a good dose of civilian firepower.

              Of course, considering our own government has problems with the 2nd Amendment, this would probably be a deal-breaker on both sides. 😦

              • I’d really like to make English the official U.S. language. Besides exploding multi-culti heads, it would be a condition of joining the U.S.

                Force Puerto Rico learn English or leave. Make it easy for northern neighbors save Quebec to join if they wish.

        • Sarah, I’ve never thought you were for open borders. And at least part of my attitude toward immigration comes from talking to people who did come here legally, and who had horror stories about how utterly frakked up the process is. Their attitude toward illegal immigrants started at “incandescent” and only got hotter from there. But then again, they *wanted* to be Americans in the first place.

          For that matter, two of the most vociferous opponents of illegal immigration I’ve encountered were two Hispanic brothers I worked with, whose own parents were legalized by Reagan’s amnesty. Their attitude was that their parents wanted so much to become Americans that they swam the Rio Grande in the dead of night, but the current crop of illegals had no interest in assimilating. What was it Dave Freer said about the advice he got when he moved to Australia? Something like “Fit in or Frak Off?”

          And again, I would much rather have immigrants who want to be Americans, and who believe in the founding priciples of this country, than a lot of the whiny little (censored)s who have citizenship but do nothing but complain how awful and racist and misogynist and whatever this country is and gimme my free stuff.

          • Speaking as a legal immigrant, I’ve yet to meet a legal immigrant who isn’t *vehemently* against illegal immigration, and even more vehemently against conflating legal and illegal immigration.

            Australia’s immigration policy would give politicians here fits. With few exceptions, illegals stay in detention camps, usually in the middle of nowhere. They get treated reasonably well, but they stay in the camps until their application for refugee status is processed (using UN criteria). Something like 90-95% fail, as I recall, and get deported. Showy tantrums don’t change anything.

            The fun part? It was a *leftist* government that started the policy. One of the furthest left in Australia’s history. (Australian politics is truly bizarre by US standards. It tends to be rather pragmatic in a lot of areas – leading to the (by US standards) most conservative Prime Minister ever coming from the left-wing party).

            The official policy towards legal immigrants is very much Fit In or F Off. And the locals aren’t afraid to make the point when (as often happens) the politicians can’t find their fundament with both hands and a map.

            • I’m with you, but, sadly, I know many legal immigrants who are — shall we say “soft” — on illegal immigration. Most are Asians in professional fields. Seems to be a combination of (1) illegal immigrants won’t affect their own employability, and (2) fear that those opposing illegal immigration are “racist”.

              • Well, that’s a common thing in professional fields. Bringing in millions of low wage, unskilled and sometimes unskillable workers and worse won’t affect those that do their 9-5 office job. Heck. For most of them it’ll possibly increase demand for their work (they think). The folks that are getting squeezed by the larger demand, especially by those that are willing to live like they did in the mother country, are the ones that are usually aggressively against it.

                It is at least worth a little schadenfreude when Silicon Valley abuses H-1Bs.

              • #1 probably applies to me (since I test software for a living). #2 not so much – If I’ve had to shell out thousands for the privilege, why should someone get it easy when they broke the law to do it?

                Refugees (the real thing) are a different matter – people fleeing hell on earth (as opposed to those trying to expand the part of earth that’s a living hell) tend to appreciate the efforts of their hosts rather more than some of the current crop of so-called refugees.

              • My previous comment was eaten by WordPress; but long story short, amnesty for illegal immigrants was what prevented me from completing my own legal immigration to the US. I had finished submitting all my documents and paperwork, and it looked like I’d get my green card in due course. Then the talk of amnesty hit, back during the last Bush administration. The department of immigration and Homeland Security lost most of my documents, and I was told this was because they were doing a lot of office reshuffling to prepare for the flood of applicants for illegal immigration amnesty, and the caseworker on the phone asked for me to send the ones they’d lost again, and lost the ones they said they hadn’t lost. Rinse repeat over the next few years, till I could no longer afford to keep trying. Getting the documents at the time was expensive, time consuming, and I had to Fed-Ex them in every time, which was also expensive since it was international. Combine that with long distance phone calls, and it basically was an insanely unfair penalty for trying to get into the US legally, following the law, and being good.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  Shadow, legal immigration is reputed to have been for decades screwed up enough to lose paperwork that way, without need for the excuse of an emergency.

                  Story is that customs used to be an effective organization, then during the DHS reorganization it was merged with immigration to become ICE, and ICE was terrible.

                  Test to measure American-ness: Can you think of any festering messes in the Federal government? Extra Credit: Identify the interests that exacerbate the problem, or prevent its solution. Joking Extra Credit: Explain how the Obama administration made every problem you listed worse.

                  Noting the dysfunctional state of the legal immigration process, or of labor laws, does not mean I am any less mindful of Romulus’ example regarding Remus.

                  • Test 1: Besides the mess that is the ICE/DHS/DoI? Practically every Department there is federally?
                    2) The departments themselves? With every single Leftist group ever?
                    3) Oh, I dunno, watching the use of the IRS against non-Left groups kinda stands out in my head. Holy fuck.

                    • BobtheRegisterredFool

                      2. There’s also part of the right that doesn’t want it fixed. They don’t, or think they don’t, have the influence and votes to repeal labor laws, leftist economic intervention and particularly the minimum wage. They figure the cost in votes and influence to keep the labor laws from being enforced, in cooperation with the left, is cheaper than fighting the left on minimum wage.

                      These are big donors, and appear to have aligned with the Jeb Bush and John Kasich side of this year’s candidate pool. Frankly, if Trump donated to Republicans instead of Democrats, he likely would have been one of these sorts of donors.

                      The left is now trying fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in some cities, and trying for it on a national level.

                      3. I suspect I may be able to come up with a hundred distinct scandals. 100, plus the stuff unsubstantiated enough that it doesn’t count, like the gay sex and drugs one.

                  • Humorous reply aside, that was supposedly during the time that the DoI had been cleaned up a bit and the expected wait time was no longer in the decades, but something like 4 years or less. I’m sure Foxfier and Mary remember that time of my life. It sucked.

        • I want to make it CLEAR I’m not for open borders.

          Likewise. I agree.

          Making it more about us and improving the US would mean a more Australian immigration policy.

          There’s a problem there too: H-1B visas are abused to hell and back to get cheaper skilled labor. It leads to ludicrous scenarios like Disney employees being forced to train their foreign replacements.

          • So go with the only candidate whose whole career has been based on fighting to “enforce the law” and vote for Cruz. Yeah, he likes the idea of H1B visas; based on his track record he’ll actually enforce it as written which will cut out the Disney crap.

            • I personally have no problem with the concept of H1B visas, but I would make one “tiny” change that would fix the one thing I see wrong with them: I would make it so that, once an H1B immigrant is here, he is free to work for any company willing to hire him; heck, I’d even give him three months to find work, if he has to leave a company for any reason, or none at all.

              One of the big reasons companies like H1B visas is that those who come to this country on them are required by law to continue employment with the company who hired them: thus, these companies are free to keep wages low, hours high, and in general abuse their employees, while holding their immigration status hostage. A little bit of competition (with both fellow H1B holders and the natives) in this area will do wonders in keeping H1B visas from being abused!

        • Frankly, if I were going to make Mexico pay for the wall I would just put a tax on noncommercial money transfers to Mexico. Why should we allow the Mexicans to come up here and drain the country dry?

      • Christopher M. Chupik

        “And He Who Must Not Be Named is himself mixed-race by his own admission, no?”

        Much like the other He Who Must Not Be Named, in fact.

      • “Either way, I expect Vox would still be in Italy.”
        Vox reminds me a lot of the perfumed princes of Kuwait who sat out Gulf War I spending daddy’s money in, yes, Europe, while others fought and died to “liberate” their homeland (i.e. turn it back over to Daddy Sheik and his fellow Trump analogues).

        He’s right about many things, but dead wrong about others. Doesn’t really matter… he’s all talk. He has zero actual skin in the game, as far as I can tell.

      • Everything you said here, this is my stance too. Thank you for saying what I want to say.

        And I also wish to make clear I am not for open borders. Legal immigration, yes, definitely the requirement of adoption of the local culture and society, rules and all, and a few other things I’m a little too tired to list, but:

        “If you didn’t want to be American/Australian/etc, why the bloody fuck are you here then?”

        • For the money…And because we’re too afraid to say no for now.

        • I would have to confess that I’m completely in favor of open borders…but I am only willing to open the borders, on the condition that we completely dismantle the government welfare system first.

          So I don’t think my “open borders” policy would get much support from our current Elites in Power…

          But as I see it, if you’re willing to come here and work, and support yourself, or alternatively you are coming here because there’s some sort of family member or charity willing to support you, then by all means, come, and see if you’ll like it here! Hopefully, when we dismantle the government welfare system, we’ll also be removing some of the bureaucratic red tape that will keep you from succeeding as well.

          If you’re here, and you want to live off of funds taken from your fellow human beings at the point of a gun, then I would appreciate it if you could find somewhere else to go live. There are plenty of places around the world like that, I’m sure you’ll find some place to your liking!

          The Elites won’t go for such a system, though, even though America has historically shown that we don’t need a public welfare system (we’ve been able to demonstrate plenty of ways to provide private welfare!), private welfare does not provide sufficient opportunities for graft and voter bribery….

          • Y’know… yeah. That I could get behind.

          • That has always been my sticking point with pure Libertarianism. Until we remove the incentive of welfare and disincentives to work, all open immigration begats is black markets. Same with legalization of hard drugs. Make it so that you are only destroying yourself and I could accept it, however when there is a welfare hammock to support you and when it is expected that when the fast food restaurant staff find you passed out in bathroom for the second time that night they will call and get you an ambulance, fire and police response.

            Admittedly, I’d prefer a more hybrid system. Closed borders in the sense of medical checkups (No TB or Infectious diseases), required support or funds and a criminal background check (with a no questions asked period where infractions result in deportation and it is enforced)

      • Either way, I expect Vox would still be in Italy.

        One wonders if a nation is for its people, how long Vox can (or should) stay in Italy. Will the revolt & mass deportation send him back here?

        • Unfortunately, probably so.
          On the other hand, given what all-else would have to happen for that particular turn of events to come to pass, either we will be dead, or we can execute him for inciting war crimes.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Strangely, this post and it’s replies disappeared earlier. Now it’s back.

    • The Other Sean

      I think a little penicilin or similar treatment would have clear up the problem with that… disease… by now.

    • @ironbear055 TR is an interesting comparison, but he had a coherent political philosophy. I’d suggest Andrew Jackson, who didn’t, and was more of a demagogue, as is Trump.

    • The Council of Evil splitting? See everybody, this is why Bane gave us the rule of two!

  4. O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
    Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
    Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto: ’In God is our trust.’
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    • You know, I’ve always thought that if we have to sing just one verse of the Star Spangled Banner, it ought to be either that one or the second verse:

      On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
      Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes
      What is that which the breeze o’er the towering steep
      As it fitfully blows half conceals, half discloses?
      Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s fist beam
      In full glory reflected, now it shines on the stream.
      ‘Tis the star-spangled banner, long may it wave
      O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

      We were talking about Asimov the other day and his non-fiction…one of his best is his essay on the national anthem.

      • I painted that first on a banner and hung it from our balcony on 9/11

      • Yup. Besides, think of the high notes: “Now it catches the gleam/‌Of the morning’s first beam/Its full glory, reflected,/‌Now shines in the stream” is much more evocative than “And the rocket’s red glare…”. And Asimov’s speech/essay on the anthem is magnificent.

    • I almost always get some really weird looks from my seat-neighbors when, at baseball games, I start singing this while most folk are cheering the rendition of ‘the’ national anthem. Of course, my (former) fellow season ticket holders know what’s up, but the transients get a little freaked out.

      • It’s always good to meet fellow anthem rebels : )

        I had a friend who, when attending sporting events with her parents and brother, would have each member of the family pick a verse so that they could get all four in there.

        • Battle Hymn of the Republic would make a smashing anthem!

          • THIS. But people would complain of religious content, Emily.

          • There are a lot of versions of the Battle Hymn; like many old songs it has a contentiously disputed history. My favorite is the performance the Red Army did with the Leningrad Cowboys in Finland.

            • The Other Sean

              The battle hymn is good, as is the original upon which it is based. I think John Brown gets a bad rap.

              • Actually, according to an old “story of the Battle Hymn of the Republic” recording I used to have “John Brown’s Body” was a relyricing (totally a word) of an older hymn that went
                “Hey brother will you meet us on Caanan’s happy shore.
                Hey brother will you meet us on Caanan’s happy shore.
                Hey brother will you meet us on Caanan’s happy shore.
                To watch the Jordan roll.”

  5. I got curious and went to look at it. I skimmed it and reflexively flushed.

    • Sorry tabet is spamming stuff by accident. I press send and it spams. Nothing spammed on purpose.

      • Just didn’t want folks (well, potentially innocent newcomers anyway) getting the wrong idea from my reply. Those who know me here know I’m not railing against your post. And those who would wish it were so are not worth my notice. I still do try to avoid handing over ammunition – with a precious few careful exceptions.

  6. Well, I’m glad you’re here. 😃

  7. “I walked out to the mailbox and on the way there it hit me “I am an American now. I belong, in law as I always did in my heart.””
    The immigrant becomes a citizen. The immigrant lays claim to now being American. Only by law, Sarah. But no more so than a Judge proclaiming, by law, that Bruce is now Caitlan. Now, if you can successfully demonstrate that Bruce is, in effect, truly Caitlan, a woman, then you’ll have won the argument.

    • Really? Have you served? Have you ever even taken the oath? Do you consitution, bro?
      No? Then what makes you an American? Your genes? Or being born on “magic dirt”?

      You’re not up to snuff. you’re not even entertaining.

    • Sir, let me place this in terms you can understand.
      My family first came to America when New York was New Amsterdam.
      The entirety of my family tree was here by the time of the American War of Independence. We have never left since.
      Mrs. Hoyt is as much of an American as I am.
      That is all.

      • 60 — I think you must be, of necessity, be related to my husband, whose ancestors have been here about the same time.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        I remember watching a program on the Fourth Of July celebrations and one thing that was commented on them.

        The organizers and people who took part in them didn’t care if the celebrators were descendants from people here at the first 4th or if the celebrators were “just off the boat”.

        The Celebrations of the 4th were open to new Americans and “old” Americans.

        “Old” Americans welcomed the new Americans as Americans.

      • Ditto. My ancestors were in the first settlement expedition for New Amsterdam, arr. 1624, founded Albany NY, and are buried in Brooklyn. It is a fond, though forlorn, dream of mine to make pilgrimage to their burial site before I die. We have numerous grandfathers who served in the War of Independence, most of whom have been given bronze headstones by the DAR. They had no fortune to risk, but they risked what they had. I only wish I felt worthy of my status as their descendant. Based on that unimpeachable authority of pedigree, I declare Sarah as much as American as any of my blood.

        I’m glad you’re here, Sarah. Glad you’re writing and encouraging. Just plain glad.

        • Be very careful when you visit Brooklyn. It’s more dangerous than it used to be. I was born there in 1961.

        • Both sides of my family tree are from Dixie and stop in the 1830s. So do a those of a lot of other Southern families.

          There was a lot of interbreeding back in the old days. When Congress authorized the Indian Removal Act, a lot of people wondered how far the definition of “Indian” might get stretched, particularly since there were existing legal definitions of “black”. So many familiies with any non-white blood consigned incriminating documents and family Bibles (which often served to record family information on the end pages) to the fireplace.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      Americans consider the new citizen an American thus the new citizen is an American.

      A lot of people don’t consider Bruce is now Caitlan, a woman.

      I am an American and as far back as I know, my ancestors were Americans.

      I consider Sarah as much an American as I am.

    • And here we can see the Nationalist Bigot in his native environment. Note his plaintive mating call “You weren’t born here!” See how he marks his territory with signs saying “No Irish need apply”, “No Coloreds”, and burning crosses. He is an ignorant, inbred creature that believes accidents of biology create ideas while not realizing what he espouses is exactly why tribal societies often have marriages between cousins.

    • Oh, my. Aren’t we on our high horse? Tell me, sir. What is your definition of an American? Is is only someone who is born within the borders of this country? If so, what about those children born to the members of our military when they are deployed overseas? Or what about those “Americans” who work for the State Department or other governmental agencies but are working out of the country when their children are born?

      I will take Sarah and all those like her who want to come to this country, who do so legally and who take all appropriate steps to become a citizen any day of the week over someone who looks down on them because they were not born here. Right now, Sarah looks much more “American” than you.

    • Those above have well and truly addressed this, but slow stubborn ox is slow and stubborn. My ancestors arrived well after the revolution. After the civil war, too, which makes slavery reparation arguments vastly amusing to me – but that’s another matter. So am I American simply by the great luck of my ancestors looking around Germany (or the Germanies – I am uncertain of exact timing) and deciding they were better off taking chances crossing an ocean and half a strange continent? Was it that I was raised here as well? Fine. I won’t argue that I am *not* indeed American – I will revel in what great luck that it is. But if we do go by the “magic dirt” definition, the case can be made for Sarah, and perhaps my immigrant ancestors being more American that I am, not less. For they were the ones who left the old life behind. They risked the new. They did the work to become citizens, to earn – not simply be granted – citizenship.

      • I’m mostly of German and Hungarian descent, with most arriving all the way up through the 20th century, though with a smattering of other ancestors all the way back to the “the Census records from Tennessee and Kentucky were lost when the Redcoats burned the capitol” vintage. I maintain that all those ancestors, whether transported (apparently a few, back before HRH lost that right to this continent) or voluntary, who came and worked and served and took that oath of citizenship and embraced that identity as an American, are Americans. And so is the lady whom I had the high honor to manage who snuck out of the people’s paradise of Vietnam in a leaky little boat after we abandoned her country, who never did talk about the horrible things that happened during that trip, just to make it here.

        On the other hand there are folks I know who’ve come here to work, with the explicit intention of going back home, who raise their kids carefully so they won’t be too American when they go back. I don’t call those folks American – they’re basically carpetbaggers, but from what I hear when they do go home they end up serving as unintended outposts of America in spite of themselves – we’ve infected them and they can’t help but pass on the infection

        Since Sarah is clearly of the first group, then Yes, Sarah is One Of Us, even without Birth On Magic Dirt. The point here is a lot of people around the world are also Americans at heart, and frankly some portion of the people who were born here don’t embrace the basic concepts are really not.

    • The immigrant becomes a citizen. The immigrant lays claim to now being American. Only by law, Sarah.

      This statement demonstrates that Sarah is more American than you are. Because she believes in what makes America, America. And you don’t.

    • *Sigh*

      You’re conflating Biology with Psychology. That’s like saying that pointing to an ant and saying it’s a warthog is the same as a person declaring themselves to be libertarian. One is stupid, the other is simply a description of their mindset.

    • My paternal ancestors have been here since before the war of independence. I say Americans are those who take the oath and stand with us. Traitors, those what ever their blood who do not.

      You say, “only by law,” what is an American or for that matter an Englishman, (the only American “race”) who does not believe in the rule of law.

      Go and lick your Donald’s hand, may your chains lay lightly upon you, and may our posterity forget that you were our countryman.

    • The immigrant lays claim to now being American. Only by law, Sarah. But no more so than a Judge proclaiming, by law, that Bruce is now Caitlan.

      Meh. She’s more American than many people born in the U.S. She actually believes in the ideals on which the country was founded.

    • Only by law

      And in a nation of laws, so… that’s all that matters.

    • Since you’ve decided to go full retard, it seems only fitting to reply in kind.

      Technically, anyone born in Canada is still an American, as well as anyone born in Central America and Mexico and Brazil… Get the point, yet? The pride my fellow U.S. citizens have in our country, the hubris! Canada is still in America. North America to be more precise. Aren’t technicalities fine? Not that you care, I’m willing to bet you are sitting at home, enjoying the privilege of being born in the U.S.

      Have we gotten to name calling yet? I’ve always felt a good troll should call someone a name. So then, “PeterW,” you are nothing more, nor less, than a troll. You’re probably pubescent, sitting in your mother’s basement looking for pictures of Caitlin/Bruce so you can fill your spank bank, trolling the internet and hoping to spread a little hate around.

      I only bothered to respond for the amusement it gives me, though in the future I expect your comments will tend to be ignored as they are those of the willfully ignorant, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say the pathetically under-educated, fool that you’ve shown yourself to be. So congratulations, troll, you’ve been trolled. Now you can finally leave the basement and finally see the sun with your own eyes. Aren’t you lucky? So run along now, there’s a good troll.

    • “The immigrant lays claim to now being American. Only by law, Sarah.”

      Now that I think of it, you are correct, in part. You need to do more than satisfy the Law to become a True American. You also need to absorb the Spirit of American Culture: a love of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a willingness to work hard and to fix things when you see them broken, and the dedication to pledge your life, your wealth, and your sacred honor to do the same. And, to a lesser extent, you need acceptance by your fellow Americans.

      It may be possible for me to become a Swiss citizen by law; by culture, it’s a little bit more difficult, because even though Switzerland has a greater ethos of liberty than the rest of Europe, they are nonetheless still very European in their outlook…indeed, fellow Swiss typically won’t accept newcomers, they tend to require the multi-generational dedication that Europeans seem to be so fond of.

      Americans aren’t like that, though. Indeed, there are many Americans who may be able to genealogically trace their American ancestry many generations, but are no more American than the European peasants who, upon being oppressed by their current lord, merely demand that they have a new lord who will hopefully be more kind than the last one.

      Indeed, it is the realization that lords aren’t necessary, that (more than any other factor) is what makes one an American. And while there are many cultures around the world (and even within the borders of America itself) that make it difficult for a given individual to realize this, there are nonetheless many individuals in all cultures who nonetheless realize this, and are thus American in Spirit, if not in Law. And some of them even manage to escape their old cultures, and become True Americans…and some of even make it to American soil, and become American citizens! (Assuming that they weren’t American citizens already, of course…)

  8. So what does that mean for people who were born here, and are citizens of the United States, but who not only adamantly don’t accept the ideas and ideals that are the foundation of your national identity, but who actively reject them and undermine them? And what is the term for them? (If being an American is a set of ideas and beliefs, and they reject those foundational ideas and beliefs, then intrinsically they’re not American by definition.)

    Expel them?

    Remove their franchise? In conjunction with exile, or singly?

    What?

    Because if one’s country and national identity depends on the embrace of and adherence to ideal, beliefs, and ideals, then one intrinsically cannot absorb or coexist with those who actively use your own institutions to undermine and eradicate those ideas and ideals, it would seem. No matter that they’re citizens by birth: they’re inimical to the survival of your nation of ideas, and they have made it obvious by word, deed, and ongoing actions that they not only will not tolerate the existence of your nation and its ideas, but they will do their best to see it dead, and you along with it if needed.

    So what do you do?

    Note: while I am asking in the hopes of an answer and a prescription that does not end in blood and gunsmoke and bodies hanging from lampposts… I am amenable to being told that there is no answer that does not. I’ll even accept “There’s no simple answer”, “I don’t know”, or “There may be no acceptable answer.”

    • “while I am asking in the hopes of an answer and a prescription that does not end in blood and gunsmoke and bodies hanging from lampposts…”

      Keep fighting within the institutions and the rules. If they break the institutions and the rules instead of subverting them, drop the hammer.

      Blood-and-soil works the same way, except worse.

      • Darn. There are days when I really would prefer that the answer be “blood and gunsmoke.” *wolf grin* And other says when I sadly realize that I’m too old and out of shape to really enjoy “Plenty of f*ckwits and all the ammo you can shoot.” Or even to survive.

        “Keep fighting within the institutions and the rules.” – 60guilders

        Not really an answer, I’m afraid. The Long March Through the Institutions have fairly well eliminated the usefulness of the rules and the institutions as mechanisms and weapons, IMO. The enemy uses those rules to kill the Ideas of the Nation of Ideas, for lack of a better term, and to marginalize, silence, and eliminate those who belong and ascribe to it.

        “If they break the institutions and the rules instead of subverting them, drop the hammer.” – 60guilders

        What hammer?

        The soapbox is at best minimally effective, and the enemy has coopted the majority of the available and effective ones. The Long March Through the Institutions concentrated upon control of those, and while they’re being circumvented, they’re still the largest, most visible, and most insidious of the available soapboxes.

        The ballot box is at best limited in usefulness: the coyotes have control of the henhouse, and electing new coyotes is only marginally useful, at best.

        The cartridge box opens up a whole ammo can of issues that probably won’t leave a nation of ideas intact after it’s opened, or at least not one that in any way resembles “America” as it was before its murder.

        What hammer? Did I miss any?

        “If they break the institutions and the rules instead of subverting them… ” – 60guilders

        Subverting them is possibly more deadly to the Nation of Ideas than outright breaking them. It is certainly more insidious and harder to combat.

        “Blood-and-soil works the same way, except worse.” – 60guilders

        Ahh… Blood-and-soil? I’m apparently having a slow day.

        Note: I am not yanking your chain here, Sixty. I’ve been in this fight for a long, long time now. In this particular end of the fight, I’ve been in it since I started as a commenter and occasional guest poster at the Rott back in 2002 or so.

        While I’m not a regular commenter here, I am a long time and regular reader, and I start out with the presumption that we’re on the same side, at least. We may not end up agreeing on particulars.

        • It’s a matter of learning how to use the rules–and I don’t mean the bureaucratic regulations, I mean the basic rules. The ones you don’t think of, because they’re not there. I’m not quite as in despair about the extent of the rot as you are–but I am also only in my twenties, so this mess is all I know.

          “The cartridge box opens up a whole ammo can of issues that probably won’t leave a nation of ideas intact after it’s opened, or at least not one that in any way resembles “America” as it was before its murder.”

          That’s the hammer, unfortunately, and I’d rather not see it drop. I think America could survive it–we made it through the 1860s, after all–but I don’t look forward to the possibility.

          “Ahh… Blood-and-soil? I’m apparently having a slow day.”

          Blood-and-soil nationalism. See all forms of European nationalism–or, for that matter, PeterW’s comments on this post.

          No offense taken, by the way.

          • “It’s a matter of learning how to use the rules–and I don’t mean the bureaucratic regulations, I mean the basic rules. The ones you don’t think of, because they’re not there.”

            The problem, 60, and I’ve been saying it since 2003, is that we’re dealing with a group of people who don’t think any rules apply to them unless the rules can be used to give them power.

            Which is why the hammer will drop. Neither myself nor my wife will survive it; my only hope is to prune back the most noxious people so that my nieces and nephews can finish the work from a more equal footing.

          • “I’m not quite as in despair about the extent of the rot as you are–but I am also only in my twenties, so this mess is all I know.” – 60guilders

            Ah. Yeah… that would have an effect, yeah. I’m… somewhat… okay, considerably older. I was born in 1960.

            Being born in 1960, in Texas, and growing up during the summers in rural Oklahoma, and coming from a family filled with people on one side who fought in WWII, and on the other side who had old men who actually remembered Quannah Parker’s braves raiding up into the Territory… it gives me a bit of a different perspective, and a bit of a different outlook, I’m afraid.

            I honestly can’t imagine what it would be like to be in my twenties and have grown up in the United States post 1990. You must feel as much like an Alien in an Alein Land when someone like me begins to talk about living in the America of the early 1960s as I do looking around today and wondering where the hell my country and my people all went.

            Keep in mind: I am someone who was born at the tail end of what was recognizably America, grew up in the last really American decades in the ’60’s and ’70s, and who, while it took me some time to understand what I was seeing, watched America murdered in the late 1960s and early ’70’s. There was a brief period of Cheyne–Stokes respiration in the Reagan years, and then the knife was twisted after that. I’ve been living as an unwilling American expat in the United States ever since.

            The “United States” and “America” are not synonyms. I’m currently a man without a country.

            *grin* I probably should change my usernick to N’Chaka: I seem to increasingly be a man without a tribe, these days. Or possibly to Wontolla. The dhole have and are overrunning the Waingunga and increasingly the packs of the Seeonee seem intent to be at each other’s throats rather than setting upon the Red Dog. It’s… disheartening.

            “That’s the hammer, unfortunately, and I’d rather not see it drop. I think America could survive it–we made it through the 1860s, after all–but I don’t look forward to the possibility.” – 60guilders

            Maybe. And that’s a big maybe.

            I’m not sure that we would/will survive it as a country in any form that I would even recognize as the vestigial remnants of America that we still have left.

            That’s a big part of why the first part of my question began with “blood and gunsmoke”, you’re mention of the 1860s: I see us as being politically polarized, and ideologicaly divided as a people, in ways that we haven’t seen since the 1850s. And I know where that led and how it ended: it ended with the death of the America before Lincoln, just as the 1970s ended in the corpse of the America that my parents grew up in.

            “Blood-and-soil nationalism. See all forms of European nationalism” – 60guilders

            Ah. Okay, got it. Yeah, I’m familiar with the concept… I visited what was left of my family in Czechoslovakia after the Wall fell, and I could actually feel the sentiment. I’ve seen it elsewhere, when I used to run around down in South America and the lower Carribbean in my early twenties. I’m also a regular reader of Vox Populi, so I should have recognzed the phrase.

            I’m not exactly sure what the hell I would be under blood-and-soil nationalism, to tell the truth. I’m Aniwuniya on my dad’s side, with a dollop of Choctaw, a dash of Chickasaw, and a sprinkle of Cherokee Freedman. I’m also Scots-Irish, and Czechoslovakian with a touch of Black Dutch in there. I have ancestors who predate Columbus, and some who came over in the mid-1800s, and some who immigrated at the turn of the 20th.

            Meh. Screw it. When people ask me what I am (nationality) what reflexively comes out is a slightly askance, slightly puzzled look and, “I’m a Texican.” If pushed, I’m a Texan who was raised in America and who is also a Cherokee National by birth. I just happen to have a United States citizenship, for what it’s worth.

            The way things look to be going, “I’m a Texican” may not be a rhetorical response for much longer. I expect to see Texas secede, or at least come very close to it, before I die of old age.

            “No offense taken, by the way.” – 60guilders

            Meh. Not a problem, and I’m glad.

            Believe me: ask anyone who used to be a commenter at the Rott, or who was a part of our sprawling RFI community over the years when I was in the graphics communities – when I intend offense, it is really obvious. *grin*

            I try to not give offense unintentionally these days, when possible.

    • Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box.
      Silence the first, ban the second, and the third becomes inevitable.
      Done it twice so far, first when we agreed to stop being British subjects, second when we had a serious and bloody discussion over whether to remain a union of states.
      America is a family with all the bickering and disfunction that implies. Inevitably crazy aunt Shirley and daft uncle Ben will go hammer and tong at each other over the Christmas goose. Things either get resolved at least back to a slow simmer or they boil over and people die.
      Welcome to reality.
      What you seem to forget is that blood and gunsmoke and bodies hanging from the lampposts is the natural order of things. Just look at most of world history from time immemorial. Perhaps the most unique thing about America is that for the most part we hash things out before they get to that point.

      • “What you seem to forget is that blood and gunsmoke and bodies hanging from the lampposts is the natural order of things” – Uncle Lar

        I haven’t forgotten it.

        I’ve seen it in practice in the Brazilian highlands and Peru when the Path was active in the early 1980s.

        Political change always comes out of the barrel of a Winchester.

        I am rather hoping for a way to forestall it for awhile here, until other means and avenues can bypass the political and hopefully find solutions that are less hard on the scenery and the polity.

        Changing hearts and minds by the machete is effective, but not pretty.

      • You’re forgetting one of the Four Boxes of Freedom: The jury box.
        Granted, the powers-that-be have been constraining that one as hard or even harder than the others over the last century-and-a-third. Still, I think a robust informed jury system would help postpone if not eliminate the impending train wreck.

        • Possibly.

          I suspect that I overlooked the Jury Box because in my mind, that one has been hopelessly made irrelevant over the past four decades as one of the bastion Boxes of defense. I could be wrong, but I generally don’t count it as anything except for another institution stolen in the Long March, other than as a last ditch battleground at the Supreme Court level.

          It could also be that I’ve always seen it as the “Three Box Problem” going back to how it was presented to us in grade school and early high school. and referred to by most of my ideological lights such as Col. Cooper.

          • When do we ever get jury trials? DAs have plea bargaining down to an evil science. You need strong character and deep pockets to get to a jury.

            • Hence “hopelessly irrelevant” to the discussion, eh? *grin*

            • Not to mention nerves of steel, because DAs overcharge precisely to get a plea. And a jury is always a gamble.

              • There are laws on the books specifically as “enhancement” charges.

                That’s is why you’ll see a Grand Jury return a true bill with one of the charges being “Possession of Burglary Tools, to wit, a flashlight.” How many of us are breaking that law right now? Or “Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, to wit, tin foil.”

                The whole point of those charges is to give the ADA extra poker chips to bargain with: “If you’ll plead guilty we’ll drop charge X.”

                • Yes. I said an evil science. Despicable A$$hole and assistant DAs

                • Meh. *waves negligently*

                  You are right, I was wrong. I’ll stipulate that you are correct and that I left off one of the Boxes.

                  I don’t believe that that changes the essential argument, and as snelson134 and oldgriz have demonstrated, the Jury Box has been rendered as effectively null as the soapbox and the Ballot Box. So even if I had remembered it, I would have filed it up above Cartridge Box with the other two corners.

                  So where does that leave us?

    • An invitation to go live in the place that is so often praised, has been the method I’ve used. “You seem to like (place that’s being lauded as so much better), why haven’t you moved there instead?” I’ll ask.

      *squawk* “What?!” the (insert)-phille says. “What are you talking about?”

      “Well, it’s obvious that you’re not happy here*, but you seem like you’ll be happy over there. Why not migrate to where you’ll be happy, which has a culture and mindset that is not here?”

      “But I (insert excuse, usually involving money or work problems); so I can’t go, and why shouldn’t (place where complainer is) change for my idea of better?”

      “But that’s not what this place’s culture is like, and as someone who migrated, I don’t want this place to change to the way you want, because then it will no longer be the place I wanted to live in, the place where my heart felt home. If I can move to somewhere I wanted to be with all my heart, to where I’m happy to be, then surely, you could too.”

      (*I left it as ‘place’ because I’ve had this discussion when I wanted to live in America, and when I fell in love with Australia, but it’s a discussion that’s valid for different places.)

      • This is one of the great features of America. Lots of variety. There is probably somewhere you will fit in. Then again, so many people moved to California that it changed into somewhere I didn’t want to live.
        Reno is a mamma bear town. Not too big or small, just right.

        • The funny thing is, I grew up dreaming of living in the US, where I felt I would find a place to belong.

          Then I walked under the Australian sky and fell in love with the place, in a way that had nothing to do with the man I was standing with.

          I don’t doubt that there would be a place for me in the US; and I count myself lucky to have found more than one place where I felt I could belong.

    • I remember some sort of Bill Whittle discussion on this. His proposal is to simply ignore them. Route around whatever laws and taxes they might try to enforce. Do what you can to contain and quarantine the damage that they might do, and then go on to do your own thing. Seek out a free life, to the best of your ability.

      And while we shouldn’t be out there trying to start a revolution, we should be ready to defend ourselves, if it comes down to that. To that extent, we need to be armed, and familiar with our arms. We should also prepare ourselves for disruptions to food supply, and for general disasters as well; that way, even if fighting doesn’t come our way, any fighting that might disrupt our lives, will have less of an impact on us.

      And always, ALWAYS, look to advance liberty, when we can do so!

      • YellowShapedBox

        Yes, the Common Sense Resistance. I’ve taken that deeply to heart ever since he proposed it. (Though I call it the Harry Tuttle Society; better emphasis on fixing things.) He can’t commit to any major projects, sure, but what’s that to us?

  9. You were born in Portugal. I was born here. My grandmother, of English descent, was born outside of Appomatox in 1889. When that side arrived here, how far back, I have no clue. I have no Oath to take. I am American. I could move anywhere in the world, Portugal perhaps, become a citizen, and only to that extent lay any claim to now being other. Being American is more than mere law, just as being woman is more than a Judicial pronouncement. I could never – be – Portuguese.

    You’re on the road to being American. But you, Sarah, shall never get there. Not possible. You kinda get it, to a degree. Yes, you think you have it, in your heart. I think of that as having a serious desire to find out what it is about. Wonderful. Unlike you, though, I don’t need to find out what it is about. I have a lineage history within it; I was born into it. We appreciate you, Sarah. You are welcome here. But don’t for one minute think you’ve arrived at being American. You have nothing, other than by law, to hang your hat on.

    I didn’t come here to be entertaining, Sarah. I also no more wish to explain what it is to be American. That is what you are figuring out. That’s what being on the road is about. But on the road you are. You have not arrived. Perhaps your grandchildren will. Perhaps.

    • TL/DR. Wait, magic dirt made you American? Being born here confers some undefinable quality. Got it. You’re as American as Obama and Hillary. Thank you for explaining that.

      • “Being born here confers some undefinable quality.” That, along with having a lineage history. Your having a lineage history and being born in Portugal confers an undefinable Portuguese quality. Doesn’t mean you have to like it. Whatever that quality is, I could never have, no matter how much I might argue otherwise.

        A zebra can try and change its stripes. Succeed or not, it’ll always be a zebra.

        • You really are just that stupid, aren’t you?

        • Robert Heinlein: “Men are not potatoes.” Nor zebras. We are endowed by the Creator with the capacity to choose. When you can show me a genetic marker for American as reliable as the Y chromosome for a man, we can talk. I won’t hold my breath.

          • I’ll also point out, that if there WERE a genetic marker for American, it would be the WORST possible thing: Because genetic markers can have tailored viruses built to go after them. And there would be.

            I’ve also been saying for quite a while that the worst thing for the homosexual would be to confirm a reliable genetic marker, for the same reason. Because once a test is developed, there will be many fewer born, and adults will simply be tested and executed wherever the law allows it, most notably in Islamic societies. Or someone in a lab will brew up a “cure.”

        • Ah, your family has been here a few generations and that makes you soooo much better than everyone who came later. Bull shit! My great grandmother was born on the Trail of Tears. Does that make me more American than you because of my Cherokee heritage? Or maybe the fact I can trace the Wilkinson side of the family back to New York and New Jersey prior to 1730? Or how about the fact that I qualify for DAR on two sides of my family? Then there are the three great grandfathers who served in the Civil War? Or the great uncles who served in WWI or my uncles who served in WWII?

          Are you saying that a child born here of illegal immigrant parents is more of an American than Sarah?

          You, sir, are full of it. An American is a citizen of this country, someone who loves this country and who will die to protect it and what it stands for. Right now, I know Sarah would do so willingly. You, I’m not so sure — not when you are spouting your exclusionary “I’m better than you” bullshit.

          • “Does that make me more American than you because of my Cherokee heritage?”
            That makes you Cherokee.

            “Are you saying that a child born here of illegal immigrant parents is more of an American than Sarah?”
            Absolutely not. They’re not American in the least unless one considers the legal status as anchor babies.

            “you are spouting your exclusionary “I’m better than you” bullshit.”
            Never said I’m better. You’re making shit up. I never said that. Being different /= better.

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              If your idea of What Is An American is based on both the “proper” race and “how long your ancestors were American”, then you fit into the racist category of “different”.

              • There is nothing racist about what is observably different, unless one is a Social Justice Warrior. You an SJW, Paul?

                • Blood-and-soil is irrelevant.

                • Declaring that race makes you special is racist, no matter who you associate with.

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  Nope and by my standards, you’re not a Real American and Sarah is.

                  • That’s a big part of the culture wars are about, defining what an American is. Obama’s definition is absolutely anybody who shows up to vote. Legal citizen or not.

                    • And I disagree with that. And with our stupid immigration policy. Both whom we let in, and whom we keep out, and also the fact we aren’t raising our kids to be Americans. (Well, YMMV. I raised mine to, but…)

                    • I disagree with that remark. Obama’s definition is absolutely anybody who shows up to vote … for the democractic party … Legal citizen or not. (also weather they are dead or alive / are the person that they are claiming to be / and the more times they vote the better

                • Except that what is observably different is culture far more than skin tone. And that can be transmitted….. if it’s allowed to be.

                  • Yes, and that takes time, so much time in fact that to become truly inculcated takes generations.

                    • “Yes, and that takes time, so much time in fact that to become truly inculcated takes generations.”

                      Hogwash, poppycock, and balderdash.

                    • This is VD’s bullshit. I can see it taking several generations to being fully civilized because part of it is a genetic selection thing, but in THAT case we’re all about somewhere close, myself included.
                      Several generations to be fully American? Oh, take a powder. You need to be an idiot to believe that.

                    • that to become truly inculcated takes generations.

                      I can see why you would think that. Since you haven’t been “inculcated” despite generations you assume it must be equally hard for others.

                    • It can take several generations. But only if you keep to your own ghetto and work real hard at not assimilating. Like some Islamic enclaves. Especially if you accept Saudi money to build a wahabi mosque.

                      Try to assimilate and becoming a true American occur swiftly.

                    • So if your “theory” (and I’m using that term liberally and with great charity) were true how do you explain those whose pedigrees go back to the founding of the Republic (*cough* John Kerry *cough*) who are most certainly less American and more Internationalist?

                    • How many generations?

                      How long, exactly, does it take to become ‘American’, by YOUR criteria?

                • Peter- you are an SJW. You have bought into the base SJW idea that Blood and Tribe are the most important thing. You have become the thing you hate.

              • To be fair, he’s exactly in line with Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

            • You’re the one who said you have to be born here to be American. I simply asked if one can be more American than others. As for making shit up, sorry, but no. You are the one who has basically said you are better, more American, than Sarah and others like her simply because you were born here. I suggest you quit moving the goal posts and actually think about what you said. Oh, and I notice you also make an exception for those born here but whose parents came here illegally. I guess that means you believe children should be punished for the crimes of their parents. I also notice you so conveniently did not address the question of those children born to US citizens while their parents are abroad.

              • “I also notice you so conveniently did not address the question of those children born to US citizens while their parents are abroad.”

                Where was that ever brought up? It’s also rather self-evident, no matter.

                “Oh, and I notice you also make an exception for those born here but whose parents came here illegally.”

                You have a comprehension problem concerning anchor babies.

                “You are the one who has basically said you are better, more American, than Sarah and others like her simply because you were born here.”

                More American, yes. Absolutely. I am, Sarah’s not but for legal status. Where did I ever say I was better? I don’t believe I ever used that word as to myself.

                You idiots cannot argue faithfully. You add words not said, argue with intellectual dishonesty, for example equating different with special, or better. You argue like leftists, like liberals.

                • So sorry, you and another of the idiots who seem to think the only way to be an American is to be born here are running together in my mind and trying to scroll through all the comments on my phone is problematical at best. As for all the rest of it, you come across as an idiot — one who would deny someone the right to call themselves American except with as asterisk by their name simply because they aren’t American. Sorry, but if someone chooses to come to this country, does so legally, goes through all the substantial — and often expensive — hoops this government puts in front of them to become a citizen then, yes, they are an American.

                  In fact, they are much more an American, imo, than someone born here who flees to another country because they don’t like who has been elected as President or who don’t like the tax code. They are the ones who do NOT have the right to call themselves American any longer — at least in my book.

            • “‘Does that make me more American than you because of my Cherokee heritage?’
              That makes you Cherokee. ” – PeterW

              No. Don’t know about Amanda’s particular case, but… in general: not unless one can trace lineage back to the original Tribal Rolls, in this case, IIRC, the Dawes Rolls. Blood quantum qualifies one as an Amerind of Cherokee extraction, but it requires verifiable documentation in addition to blood to be a member of the Tribe.

              The Cherokee Nation actually has membership immigration laws that they enforce. Ask the Cherokee Freedmen about that one.

              It’s why I can state that I’m a Cherokee National, but I am not a member of the Cherokee Nation, and any Tribal Member would be free – and right – to call me on it if I tried to say I was. My dad and grandfather had blood quantum, but not verifiable ancestors on the Tribal Rolls.

              • Interesting. Thank you. Though my retort was to her referencing her linkage to the Trail of Tears. That was sufficient.

                • Por nada.

                  I have ancestry from and linkage to the Trail of Tears as well, so it is a particular interest of mine.

        • PeterW thinks he is special because he was born in the United States. That’s so cute! Sorry, Peter, that makes you lucky, not special. That you think it makes you special makes you special education material because you probably don’t have much else going on for you. You may have been born here but you sound European. Beginning of the 20th Century European. So go back to whatever inbred little country you are actually from and leave the rest of us alone.

        • That, along with having a lineage history.

          “Lineage history?”

          You have NO idea what it means to be an American.

          • Yeah, someone missed that the flip side of “no corruption of blood” is “no ennoblement either.” Each generation pays for its’ own sins.

        • ” That, along with having a lineage history.”

          Ah… so not just magic dirt, but magic dirt combined with Lysenkoism. Got it.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      Perhaps, people like you would prefer that Sarah (and other immigrants) would be prevented from voting.

      After all they aren’t REAL Americans.

      • I’m going to follow that line of thought all the way through in the line of the context of the original post, ‘Drak, and you don’t mind.

        As the stated proposition is that America and American is a state of mind, and of shared ideas, ideals, beliefs, and propositions, then Mrs. Hoyt can be trusted to exercise the vote as she embodies those ideas and practices them. I can trust her to vote as an American, and in American interests, as she sees them to be.

        (Inasmuch as I trust anyone to vote on my interests and rights, which isn’t much, and isn’t far. I’m not a huge fan of any quorum of wolves voting on dinner when all too often it seems that I’m the deer about to become an entree.)

        However, I believe that the concept requires that any number of nominally U.S. citizens of the Left should be denied the franchise, or have it revoked: because they observably do not share those ideas and ideals, and will actively and often maliciously vote to destroy those fundamental and foundational ideas.

        A Nation of Ideas demands some form of ideological component to qualifying for the franchise, else it will cease to exist as nominal citizens who do not share those ideas and do not value them will vote to eliminate them. H. L. Mencken summed it up pretty nicely, as have others.

        *shrug* Not theoretical. I have watched it happen in my own lifetime, and we are seeing it happen right now in real time.

        If you don’t, won’t, or can’t defend the ideas and ideals from those who will demonstrably vote to eradicate them, then can a nation of ideas exist? Or continue to exist?

        • We were able to sustain a nation of ideas as long as America remained a melting pot. New admixtures would slowly change the alloy but freedom remained the main component.

          Now we have people pushing the multicultural salad bowl. Salads won’t stick together and they can be drowned in the currently fashionable ideological dressing.

          • I agree to some extent, on some parts of that, and with some quibbles, 0ldgriz.

            However, I’m starting to get too burnt out to typo coherently, at least while maintaining a viable train of thought. I think I’ll sleep on it, and then possibly come back to this.

            The multicultural salad bowl, however, is the primary example that I was thinking of in my comment, as well as the complementary and equally toxic ideas of multi-culturalism itself, transnational progressivism, and identity politics.

            Multi-culturalism and transnationalism are symptoms of a deeper root ideological cancer that’s been expressed in the form of memetic warfare – and spread through colonization of institutions and embedded in the body politic via the use of and the expansion of the voting franchise – which goes back far before the mass immigration waves of the fifties to the Wilsononian era and the FDR era.

            Marxism, communism, and fascistic economic principles were toxic ideas that were politically embedded during the FDR era, and then spread through the voting politic and further propagated. And they are toxic: if allowed to spread, and allowed to grow, they kill other ideas. Now, we can add Islamicism, Muslim ideology, Sharia, and neo-Marxism to the list along with post-Modernism and a number of other toxic ideologies. And we’re importing new carriers into the body politic in droves, and our esteemed opponents on the Left are determined to use them to vote the Nation of Ideas into the dustbin of history. (Especially since they can’t seem to kill it dead any other way.)

            So.

            What’s the current inoculation for that? Is there one? Is there a way to maintain and defend a nation of ideas without disenfranchising those who demonstrably don’t share those ideas, even though they be born here?

            Saying that “We were able to sustain a nation of ideas as long as America remained a melting pot,” is true, but not useful in that context. The America that was is dead dead, and toxic ideas introduced, propagated, and made colour of law and custom by our supposed fellows murdered it – using the power of the vote, among other weapons.

            I find Mrs. Hoyt’s concept of a prospective nation formed of ideas, ideals, and based upon shared experiences and principles to be aesthetically pleasing. I also see it as being extremely vulnerable, and demonstrably difficult to defend – unless one is willing to go all the way to the walls in eradicating ideas that are toxic to it, which our relatively recent ancestors didn’t. (I strongly suspect that they didn’t truly see the danger and the toxicity of Marxism until it was too late, or even really recognize what was killing us even then.)

            The extremes required to protect those ideas from those who would destroy them with toxic ones are unpalatable as well, and not the least bit aesthetically or otherwise pleasing to me.

            I find that to be depressing, and without hope of a resolution that is not borne of fire and blood.

            Ah gotta confess, Oldgriz, that as my hope dies, my ancestral barbarian and my Inner Klingon finds the idea of an ending in “blood and gunsmoke and rope and lamppost” to be increasingly pleasant to the nose and ears.

            I’m not completely all the way to the “burn it all the f*ck down” stage yet, but I have plenty of popcorn and Smores makings, and I am more than happy to enjoy warming my hands on the flames when it happens.

            • OK. The melting pot metaphor isn’t perfect. Some alloys are better some worse and others are totally effing useless. The big problem with freedom is how to protect it for totalitarian philosophies such as Marxism and Islam? You can’t just ban them or freedom is gone. But both are working hard to destroy Western civilization. I can see problems. I’m having trouble seeing solutions.

              I don’t think Trump has any good solutions. Hillary and Bernie are part of the problem. Cruz just can’t seem to get traction. Alas, rhetoric trumps dialectic in politics

              • “I don’t think Trump has any good solutions. Hillary and Bernie are part of the problem. Cruz just can’t seem to get traction. Alas, rhetoric trumps dialectic in politics” – 0ldgriz

                That it does.

                Let’s not get diverted into a Trump discussion at this point, and say we did, if we must. I left my “Anti-Trump vs Pro-Trump” ammunition at home and came wearing my “What is an American?” bandoleer. Besides, I get plenty of Trump discussion to chew on over at Insty’s with every Ed Driscoll post. *grin*

                I’ll just fall back on my Billy Beck and observe that: “There are no political solutions to the problems created by politics.” Trump isn’t a Savior, nor is Cruz. The solutions will have to come from outside of politics, and by means that bypass the political and render it irrelevant.

                “The big problem with freedom is how to protect it for totalitarian philosophies such as Marxism and Islam?” – Oldgriz

                Yes. The crux of the issue. (I read “for” as a typo for “from”.)

                “You can’t just ban them or freedom is gone.” – Oldgriz

                We may have to, or freedom will be gone regardless.

                I’ll submit that we are not required to swallow poisonous ideas into the body politic when they are proven to be of a nature that will destroy what we are trying to preserve along with that freedom.

                I’ll submit as well that when it comes to Islam and Islamicism, we have the embedded precedent under both rule of law, and colour of law for restricting the importation of new carriers of that ideology, in the various Immigration Acts.

                We have precedent under law for controlling our Southern Border in the Border Wall Act of 2006. (I believe that’s close enough to what it’s called. I didn’t do a Google search to refresh my memory.)

                “But both are working hard to destroy Western civilization.” – Oldgriz

                Visibly, in Western Europe. I foresee France, Germany, and Sweden being increasingly surrounded by a wall of countries that have elected to close their borders, and Britain leaving the EU in the visible future. I see a meltdown over there coming in the near future that will visibly and irrevocably color the course of this year’s elections here.

                It doesn’t get a whole lot of mainstream press, but it’s there here as well if you look for it. There’s actual blood being spilled in the South and West Texas border country over immigration invasion now, and has been. It’s why I say that it may end in blood and gunsmoke: if Hillary or Bernie are elected, then Texas may well secede sooner rather than late, of necessity, and then we will solve that problem one way or another. And just as it was at the Alamo and San Jacinto, a lot of the guns aiming south will be held by people with Spanish surnames.

                America may or may not be a nation of ideas alone, but Texas definitely has a long standing tradition of [slow drawl] “Well, you may not have been borned here, but you got here as fast as you could.”

                And that happens, I’ll probably end up dying on the Texas-Oklahoma-Texarkana border when the United States decides to take violent exception to the New Texas Republic through force of arms and colour of law.

                “I can see problems. I’m having trouble seeing solutions. ” – Oldgriz

                Therein lies the problem.

                I see solutions. None of them are pretty. None of them are really palatable to a civilized mind.

                A component of the problem is that very few people see them without flinching away and declaring them non-solutions while hastily shying off and changing the subject – and that may make them inevitable.

                I am not civilized. I am an unreconstructed barbarian. I tend to look and follow ideas through to the conclusion no matter how unpleasant, even when I want to flinch away.

                And when I follow Mrs. Hoyt’s post all the way through the web of ideas and concepts, and where it seems to inevitably lead, I can see the shadows coming. I do not see a peaceful path through those shadows. I foresee terrible troubles.

                *shrug* Ah well. I was beginning to be afraid that I’d die in bed. *grin*

          • And this is what I fight. Multiculti is poison.

          • “Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

            The opinion advanced is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?
            – Alexander Hamilton

            Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?
            – Ben Franklin

            The melting pot idea, applied to America, began in 1908, and if viewed through the quotes above, was quite radical. One may argue as one may, but that’s a fact. Nothing ahistorical about it.

            America as a nation of ideas have origin in English ideas; ~English Common Law. People can restate history as they see fit, as benefits them, but the truth, ugly or not, remains.

            • Given that Franklin was proven wrong about who would assimilate who, Jefferson never really did grasp how far to take his ideas, and Hamilton was mostly concerned about first-generation immigrants–and, for that matter, that men like Lincoln were advocating for the melting pot idea in the 1850s, even if he didn’t use the words–you are still wrong.

              Good day sir.

    • As mentioned above, my family’s been here longer than yours has. So, by your own logic, I know more about being an American than you do.
      Therefore, let me be blunt here.
      You know nothing about being an American, if you think Sarah Hoyt has not arrived at it.

    • Enjoy your feewings of supewiowity. They’re all you got.

      • He’s a prime example of this Heinlein quote:

        “This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.”

        Unfortunately, when humoring them leads to “blood and soil”, the last sentence of that quote is disastrously wrong.

      • Ironically, this git is drifting into the very thing the that drives the SJW’s- the idea that Blood and Tribe are the most important thing.

    • You’re not entertaining, shit git. You’re a fucking moron, and you don’t DESERVE the citizenship of this great nation.

    • Peter, the difference is the sex is a matter of physical fact. Nationality a matter of law. See the mayflower compact.

    • . I have no Oath to take.

      In other words, “ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.”

      The oath doesn’t necessarily have to be spoken, but it often is. But if you truly feel you have no oath to take… that you owe no allegiance, but are owed benefits (real or virtual)… then I don’t think you’re what people here are talking about when they say “American.”

      • “I, David Burkhead, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegience to same. That I will obey the orders of the President, and the officers appointed over me according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

        I swore that oath 36 years ago. I word it slightly differently today when I reaffirm it based on different beliefs I hold today. I’m no longer subject to the UCMJ nor military regulations so the part about obeying orders no longer applies. The rest does.

        That’s my oath.

        • I swore the same (or similar) one in 1979. still take it serious.
          I still rise for the national anthem (ever when played BADLY by a high school band)
          I served (navy). voluntary . I did not run to another country during the draft.
          here is a word for those who are arguing what is/not an American……………….DUTY………………….
          something our hostist understands

        • I was never able to swear that oath (the USMC took exception to the childhood asthma on my medical records… three separate occasions…) However I have taken a similar one as a civilian:

          “I, Lewis Aaron Peterson, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Election Board Worker according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm). ”

          In fact I had to repeat that every election day before being allowed to accept the ballots as they came into the Elections office from the various precincts.

    • Patrick Chester

      You were born in Portugal. I was born here. My grandmother, of English descent, was born outside of Appomatox in 1889. When that side arrived here, how far back, I have no clue. I have no Oath to take. I am American.

      Nope. You were just born here.
      *snip rest of “magic dirt” (heh) bs*

    • “. My grandmother, of English descent, was born outside of Appomatox in 1889.”

      Ooooooo, 1889! I am impressed.

      Parvenu.

      All of my ancestors were here by the 1750s (i.e., before there was a United States), with some here by the 1630s, so I’m going to unilaterally declare that you don’t have enough “lineage” to to be an American. Not here at the start, not an American. Works for me.

      Go home, limey.

  10. This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.

    Haven’t actually finished reading the post yet, but had to respond to this.

    Eric Flint touched on that attitude in his novel 1632. When Gretchen’s family meets the schoolteacher they automatically assume she’s a duchess because of that simple American “I’m as good as anybody” attitude. One might argue that that’s an outmoded attitude but I saw it when I was stationed in England.

    My wife, as folk here know, is Japanese. I love her dearly, but she is not, I’m afraid, an “American born elsewhere”. She came over here to go to school and it was her marriage to me that led to her staying. Nevertheless it’s interesting to see some of the dynamic between her and the Japanese folk at SIA (Subaru of Indiana Automotive–that awkward name a legacy of it originally being Subaru Isuzu of American and wanting to keep the logo and acronym after Isuzu left). She’s become Americanized enough that some of those interactions are…uncomfortable. She will probably never be comfortably Japanese again although she tries to ignore that.

    Americans are different from their forebears in Europe and it’s not a matter of blood. It’s a matter of attitude. I’ve met people born elsewhere who are wonderful examples of that–Our hostess Sarah, MadMike, other folk I know over on Facebook. And, sadly, I’ve met people born here who are not.

    • An interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing.

    • It just occurred to me that this is a marker that would strongly indicate that a SciFi novel is written by an American. I often see stories with alien races being structured by rank or caste or some equivalent, and finding humans hard to work with because they don’t recognize such distinctions. Given that other countries are so much more tied to such distinctions, they would probably not include such a thing, unless they singled out Americans as being unable to go along with class distinctions.

    • That’s a familiar story. I was too German, too American, too Westernized, in my upbringing, that I did not fit in – I was too blunt and honest, too forward, ‘not Filipina enough’ – and so on and so forth, along with the uncomfortable clashes of culture you mention. I’m a third culture kid; and for years my siblings and I did not feel at home anywhere really.

      America for years sounded like a place I could find people who weren’t too different from me. There are differences in the details, but I discovered that Australia was someplace I could be myself too. In that, I’m lucky. There’re two places in the world that I could happily live. ^.^

  11. There’s a lot of conflating of culture and place because until VERY recently, they overlapped so completely it was hard to tell the difference–and most people were unable or unwilling to look. Drawing lines on a map around groups of people who have lived there since the Neolithic does not suddenly make them a “nation”, and revolutionary manifestos enforced by violence on a cowed populace do not make a government one of “ideas.”

    Further, America has selected for and continues to select for people who come across a new concept, pick it up by the tail, and say “Hmm. This could be useful!” instead of running around screaming about the strange monster. Which is not the marker of a culture bound by history and the soil. This is probably why America is messy and always will be. People who like spiffy uniforms and giant coordinated gymnastic exercises are encouraged to look elsewhere.

    • If you look at an ethnographic map of Europe in the 19th century you see people scattered all over. The aftermath of WWII saw people either voluntarily or forcibly being repatriated to their national homelands. Pure nation-states are fairly new.

      • The Other Sean

        Between wars changing borders, migrations, and the Habsburg tendency to repopulate with German settlers any areas of their empire hard hit by war and raiding, populations were quite intermixed in portions of central and eastern Europe prior to WWII.

        • Look, guys, I grew up there. EVERY area in Europe is mixed. There have been mass migrations from country to country as little wars took up. When Larry said most of his DNA was from the British isles and was surprised by this I said “DUH. Most settlers in Azores were from the North of Portugal.” We all still look like murder-tribe-mediterraneans and mine and Larry’s eldest could be siblings. It’s a small country. New DNA is absorbed and passed around. And everyone is cousins. BUT ancestry is far more complex than tribe. Anyone who doesn’t think so doesn’t understand humans.

    • “Further, America has selected for and continues to select for people who come across a new concept, pick it up by the tail, and say ‘Hmm. This could be useful!’ instead of running around screaming about the strange monster” – sabrinachase

      In the case of that new concept called “Marxism”, a bit more selection for screaming “Monster!” and then beating the concept to death with a shovel could have proven useful.

      That particular new concept has been the death of a lot of older and far more preferable concepts in the Nation of Ideas.

      • I wouldn’t say older or more preferable to the US, but I think you mean preferable to the Marxist concept? In which case you’re right. It’s a virus.

        • Yes. Directly to the Marxist/Communist/Socialism concept. Apologies if I was unclear on that.

          That idea should have been beaten to death with a shovel and thrown on a trash fire, not picked up by the tail and examined and played with.

          Selection for screaming “Monster!” and then beating the Marxist concept to death with a shovel could have proven extremely useful to the U.S. and America. Woulda saved us a lot of heartache and erosion of our country.

          Not all ideas are worth playing with in the hopes that there might be use in them. Unless it is in the vein of, “At the very least, you can serve as a useful example of what not to do.”

          And I say that as someone who picked up a baby rattlesnake as a kid and brought it home for a pet. *grin* My parents, sadly, made me release it back into the wild.

          • Yeah, but unfortunately the marxist idea plugs right in to some basic monkey ideas. And so it’s been around in proto form that we can trace since the Romans. Maybe before that. Sigh. And in the Marxist form, it’s like a fucking vampire. You stake it and stake it and stake it and it WON’T DIE.

          • The thing is, as most kids tend to go looking to play with the very thing Mom warned them not to. Spend too much time decrying the evil of something, and you can make it hip.

      • In the case of that new concept called “Marxism”, a bit more selection for screaming “Monster!” and then beating the concept to death with a shovel could have proven useful.

        …damnit. Cola. Nose. giggles. Because yes, that’s true and I agree.

        *hunts for tissues*

  12. Sarah, you surely know that if you move into a village from afar the original old villagers will always call you a foreigner, even if you live there for 90 years. Your “I am an american” (by idea) thing is perfectly correct, and backed up and signed off on by legal immigration paperwork; – and Vox knows this. He also knows that it is incorrect and incompatible with regard to the “not born here – so is a foreigner” (original villagers ideal).

    The two ideas are both necessary.

    Vox is trying to instruct people in “intellectual warfare” – to help people fight against marxist ideological warfare which is being waged against the western world. For him to allow your “anyone who believes they are an american – automatically ‘IS’ ” ideal to go unchallanged would be extremely foolish on his part, for it is the idealogical welcome mat to open borders – where anyone is free to enter once they “feel” they belong. He must and is logically correct to shout out the difference. Vox knows that if he doesn’t call you out on it – and fully attack your ideal- it will be used by his and your enemies to harm you both.

    Vox is trying to instruct his followers and you in the art of not being “nice” – because inherent niceness is the lever that marxists(socialists/islamists/SJW’s / etc, whatever name they choose) use to force others to follow their agenda and bow to their will. “Nice” / “Polite” / “Compromise” are the leverage tools that got the western world into this fix. Vox sees how your “I am an american – because I believe so” ideal can be used against you. He also is showing his followers how not to compromise on the integrity of logical processes – especially thoughts expressed amongst friends and fellow travellers. That is a difficult thing to teach because it causes friction amongst friends. But is one of the most important tools to learn.

    Niceness, politeness and compromise are some of the oils of Western thinking and Christianity – but they have been weaponised by the leftists against us.

    He is teaching those willing to learn how to fight back against that. It’s not pretty but it’s neither wrong nor bad. It just is what it is – a tool to be used for fighting your common enemy.

    Look on his posts not as rants against you, but as instruction on how not to be compromised by niceness. That way you wont be hurt by his attacks on what is obviously a core belief of yours.

    I’m sure this screed of mine is not saying anything you don’t know – as I have seen you write about personally dealing with socialists in a not-nice fashion.

    • I have yet to find one thing I need Vox to instruct me on. I’ll admit some of his ideas, sometimes apply to some European countries. Here? no.

      • Further, the idea that someone thinking they are American=unrestricted immigration is prancing nonsense. It means you can be “American” anywhere. Americans are very keen on the rule of law. Americans born elsewhere who want to live in the geographic boundaries of the country of the United States of America follow existing immigration law. I really don’t see the peril I’m being saved from here.

        • I believe VD sees the world in black and white while it’s being illuminated by a single intense spotlight. While Sarah brings her own light and tries to examine the world from many angles. They both agree that Marxist SJWs are the enemy of freedom, but they see America from decidedly different angles.

        • The peril is in how the “ideal” is a leverage point: If (resident american) person ‘A’ can be an american be mere belief then politician/activist ‘Q’ can say “We are being horrid to poor foreign people ‘B’,’C’ and ‘D’ for not letting them into the country when they too believe they are american just like person ‘A’, so they must be physically allowed in to america too or else we are just haters and nazis.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            And of course, it’s better to say “The Only Real Americans are those who have ancestors born in America”. [Sarcasm]

            • For Vox it actually is! In fact he more or less HAS to do so to show a physical property of how reality differs from intellectual ideal.

          • I think I should point out where VD is wrong about Sarah: he’s assuming that Sarah is saying “If you think you’re American, you are!” But what Sarah is really saying (and a lot of us are saying this) is “if you yearn for freedom, if you are the captain of your own destiny regardless of where people try to pigeonhole you, if you have this weird paradoxical respect for the law except when you don’t (because it violates your conscience, perhaps, or more fundamentally, you assume that that which is not forbidden is allowed), and if you like to tinker with the status quo to see how it might be improved, you just might be an American, even if you don’t know it yet–and if you don’t have any of this, you probably aren’t American, even if you are an Nth Generation American Citizen”.

      • Ah! The idea of “here” is the problem point. Where is the “here” to be agreed upon, when you are talking about an ideal/a way of living and he is talking of a very specific physical space lived in by very specific people?

        You are tweaking his buttons by merely publicising your ideals – ideals which he then has to step on – to highlight for his followers the difference between an ideal and a reality.

        It isn’t his personal ideas you need to learn – just familiarise yourself with how he uses the older ideas that he espouses: especially his use of Rhetoric, and the fact that he’s acting a part.

        • Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for one to just say what they mean, let their “yes be yes”, and stick with that?
          Vox is becoming more and more like the SJW’s he rails against- a photo negative, to be sure- but the image is the same.

          • Now matter how well we say what we mean it will always be misinterpreted by someone with an agenda. Using rhetoric gets around that problem by forcing the other person to abandon their agenda process. It’s a tactic that people on the right don’t use because -mostly they are afraid of losing their social standing. That and other tactics to avoid falling into SJW traps is what Vox uses (as a blatant means of instruction) on his blog.

            • Yeah, no. Double speak, weasel words, and rhetorical flim-flam is a bunch of nonsense, and again, this too is a sign that Vox is, at his core, becoming more and more like the SJW’s.

              • I think it was someone on here who described VD as “a moderately horrible person, who uses rhetorical tricks to make himself seem an extremely horrible person.”
                For my money, the man liked to tap dance on the line between pointing out the obvious and judging by the group, between pointing out where the enemies of liberty were successful and outright admiring them.
                Now he’s crossing the line. The SJWs helped make him, but he took the chance they gave him and ran with it.
                He is the Stalin of the Puppies, and always will be.

              • Joe in PNG – my laptop disappeared my first reply – so don’t be surprised if a similar comment pops up somewhere else in the comment string.

                Only Vox can say what Vox is at his core – his blog is mostly him acting a part.

                Rhetoric is paradoxically nonsense and greater sense. It works. It works because it relies on internal imagery (feelings/emotions) rather than just grammatical information. The only sign that it shows is that Vox studied himself part of the western canon – some Ancient Greek philosophy.

                The proof that rhetoric works can be seen in how it instantly creates divides and changes opinions – instantly!

                • “The proof that rhetoric works can be seen in how it instantly creates divides and changes opinions – instantly!”
                  So does spitting in a person’s face- but that’s usually not the way to go.

                  • True – I think that’s probably why Vox keeps harping on about having muscles and being not afraid to use them!

                    • The thing is, you’re not winning friends and converts.
                      Yeah, you may win an argument, but you’ll lose the battle.
                      Vox is becoming the SJWs- that is losing.

                    • That should have read: “I think that’s why Vox keeps harping on about his having big muscles..” These pincers a messing up my typing.

                    • “Vox keeps harping on about having muscles and being not afraid to use them!”

                      When he does that he sounds like a thirteen year old in a junior high locker room.

                      Sam Colt lived quite a long time ago, you know?

                    • Sam Colt lived quite a long time ago, you know?

                      Well said Dr Locketopus. It was told to me that my great-grandfather was a very large, very powerful man, who died youngish (around 50s IIRC), shot because his killer feared him so – and the jury acquitted him.

                      If Vox isn’t careful, he’ll find himself gunned down as well, and his killer will walk free thanks to all the bragging on said blog providing his defense an easy case.

      • As far as I’m concerned Vox has opted out of being an American. Why, I don’t know. But he can’t sit in that palace of his over in Italy and tell the people who actually LIVE here and have to deal with the problems first hand, who is and isn’t an American. If Vox wants to talk about being an American he should BE one not just whine about it. He’s lost what little respect I’ve had for him lately.

        • I think it dates from his cuckservative book. He has reasons now to take potshots at anyone who doesn’t toe his exact particular line.

      • Here? no.

        Not even when our intellectual betters are trying to turn “here” into Europe?

    • Michael Brazier

      “For him to allow your “anyone who believes they are an american – automatically ‘IS’ ” ideal to go unchallanged”

      Strawman. No one becomes an American just by saying or believing “I am American”. One becomes American by believing in liberty under the law, by wishing to be neither master nor servant to any other man, but a free and equal citizen, by accepting that liberty is natural to man as such and not created by human law, and therefore that any state which presumes to deny liberty is illegitimate.

      Ted Beale, in his rejection of the Left and all its works, has thrown out the baby with the bathwater – because the Left claims to be founded on general moral principles, Beale rejects all general moral principles as fantasy, and builds his political system on tribal affinity. By doing so he follows the same path that the Right in Europe did in reaction to Karl Marx – and the Left has mined that path, and set up its guns to target it, long ago.

      Beale may have useful tactical suggestions on dealing with people who have abandoned logic and reason. So did Ayn Rand in her day. But the doctrines he personally believes are no better grounded than Rand’s.

      • He’s become European through and through. He doesn’t wish the US well (doesn’t take much reading to see him gloating at potential destruction of the US. And all I have to do to attract his attention and unhinge him is say the US will survive, even though I don’t direct it at him.)
        Under those circumstances for any American to follow his lead on things like presidential nominations is insane.
        I don’t wish VD any harm — in fact, he’s pretty much irrelevant to me, in any way our paths intersect — and his ideas might yet win out in Europe. For America they’re a poison pill and as bad as Obama’s.
        So, I ignore him, while he rages and bends the cage bars every time I post anything that counters his assumptions. Shrug. It seems to make him happy and it hurts no one. All those who post here in support (eh, I can’t approve them where I am, so all those posting for the first time you don’t see. Most of them are lecturing me on Ein Reich, Ein Volk. Blah) are sheeple and would follow SOMEONE anyway. The only thing they do by following VD is giving the American right a bad name.
        How does it go? I don’t care! That’s it.

        • I do hope I’m not included on that. I take my own lead subjects like this, and upon things like presidential nominations, insane or not.

          Sanity is highly overrated, anyway. Insanity doesn’t run in my family – it ambles along enjoying the scenery and waving at all the nice people.

          This just happened to be a set of posts here recently that caught my attention and piqued my interest enough to get me to comment.

          • I’m not 100% sure about you yet. No aspersions, but it takes me a while to trust someone. However for someone to whom I gave an annoyed answer right off, you stuck around and made rational argument, so I believe you may turn out to be all right.
            No, I’m talking about the pseudo wits in not approved comments, yelling I’m an “invader-American” and telling me to go home. To those, I encourage contemplation of my complete set of middle fingers.

            • You did? *blink* Where? I must’ve missed that one. Previous thread, possibly?

              “No, I’m talking about the pseudo wits in not approved comments, yelling I’m an “invader-American” and telling me to go home. To those, I encourage contemplation of my complete set of middle fingers.” – Mrs. Hoyt

              Ah. I try to be civil and rational even if I’m not civilized.

              “No aspersions, but it takes me a while to trust someone. ”

              Meh. No worries. I trust very seldom these days, and and I generally take a long time to get to that point with someone.

              Hell… it took me reading here since Sad Puppies 2 for me to even decide that I liked the community here enough to increase my internet footprint enough to start commenting. I only began commenting at Glenn’s recently again because I’ve been an InstaPundit reader and commenter since he was on his own server, way back when.

        • Sarah, Yes, Vox’s supporters “Ein Reich, Ein Volk” thing is a sign of sheeple. It’s also a sign of them learning pride in themselves. White males are the target of most of socialism’s venom. His sheeple are awkwardly learning to be proud of their heritage again. That isn’t a bad thing in itself – all other cultures and races aren’t called nazis for wanting to be themselves.

          White boys aren’t allowed to even think that they have a good cultural history! Hitler really cast the die for white nationalism. How can white boys promote white positives without looking like nazis? It’s a tough sell – especially when the media is SJW.

          Vox’s take on America’s inability to integrate immigrants as proof of the failure of the ideal of an America of the mind seems to be based on the lack of integration by immigrants (especially since 1965). I think he’s wrong about the reasons for that. The failure is due to political agendas not down to an inherent failure of the ideal. Unfortunately the ideal can be used to screw the system – but then – any ideal can (including Vox’s take on necessary physical homogeneity) – all it takes is good imagination. Without the reworking of ideals we’d have no good Science Fiction.

          Modify your ideal so that it spreads outwards to be applicable to other countries rather than indrawing them to merely the US lands and Vox’s logic must give. If the American landmasses suddenly vanished wouldn’t your USAians evangelise outwards?

          • 1. There is no such thing as “whiteness.” Race is a social construct. I have no racial pride, nor racial guilt, either. This, by the way, is the problem with the SJWs and VD.

            2. If there were such a thing as “whiteness,” VD is bound and determined to bring out the worst of it–the same thing with masculinity, by the way. It’s like trying to cure an inferiority complex with a superiority complex.

            3. TL/DR–if VD told his readers to take pride in the things they did, and do what was right and refuse to take responsibility for things other people did, I could tolerate his abrasiveness. But that isn’t what he does.

            • 60guilders, 1. Saying “there’s no such thing as (____) doesn’t make it disappear. Likewise – you may have no racial pride… but that only holds true until someone else decides you do. Getting to tell others what they are is part of the human condition.

              2. I have no idea what Vox will or will not do except that he surely will cause both good and bad. Unfortunately for us poor humans whether a thing is for the best or the worst is often merely dependent on the length of time from which we look back on it.

              3. Vox is teaching the stripping away of niceties because niceties are destructive in the hands of SJW’s. He does this by example – its not nice. If he attempted to do it nicely it would be nicely ignored.

              • 1. Nope, sorry. I know what’s in my head. You can tell me I have racial pride, and I can also tell you that your eyes are brown.

                2. VD willfully sows the wind. He will not like what he sows.

                3. You are mistaken, sir. What I am advocating is most certainly not “nice.” These are not “niceties,” sir, these are necessities for society to function properly. And what I am advocating would see me denounced by VD and SJWs–which I consider to be a good place to stand.

                • According to the avatar – my body is green and my pincers are red – that’s what it decided – not me. Though having red pincers sure makes typing difficult.

                  You are correct – Vox isn’t just abrasive. He knows that that isn’t enough. He knows this because he appears to have studied the fall of Rome and similarly the rise of Communists and Nazis and SJW’s. He knows that signs and words are not enough to stop their advance. So he is apparently trying to find methods that do work against them.

                  Always be aware that when you stand in the middle of the road it’s the thing coming up behind you that you gets you – not the thing you were being careful to watch for.

                  • Funny enough, the Germans, Italians, and Spanish tried to avoid the rise of Bolshevism by adopting their methods, and pretty much got the exact same thing.

                    • They were all pretty much shades of the same thing (socialism) from the get go.

                    • Yes, and no. There were a lot of groups with diverse interest that hitched their wagon Shicklegruber and co. during his march to power. Many of whom were not socialist, or were flatly anti-Bolshevik.
                      Again, they made a deal with a Fascist to avoid the Bolsheviks, and would up with the same thing.

                  • I know where my opponents are. I’ve got reds to my left, browns to my right, the bureaucrats at my back, and terrorists to my front.

              • If VD is trying to get Brits and Germans and other Europeans to take pride in their cultures and peoples again, that is a good thing. We Americans are NOT European even if the culture is the culmination of Western civilization. Or was. The SJWs are pushing us backwards.

                • The biggest problem with this ‘white pride’ and similar nonsense is that, once again, you are letting the people you say you don’t like shape who you are and what you believe.
                  In the case of ‘white pride’, you are glomping onto the SJW core belief that Blood and Tribe matter more than anything.
                  Like a photo negative, the colours may be flipped, but the image is the same.

                • If VD is trying to get Brits and Germans and other Europeans to take pride in their cultures and peoples again, that is a good thing.

                  More accurately, it is beneficial if said groups were being encouraged to cast off the shrill belief that Western culture is bad, evil, horrible and members of that culture are less and should submit to (infinitely worse foreign culture here.)

                  The trap lies in the idea: ‘because the West did the Crusades/conquered other countries, it is just as bad as any other and shouldn’t be upheld as better.’ This is a small truth mixed with a guilt trip and a lie. Namely:

                  Truth: Western culture conquered others. (x) This is no different from any other culture or group anywhere else in the world.

                  Guilt trip: Because of (x), it shouldn’t be upheld as better. – Guilt trip with lie, as while Western civilisation conquered, in terms of observable advancement for Human civilisation, it held a lot of positives for humanity living under said culture, while acknowledging that it is not perfect. (z)

                  Lie: “It is just as bad as any other culture” (y)- Flat out false, demonstrated by the free exchange of ideas, the basic difference -especially in America- that people are equal under the law, and other positive features, especially when compared to life in sub-Saharan Africa, or the Middle East, or China, or India – especially for women.

                  When the facts are simply laid out and the data objectively analysed – Western culture is better in comparison to other cultures, simply in terms of human positivity. There is no claim in this statement that Western culture is ‘perfect’ – that is a strawman that is often used by cultural Marxists to shut up the cultural American/Westerner.

                  One should not feel guilt about the West, and have pride at it’s achievements, but feel a debt toward it’s preservation. Indeed, instead, I would suggest that the litmus test is: ‘how may I, in my own little way, bring a positive, and preserve’ in the example provided by the Parable of the Talents.

      • The ideal itself becomes “a strawman” when used to do exactly what you say – make claim for right of abode (Illegal immigration).

        Tactics are just that – tactics. Vox appears to be doing what he deems right and moral. It ain’t nice, but that is the whole point of it.

    • Vox might help himself if he would stop being a perfect jackass to everybody and pick the legitimate targets. That whole “cuckservative” thing was just childish and stupid.

      • Vox is (by example) highlighting how moderates cause destruction to the world they inhabit by saying one thing but causing another (by both accident and design).

        His intention is to draw fire from those moderates by pointing out that reality, to show exactly how they are willing to destroy their own to keep appearing as good “moderates” – just in the way SJW’s signal how good they are.

        Vox is tactically using childish things because they work.

        Those who see themselves as moderate attack him just as he told them they would. His followers see this and draw the conclusion that Vox knows exactly what he’s talking about.

        Therefore every time he’s personally attacked he wins!
        So – Childish? Yes – Stupid… hmmm?

        • “Shoot the moderates” does seem to be his theme recently.

          As for his “I win if they attack me!” tactic, notice the flaw: it fails if we don’t attack him but merely disagree with him. Probably why he’s resorted to inventing an attack.

          • Joel – He didn’t need to invent an attack, the ideal that Sarah promotes in her post, while being a long held ideal by many, is also being used by the media/SJW’s etc to promote illegal immigration. By drawing attention to her post he gets to highlight that fact and simultaneously show that moderates will attack him just like SJW’s for pointing that fact out. He’s pointing out flaws in “moderate” thinking.

            He is doing a “shoot the moderates” theme because he knows that rather than test his premise -they will go straight to shooting at him exactly as SJW’s do… and they do!

            Moderates aren’t parsing what Vox writes. They hear – “Vox says racist evil things” and automatically switch to “we must look moderate and good and not appear nasty” defence mode – so they jump straight in with the “ignore him he’s the ultimate evil, because we are good and right” denounce him at all costs defence.

            To Vox’s minions looking in they get to see that there’s no apparent difference between SJW’s and moderates… because moderates function as SJW’s when Vox merely supplies them with facts that fall outside of their “think only moderate thoughts” safety zone.

            • Someone invented an attack; VD has been responding to a non-existent tweet supposedly attacking him.

              You also mistake us here for moderates, especially moderates who care about our alleged image as moderates. Those of us who agree with Sarah’s point in this blog post simply disagree with Vox. If you come here to have an honest discussion about where we differ, you’re welcome to do so (or you were—some Voxers have worn out their initial welcome); but we feel no particular need to differentiate ourselves from him just because he said something.

              • I am not a “Voxer” – I have been interested in Science Fiction/Fantasy for many years – I’ve recently looked at Vox’s blog because he dares publish non-pc ideas based on facts. That in itself is a good thing regardless of what anyone may think of him personally. Also he is actively fighting against the SJWism and that too is a good thing.

                I used the term moderates as the least offensive and most applicable generic name available.

                I’m merely pointing out (having read both blogs) that Sarah’s point is not wrong in itself but has been hijacked by SJW’s (etc) and Vox’s point is that because she doesn’t acknowledge that fact – she is hurting herself and the America she loves.

                Vox, in his awkward way, is trying to stop Sarah destroying what she loves and in reply commenters are doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “Vox is bad, we’re not listening to bad thoughts, because we’re good and Vox is bad”.

                Being on the outside looking in – the only things I can do is shake my head – or call it out. I reckoned Sarah’s commenters who spotted Vox’s point would be afraid to speak up and annoy Sarah & co – So, annoying sod that I am – I chose to point it out.

                • I’m not a moderate. In what terms is a radi al constitutionalist a moxerate. Alzo my point was not highjacked by the Sjws but by vd who appArently has now resorted to taking to making up shit and playing vile 666 with fravments of comments. Being that desperate for attentionis neither rational nor interesting.

                  • May I say that I’ll be glad when you’re off of your tablet and back on a keyboard? (Though I hope you’re enjoying your con. 😀 )

                  • True Sarah, Your point was hijacked by Vox yesterday not by SJW’s. He was pointing out that it has been hijacked by SJW’s/Globalists/socialists for many years. They turn every good thing into something bad.
                    Vox chose to attack your cherished belief for a reason. That reason is rational and worth consideration regardless of Vox himself.

                    • Not my point but what vox imagined to be my point. Pfui

                    • Sarah, (as you have noted on your blog) you are stubborn.

                      The misuse of the ideal of America by socialists who want to flood the country with non- americans is not in Vox’s imagination.

                      Ah well – I’ve pointed out what Vox was trying to show you.. I obviously didn’t do a very good job as you are still responding to Vox’s slight rather than his premise.

                      ll take the “pfui” as a hint and go leave you in peace.

                • The problem is this paragraph:

                  “I’m merely pointing out (having read both blogs) that Sarah’s point is not wrong in itself but has been hijacked by SJW’s (etc) and Vox’s point is that because she doesn’t acknowledge that fact – she is hurting herself and the America she loves.”

                  Nonsense. The SJWs hate what Mrs. Hoyt is saying in this blog post.

                • Condescend much? You get a bunch of Vox cultist/AMWAY salesmen come in to talk about how Sarah is not a “real American” because she was not born here… and now you’re all “she is hurting herself and the America she loves.”
                  Will you next take a page from the Bill Clinton dictionary and argue what the meaning of “is” is.
                  Tell you what, why don’t you head over to Mad Mike Williamson’s and tell him he’s not a real American, ‘K?

                  • Or maybe he can go play on Nikki’s blog (yes, I’m that evil). I have to admire her subtlety and restraint. 😉

                  • Nah Joe in PNG – I can’t be bothered to condescend and as I’m working flat out I don’t have the time to work out how not to offend those that want to be offended.

                    The idiots that said bad things about Sarah were doing so because Sarah’s publishing of the “I think I’m an American therefore I am” Ideal is used as an argument for open borders. That argument is designed to disenfranchise Americans born in America of Americans. It’s not Sarah’s fault that that ideal has been hijacked – but it does place her in a position where she will take fire from all sides.

                    • You are so right. That’s why Mexicans living here fight for the right to wear the American flag to school and are the most USA proud people around.
                      I KNOW VD lives in Italy and has clue zero what’s actually happening here, no matter what he THINKS — but are the rest of you out in Europe too, or simply high to believe that bullshit?

                    • “That’s why Mexicans living here fight for the right to wear the American flag to school”

                      Not the ones that are threatening to beat American kids up if they do…. and they seem to be growing more common.

                    • I was being snarky. That was precisely my point.

                    • Oh, and quack, quack quack quack.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      If you’re truly not trying to be condescending, then consider this: There is NO subject about which such people cannot turn another’s opinion into something bad by misrepresenting what they mean by intentionally using word definitions which are at odds with the context in which they were written, so the whole notion of suggesting that someone not give such people ammunition is pointless.

                    • Wayne – its the internet – I don’t have to try to be condescending: By pointing out something that’s being pointedly ignored I get to be condescending by default. /sarc

                      Sarah- ducks aren’t all they’re quacked up to be.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      Way to ignore my point. Your contention that Sarah’s post prompted something, and that she should be more careful, is pointless, because someone who wants to act offended, or to attack someone, can use ANY statement as a jumping-off point if they try hard enough.

                      The only way to completely avoid such attacks is by shutting down completely. Which is generally what they want. And whether intentionally or not, your statements are doing more to help them than Sarah.

                    • Can someone please put a torch to this strawman already?!?

                  • Only if someone volunteers to get and post screengrabs. That would be… epic.

            • No he invented at least 1 attack.

              In this post:
              http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-world-class-tantrum.html

              Vox flat out states:

              he didn’t hesitate to leap in and take a shot when he thought he saw the opportunity

              What follows is two text only tweets.

              Here’s the first by actual link:

              Here’s the second by actual link:

              Notice it?

              Matt never did “leap in” with the first tweet, there is no record of him replying to it. Instead the tweet quoted in #2 (apparently the one Matt is responding to) is one Vox tweeted first at Matt. Vox struck first, Matt swung back, the latter did not “leap in” anywhere.

              Vox quite clearly invented an attack there.

              • Nate in Winchester, maybe Vox did – I don’t know.
                I was just pointing out that he was trying to make a point and prove a reaction. The point of which was to help (or at least not harm) Sarah – the reaction to which he was using as an example for his minions.

                • If you don’t know or understand his actions & motivations, then by what reasoning should we heed your explanations as to his actions and motivations?

                  • How can I know if (disappeared) actions attributed to Sarah or Vox are made by them – its the internet – anyone can mess with it. I can however look at the facts he states and check them out.

                    You don’t have to heed my explanation at all – It’s much better to check things out for ourselves.

                    • What do you mean “disappeared” actions? Everything was provided front and center (vox even outright admits to the twitter account as his). I just checked the links, they are working (and have screen shots). I mean I provided links straight to the sources you would need to check the facts he stated.

                      Your statement is the equivalent of someone going “I would drink if I had something” right after being led to a lake. Either you’re crazy, or you don’t understand the definitions of the words you’re using.

              • So you’re saying he pulled a Brianna Wu?

    • Bullshit!

      You can fight your enemies without being an asshole. In the wise words of General Mattis: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

      • Kenashimame “You can fight your enemies without being an asshole.”
        Exactly true… though when you find yourself under attack and having to put that plan into action the person who’s attacking you is going to think you’re an asshole anyway.

        Vox is obviously weaponising his “assholery”. He is being an asshole – for a reason. The people who are attacking him are doing so for emotional reasons as they feel under attack from him… Yet they keep attacking him for pointing out that in reality that the position they are taking is being used by SJW’s etc to hurt them (and America, and the Western World)

        Do they not realise that or do they just not want to face that fact?

        • Some of us are attacking him because his little myrmidons and lickspittles (see this very page) are behaving like very bad children, and saying very stupid things, again, on this very page.
          You can tell a lot about the master from the behavior of his disciples.
          And drop the AMWAY salesman stuff. Whatever rhetorical effect you think you are having, you are not.

          • Joe in PNG – “Some of us are attacking him because his little myrmidons and lickspittles (see this very page) are behaving like very bad children, and saying very stupid things, again, on this very page.”

            Your actions are exactly why I commented.

      • Okay, so I was in the process of typing in a reply, when this popped up suddenly in the comment box I was typing in?

        “I’m open to hearing what you have to say and having a discussion about it, but I have a policy of ignoring people who take a malicious approach to conversation. I felt something that you said fell under this heading, and if you’d like to try again with a kinder approach, I’d be happy to have a conversation with you.”

        I did a control-F, and it only showed up in the comment ox – it’s not a bled over from a comment someone else posted elsewhere, apparently.

        Is that something that can be auto keyed into WordPress comments from the person I was replying to, kenashimame, or someone else in this particular thread?

        Either way, sure. Let me know what exactly I said and where so that I can look at it in context, and then I’ll decide if I think that it’s worth rephrasing in a way that’s not quite so… “malicious” in my approach.

        Alternately, if I look at it in the context of the conversation where I said it, and I don’t think it was malicious, or I believe that my maliciousness was called for, then…

        Thank you very much, but no. In that instance, I won’t modify my approach to be a Kinder and Gentler Ironbear just so that you can feel comfortable conversing with me. We probably won’t either of us gain from the interaction. A reasonably civil unless directly provoked and somewhat blunt but not hostile Ironbear will have to be sufficient.

        Or you may feel perfectly free to go on continuing to ignore me. I’m perfectly easy either way.

        I’m not going to apologize for something where I don’t know what I said. I may not even apologize for something I did say, and I believe that it was the proper response in the situation and context.

        Fair enough?

  13. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Off Topic (but the comment about lineage makes it sort of relevant) but my late father tried to “back track” the Howard lineage here in America.

    He found a reference to some Howard brothers who entered the US pre-ACW but could not find the linkage from them to the Howard who entered Southern Indiana (which we are descended from).

    Strangely, he found no record of this Howard where he claimed he was from.

    Dad’s guess is that he wasn’t named Howard before he arrived in Southern Indiana. 😈 😈 😈 😈

    • We have relatives who literally evaporated … it was easier to do back in olden days …

    • When the Red Family lived farther north we had neighbors with a rather unusual, 100% Scandinavian name (no, not Johnson or Johnsen, either). The dad got very interested in tracing the family tree and found all sorts of interesting things, but there was a small, fuzzy period where he couldn’t find much. Mom Red was friends with one of the neighbor’s cousins, who heard the story and laughed. “Well, that’s because we’re not [family name]. G-G-Granddad was in a fight and either killed someone or thought he killed him, so he jumped on the first immigrant boat heading to North America. There were a bunch of [last names] on board, and so when he got to the US, he said he was a [last name]. We’re probably all Svensens, but [cousin] is so excited that I’m not going to burst his bubble.” *grins up-thread at Drak*

    • Dad’s guess is that he wasn’t named Howard before he arrived in Southern Indiana.

      Heh, according to the story I was told, my Chinese great-grandfather was given a new name when he was married. There is no consensus for the why – either it was to give him a more pronounceable name, or a more acceptable name, or to ‘baptize him’. He went by that name for as long as he lived, even if he kept ties back in China. What his old surname was, I don’t properly know beyond that it started with the letter D, and that apparently he belongs to an old, important clan and that clan is rather well to do now.

  14. > The big difference you are missing – whether deliberately or not – is that the United States is not one of those nations formed by forcing other countries together into a whole.

    The Confederate States of America would not agree.

    > I have yet to find one thing I need Vox to instruct me on.

    And yet you seem to feel it necessary to instruct us on who is fit to be our nominee for President. And yes, that is how it comes across, whether you intend it or not.

    • “The Confederate States of America would not agree.”

      Of course they wouldn’t. And they would be wrong. They intended to break apart a nation.

      “And yet you seem to feel it necessary to instruct us on who is fit to be our nominee for President. And yes, that is how it comes across, whether you intend it or not.”

      She is American. And, furthermore, she has not said who is fit. Rather, she has said who is unfit.

      • “‘The Confederate States of America would not agree.’

        Of course they wouldn’t. And they would be wrong. They intended to break apart a nation.” – 60guilders

        Ahhh… and.. no. Just no. I am a gonna refuse to step in that particular minefield, dammit.

        Just not gonna do it.

        I’ll just avoid that while observing that the biggest mistake Texas ever made was joining the Union. *wolf grin*

        • Yeah, actually, as I think about it, that’s considered a tar pit topic around here.

          Sorry, Mrs. Hoyt.

          • Yeah, I kinda have gathered that myself. That’s why I wasn’t gonna let you throw me in that there briar patch, Brer Fox.

            Ah… different topic, somewhat: I am logged in to WordPress and Gravatar, but for some reason, my Gravatar image here keeps showing as this weird cartoony crab thing rather than as the one I have uploaded and set? Why is that? And is there a fix for whatever it is?

            I’m kinda partial to my iron and steel toothed bear monster avatar. I’ve been using it off and on since 1998 or so.

            • Hmm… The correct image shows up if I mouse over the cartoony crab thingy so that it shows the hovercard for your Gravatar account.

              Probably a WordPress problem. Are you using the same email for both accounts?

              • Ahhhh… huh. Good question. I have no freaking idea. I think I am, but I’m not sure.

                I’ll check. I have both yahoo and gmail, and while WordPress is on my gmail, it’s possible that Gravatar went off of my other one.

                *shrug* It’s not a big deal. It’s just a minor annoyance, and it was puzzling.

        • Better than being a part of Mexico. I have the honor to live in Dallas.

    • Oh, sorry, I hurt your lord and savior trump. All I was talking about is how he’s a socialist. Don’t believe me? Fine. Wait around. THAT is known as giving my opinion. Now you’ve given yours and removed the mask. Go soak.

    • THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA WOULD NOT AGREE.
      I believe sir, that you are incorrect. both sides of that conflict considered themselves americans. being from Kentucky I had people who fought on both sides. it was not a war so much that it was a family spat (one that got out of hand)
      added note before posting …. one side considered themselves united stated of America – americans (call them united americans)
      the other side considered themselves confederate states of America – American call the confederate americans
      being an American is not a matter of blood. nor of dna. it is an idea, or a legal compact. if you want to become an American (and are not born here/are lucky enough to be able to make it here) following all the legal guide lines you are an American. if you wish to become not American, you can go else where and try to become Russian/Italian/English, etc.
      the problem (as I see it) is that both the left and the right are americans. they just have two different ideas on what it means. and like the big family that we are, sometimes we have spats (see above 1860’s). I for see a very big spat coming, the question is: will our family (country) survive it?
      and for those of you that will say HA you have to be born into a family … nope. when I married I became a part of my wives family, and her of mine. and then there is always adoption (immigration).
      my opinion … worth every penny you paid for it

    • The Confederate States of America was founded by a bunch of whiny elitist self appointed aristocrats who dragged the rest of the country down and held even the states they lived in back to preserve their precious institution that was among the ugliest things that ever happened in this country. When they could no longer force the rest of the country to their bidding, they turned around, and, rather than try to justify their existence in the public square, decided that they didn’t want to play anymore. They then proceeded to open fire on federal installations and ever since have been whining when they lost the war that they started.

      • if you mean that the CSA when to war over slavery, you have been reading to much of re-written history. the war of northern aggression was fought over economics, not slavery. yes it was a small part, but not allowing the south to build factories (among other things) was much more important to not only the soldiers of the south, but also to Lincoln.

        • greyratt, just a tip: the Civil War is one of those topics our hostess prefers we not discuss, as it leads to more heat than light.

  15. > Of course they wouldn’t. And they would be wrong. They intended to break apart a nation.

    So the US was wrong to “break apart” from England then?

    • They would be factually incorrect, not morally wrong, and that I meant the former rather than the latter should have been obvious.
      Now, they were morally wrong, but they were morally wrong for different reasons.

  16. > Oh, sorry, I hurt your lord and savior trump.

    Sarah, I’m not even a Republican. Trump is not my “savior”.

    > All I was talking about is how he’s a socialist. Don’t believe me? Fine. Wait around.

    I fully intend to do so.

    > THAT is known as giving my opinion. Now you’ve given yours and removed the mask. Go soak.

    I never wear a mask, Sarah. But if you don’t want my opinions here I guess I can honor your wishes.

  17. > …and that I meant the former rather than the latter should have been obvious.

    Not in any version of English I’ve ever encountered. But given that Sarah doesn’t seem to want me here, this will be my last comment on the matter.

    • Not in any version of English I’ve ever encountered.

      So much the worse for your exposure to English then if you don’t know “wrong” has the meaning of “incorrect” as well as “morally objectionable”.

      But keep digging.

      • The problem with English is that ANY statement can be technally misconstrued, no matter how clearly it has been expressed. People with agenda’s do this quite consistently.

    • That’s it, flounce off. I haven’t seen a good flounce all day.

    • Why when people decide to go off in a huff, especially for some reason on Facebook, do they feel the need to announce it loudly?

      Are they hoping we’ll beg for their return?

  18. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    On the idea that only people with a “long lineage” here in America are True Americans, I’d say by that standard the American Indians have a stronger claim to be True Americans than those of us whose ancestors came from Europe.

    Of course, the Shonokins would argue that they have the best claim to be True Americans. 😈

    http://www.manlywadewellman.com/Wellbeast.htm

    • *snicker* We probably shouldn’t jump in that Briar Patch either, ‘Drak.

      I’m absolutely certain that some of my Iroquoian ancestors would remark that it all started going downhill once they let the damn’ furriners stay.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        Yep, you didn’t kick out those “illegal immigrants”. 😈 😈 😈 😈

        • And we’ve regretted it ever since, dagnabbit.

          We did manage to kick Quannah Parker’s bucks out of the Nation and back down to the Lanna Etancia every time they came up raiding, though. And according to some of the old stories, even raided back a few times for horses and women until the BIA made us cut it out.

          I possibly have a bit of Snake in my ancestry, now that I think of it.

          • “I possibly have a bit of Snake in my ancestry, now that I think of it.”

            I will not go there….. no matter how cheap you make that ticket….. 😎

            • Don’t. I’ll be forced to mention that out by Turner Falls there’s a historical marker that states that “On this spot in such-and-such-date, six Commanche ambushed and killed a Cherokee Tribal Policeman.”

              Followed by some wag carving into it with a knife: “And that’s how many it takes.”

              Don’t blame me if “Snake” is what “Comanche” translates to. And if you had in mind to cast any other aspersions on my comment, why…

              Go right ahead. I might find them amusing.

              And if not, onlookers will probably find the ensuing verbal brawl highly entertaining. *grin*

              • I dunno, I personally find that story funny because the one-upmanship is delightfully tongue-in-cheek and hilarious. But I’m also not familiar with the verbal brawl mentioned.

                • Heya, Shadow. How goes?

                  Yeah, I about fell out laughing the first time I saw that. *grin*

                  The Hollywood stereotype of the “Stoic Injun” has always had it wrong. There’s a kind of an off kilter, occasionally bloody minded, and sometimes extremely black gallows sort of humor in most Amerind that I’ve known.

                  • Doing okay, still unpacking the house. Where do I know you from, if I may ask? Username’s not pinging a return on my brain (which, I’ll admit, has been bad lately; the joys of bad sleep.)

                    There’s a kind of an off kilter, occasionally bloody minded, and sometimes extremely black gallows sort of humor in most Amerind

                    Hah, that makes me want to read documentation/stories about that humor, myself.

                    • I’d pretty well assumed that this comment string was dead and had dropped out, but I saw a “Shadowdancer Duskstar liked your comment at” in my gmail inbox, so I’m back. 🙂

                      Ahh… let’s see. Mostly from me seeing you at Larry’s, Brad’s, and here. The only places that I believe that we’ve both posted comments, albeit not always in the same threads, has been MadGeniusClub.

                      These days, I comment more at InstaPundit than anywhere else, and I don’t believe that you comment there?

                      Other than that, unless you’ve been real active in Buffy related fanfic sites over the past you may not have hung out in too many of the same places. We had a “Shadowdancer” as a regular at Renderosity and ‘Rotica when I was a mod and admin there, and at Daz, but at this point, I’ve come to the conclusion that you and they aren’t the same posters. I think I *may* have seen your ‘nick at Deviant Art in a few comment strings?

                      Unless you were a regular comment reader at Emperor Misha’s, Cold Fury, CV, Smallest Minority, and TwoDragons from 2002 to 2007, you might not have seen my nick around much. I kind of dropped out of the whole blog comment scene in 2008 and just recently started coming back.

                      I just recognize your nick from a lot of the same places I’ve read and occasionally commented at over the past several years. You’re one of the few regulars here that I consistently see in a wide variety of other places on line.

                      c4c just in case you respond.

                    • Larry’s Brad’s and Mad Genius Club is mostly where I would’ve been and likely chatted with you =D. I do have a dA account; but I think I am cutelidrow there. I used to hang out on Livejournal, at Jordan Bassior’s blog, discussing politics. Some games, mostly Lineage II, Star Trek Online. I’ve been busy and sit down at the computer only to take a short break or while I’m having a meal.

                      I wasn’t at Renderosity and ‘Rotica; I didn’t really get into Daz – looked at it for a bit but got distracted mostly, heh.

                      ^_^

                    • P.S. You commented directly in response to a couple of comments I made, and laughed at a couple of my wisecracks, so I figured it was just neighborly to wave and say “Hello”.

    • Yeah, and by the genetic studies there’s a teensy trace remaining of the earliest wave across from Asia only in some native ancestry folks living down towards Terra Del Fuego.

      Of that make what you will.

  19. Pingback: An American | The Liberty Zone

  20. Ah what a fun wicket we’re in now. We’ve gone into more and more not caring about the actual ideals of the United States and more into political infighting. Such that people are sadly looking at it as a dead letter ideal since we are told how this focus group or that focus group is going to define the law. So lots of people think in terms of why shouldn’t I get in on it.

    Since the 1970s (at least) we have defined down Americanism to be merely existing within borders. Our students refuse to understand history and have no interest in it other than how it can help them. They build up complicated conspiracy theories to protect themselves.

    Seems a lot of people are tossing various ideas of Americanism around. Sarah’s is more classic from the 1900s to 1970 ish while others want to use the more current definition where simply getting paid is americanism

    • “Since the 1970s (at least) we have defined down Americanism to be merely existing within borders.”

      And the nearer we approach that, the more VD et al are right. With nothing unifying different tribes but government — that is, force — what you have is a multiethnic empire that will eventually fracture on the fault lines of ethnicity.

      With the ideas of America? That remains to be seen.

      It occurs to me that the most successful examples of nations of ideas so far are the Abrahamic religions — nations founded on Christianity and Islam more purely so, and Judaism as more of a hybrid between ideas and ethnicity. Even today, some forms of Judaism accept converts (though they don’t make it too easy, rather like immigration) and consider them equally Jewish to anyone else, while some do not do so (and this isn’t strictly along lines of how religiously orthodox they are, it seems.)

      Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, make conversion easy (and easily coerced), perhaps counting on assimilating the children. One can’t say they’ve been unsuccessful.

      • And now I remember that talking about religion is frowned upon here, because it creates, of course, holy flame wars. I think I’ve kept it objective in what I’ve said, but I’m prepared to say no more about religion here.

        • No, no. ARGUING about religion is wrong here. Discussing it, often happens.

        • Oh, and let me point out those quoting the Bible and conflating Israelites with the US, won’t be approved. Yeah, I write the USAian religion, for a reason, but that’s science fiction. This is a real world argument and the history given of the Israelites in the Bible might or might not be the real one. It certainly isn’t the genetic one in the sense of “exterminating all aboriginal populations.” Also, people who accrue to themselves the “true Israelistes” meme range from the American Indians to the Scottish and these people are laughable even by those standards.

    • Hrmm. My definition predates the 1970s. I think I can trace it back to my parents, and then my grandparents on both sides. And a lot more of it was absorbed by osmosis from the culture of the time, which was still observably American in those parts, and then added to via reading and further study.

      I’m gonna stick with “I’m a Texican.” It’s easier to define.

      • I’m thinking of the inflection in iirc 1965 immigration law. Before was a little more targeted on more directly similar cultures. And as war on poverty and civil rights grew the culture issues broke apart

        • Ah. The ah… whatever the hell it was called Immigration act of 1965? That was what I was trying to think of up above when I mentioned immigration since the 1950s. Thanks.

          *nod* Yeah. Immigration changed following that. So did a lot of the definitions of “American” and the American polity. So did the nature of assimilation, and the lessening of emphasis upon that, and the trend toward multi-culti and transnationalism.

          The ever increasing flood since the ’90s changed things yet again.

          • Yes, that immigration act needs to be superseded.

            • Honestly, though it seems more of a symptom than the problem. At the time, it should have continued to drive mostly the migrants already there, however we again decided to drive down what citizenship is when we allowed multiple amnesties to be passed and the damage in many cases of chain citizenship. And in the meantime we are more interested in teaching the generations afterwards that the American identity of ‘go and do it’ was evil and that the tribal identities are more important. Plus the country has gotten to the point of asking what the country should do for (read: to) its citizens (read: subjects) as opposed to what the citizens can do.

              We’ve gone from a state where there was relative freedom to do what you wanted as an individual and be identified as an individual to one where you are a member of a group first and foremost.

  21. Reality Observer

    This is a c4c… I’ll have to come back to this one later, when and if the allergies stop clogging the works.

  22. Let me take a moment to talk about my Grandpop. He was born in Budapest in the years after WWI, emigrated as a child to the USA, enlisted in the armed forces, worked his way up to Master Sargent, went to OCS, and retired as a Major in the USAF. After that, he owned a number of restaurants, and worked his butt off in making them successful. He was also a pretty tough guy- a former Golden Gloves champ, with a flat nose courtesy of a sparring match with Sugar Ray Robinson.
    NOW, this man is definitely an American, and I’m very proud to be his grandson.

    • But you don’t know what America is, because only 2 generations born here! /s

      • Ah, grasshopper, I did not say which grandfather that was- that was my mom’s dad. On my father’s side, I’m a Florida cracker, with roots back to the War of Northern Aggression and beyond.
        In other words, an average American.

        • I tend to like “Old fashioned American Mongrel”, myself, which my admixture list above pretty well paints me to be. The melting pot pretty fairly mixed in everything thrown at it in my family’s case.

          Heya: mutts are quintessentially Amurrican.

      • Ugh. How long have people like the Clintons or Bushes or any of these elitist pricks been in the country. I’ll be the first to admit that there will probably be things that Sarah or any first gen immigrant who came of age outside the country will never understand. Just like when my family walked thru Ellis in the 1900s there were things they never wrapped their heads around because it is a different world. Hell, I moved from the Northeast to the Midwest and I will always be a transplant.

        But how many people do we have here that are five generations deep and cannot think of working at anything other than grifting the welfare system. Or complain daily of how they would have been kings and queens if they had been left in Africa or their country of origin. Or that the nation is hopelessly racist and misogynist and…ist ist ist…and that we should all be like Sweden.

        There is a multigenerational component to everything. If I had kids they would probably be a lot less of a transplant than me. The multigenerational component of Americanism is not a bloodline or racial purity in and of itself. It can never be. The culture that was brought to the United States by those insane people that wanted to try their luck on the uncivilized lands beyond the sea can and will die out if it is not passed down, however. In the last fifty years we have failed miserably at it. Almost as if we are sabotaging the crucible that is intended to forge a populace where anything is possible.

        As a nation, the United States is currently an abnormality. We are not a nation that is defined by its identity or borders. And it is true that most of the times you try and build a nation of nations it explodes (See the aftereffects of the British withdrawal from the Middle East). We do attempt to bend over backwards for those who want to slit our throats and help them. The question is for how long can we catch ourselves. And whether we will be able to fashion a smooth landing for when (Human nature means it will be when, not if) it fails.

  23. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Sigh.

    Some European Idiot on another site is now talking as if our Sarah “despises” poor workers who support Trump.

    Hopefully the individual doesn’t come bothering Sarah here.

    • *grin* I have popcorn. I have graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate. I have beer, or at least O’Doul’S. I have matches and charcoal.

      I’ll share.

    • Hang it. Why does my home state feel compelled to hurt me this way?

    • Mmm…nope. I still know Donald Trump. I guess I only thought I knew Jeff Sessions.

      • On the other hand Ben Sasse has outright stated if Trump get’s the nomination he’ll be voting third party.

        I doubt my senators, Flake or McCain, will have the cojones to make that statement.

        • “On the other hand Ben Sasse has outright stated if Trump get’s the nomination he’ll be voting third party.
          I doubt my senators, Flake or McCain” – kenashimame

          Wait, what? Huh? Senators can vote in the Presidential – or any elections – for Presidential candidates?

          Why, for Cthulhu’s sake?

          Can they vote for other senators? Or congressmen? Can congressmen vote for President or senators? And again, why?

          The saying “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner” suddenly comes to mind in a BIG way.

          Please tell me that I’m misunderstanding this. Otherwise… no. There is no “otherwise”. Sitting and serving politicians should not be able to vote for other politicians. They should not be able to vote for or on anything other than bills that are directly before them in their jobs.

          • Because they’re American citizens, like the rest of us?

            • This.

              The “two wolves and a sheep” comparison in this case is ridiculous. Indiana has a population of about 6.6 million. Two senators, and 9 representatives voting in Indiana elections (whether for State or Federal ballot items) are hardly “two wolves” vs. a sheep.

              • “The ‘two wolves and a sheep’ comparison in this case is ridiculous.” – thewriterinblack

                It may be a lot of things, WIB, but I’m going to disagree that it is ridiculous.

                • You can disagree all you want. That just makes you wrong.

                  The “two wolves and a sheep” description of democracy requires that the “wolves” be the majority (otherwise it completely fails as a description of democracy)

                  Two senators. Nine representatives.

                  6.6 million Hoosiers.

                  A population ratio of 600,000 to one would give even wolves pause.

                • To be clear, the idea of restricting the franchise away from serving politicians and even bureaucrats is a defensible position. In Heinlein’s Starship Troopers one didn’t gain the franchise until after completing the service. It’s the particular “two wolves and a sheep” metaphor to which I am objecting.

                  • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                    Nod, a sitting politician/bureaucrat has no greater vote than a regular citizen.

                    Thus the “two wolves and a sheep” doesn’t apply in that case.

                    Oh, as for the Founders allowing a politician to “vote for themselves”, well I still don’t see the problem with a politician casting his single vote for him to remain in office.

                    If his single vote over-rode hundreds of votes against him, then there’d be a problem. 😉

                    • Okay, fine. You two are nitpicking over an unfortunate turn of phrase. I cheerfully retract the two wolves and a sheep, and freely admit that it was inapt, and I’ll leave it at coyotes watching the hen house.

                      I still don’t think that it is ethical for a sitting politician to vote for other running politicians while they are serving in office.

                      You have not convinced me, and that their one vote isn’t that unbalancing doesn’t convince – I stipulated that the number does not matter to me in this, that it is an ethical issue that I see.

                      I am willing to be convinced that the ethical issue that I see is not one, but I am not dissuaded from that at this point in the discussion by the arguments presented.

                      Fair enough?

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Well, I’m not seeing the “unethical part of a politician voting for or against another politician”.

                      For one thing, a sitting politician may see a side of another politician that the average voter doesn’t see thus could honestly believe that the other politician would be “bad for the country” or “good for the country”.

                      It’s not like “insider trading” where the insider uses “secret information” for his own profit.

                      If some politician knows something not commonly known about another politician, why shouldn’t he speak out about that information and if he’s allowed to speak out, why shouldn’t he be allowed to use the basic citizen’s right of the vote?

                      I know that it’s extremely easy to be cynical about politicians but they are still citizens who may have valid points of view on the subject of who should hold public office.

            • Oh yeah, not gonna argue that, Sixty.

              It’s more the… inherent conflict of interest thing and actuality for corruption that has me going off here.

              Serving politicians should not have the franchise, IMO. This has nothing to do with there being “only 435 of them”. There could be 2035 of them, or 20,035, or merely 35 of them, and it wouldn’t matter.

              The job of an elected representative is supposed to be to represent the interests of his or her constituents within and to the government, and by extension to represent the interests of citizens of the United States as a whole. (In practice, yeah, that ship sank at the docks, but still.)

              The job of an elected representative is to make law and to vote upon law and regulatory action in the course of their professional duties. It is not to determine who gets to be in their club of people making the laws.

              Senators and Congressmen should lose the franchise to vote in elections as soon as they take the oath, and for as long as they remain in office. Government employees and bureaucrats and administrators should lose the franchise to vote for as long as they remain employed by the government.

              I’m going to extend that to “they also should not be able to be employed by the government, or in any industry connected with the government, including as lobbyists or activists and as contractors once they leave office.”

              Jeeze. For crying out loud. No wonder our government and political situation is so f*cked to hell. We really have put the coyotes in charge of guarding the henhouse.

              Ya’ll excuse me for awhile. Ah’m a gonna go and beat my head against a hard object until my brain stops hurting.

              • YellowShapedBox

                Once you’ve thrown in the bureaucrats and contractors, I’ll admit you’ve got a pretty good point. I’d draw the line at lobbyists and activists, though. There shouldn’t be some kind of ceiling for civic interest in voters, especially one so difficult to legally define, but to ensure that the pro-incumbent vote isn’t coming from the actual incumbency does, come to think of it, seem like a crucial precaution that the Founders missed.

                • Ah. I was thinking more about politicians becoming activists and lobbyists and government contractors after they leave office, more than not allowing those groups to vote. But I can see how that would get unclear in my frothing rant there.

          • YellowShapedBox

            If 435 votes can sway the election, the problem’s much bigger than them. In general elections, Congress is a minute fraction of a wolf.

            Of course, in the D.C. area, the political class is a pretty sizable portion of the voting demographic. This would explain a lot of things about that municipality.

            • I’m going to append this down here, as the other portions of this thread are getting a bit too long and unwieldy.

              I had a thought that may clarify a bit on why I’m so adamant that this should not be, if you’ll indulge me.

              Writerinblack posted, and I missed it in the scroll down, that: “To be clear, the idea of restricting the franchise away from serving politicians and even bureaucrats is a defensible position. In Heinlein’s Starship Troopers one didn’t gain the franchise until after completing the service.”

              Bingo. That’s exactly what’s making my back teeth itch on this.

              It’s not that the “one vote” of a senator or congressman – or even 435 of them – is going to overbalance anything. That is ridiculous, and if that were my objection, you’d be right to call me on it as such. (Although I’ll reiterate that I stated that the number isn’t an issue, whether one or 435 or 2035 or whatever.)

              It’s the concept that being an elected representative is supposed to be a public service, and that service should entail some sort of sacrifice. The commonly used title for that type of occupation is “Public Servant” and the job description is seen as “Public Service.”

              Being able to hold office and vote in the elections where “we the People” are deciding who should be governing us, serving us, and making our laws doesn’t fall into that spirit of sacrifice. Especially not when Congressmen and Senators are essentially exempt from the same laws that they make for the rest of us to live under. If they are serving, they should have to sacrifice something meaningful in exchange for the perquisites and trappings of power, even if it is “merely” their ability to vote for other politicians while they are in office.

              Service at their level without meaningful, visible sacrifice, even if it is purely ritual and symbolic sacrifice, leads to their service being all to easily seen by them as rule and privilege and right rather than their being our servants.

              Symbolic is okay. Our trappings of government are built around symbols and symbolism. Removing their ability to vote for other lawmakers is simply a symbol that “while you are in office, you are not citizen, you are our servant. You are there at our sufferance to serve us and our interests, not your own. Remember that, ye who would rule.”

              Hopefully, that spells out why this sits so badly with me.

              If not, then screw it. I got nothin’. *grin*

              • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                They are public servants not public slaves.

                If you trust them to “act on your behalf without sending all of their actions back to you for your approval”, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote according to their conscience?

          • Even a sitting president can cast his vote for the next president, IIRC.

            It’s not as though a politician’s vote is worth more than a prole’s.

  24. YellowShapedBox

    Just a heads-up, in case anyone was intending to attend the Harry Tuttle Society meet in Civic Center Park tomorrow: I have wrecked my car, and now the replacement rental, and I won’t be able to make it to host. But hey, no sense in not spamming you lot with examples of the Tuttle ethos currently giving me choice paralysis and/or deep wishes my skills or circumstances were more well-rounded:

    -Take paint samples of buildings that have been tagged. Or Lift-Off or (for the really ambitious) a power washer. Remove the graffiti in the dead of night. Leave a calling card emphasizing that you’re not the business owner, you’re just a passing guerilla.
    -Take surveys of a public-school student body. Assess their most serious academic failings. Advertise yourself as the one who’ll teach them the things THEY don’t want them to hear, and teach away after school, or distribute informative material on the topic, or whatnot.
    -Be a doctor who refuses to take insurance. This is much more a Thing than the other items on the list, but it’s a very cool movement and warrants a positive mention.
    -Choose a restaurant in the seedy part of town to start a book club. Food (within a certain price range) is on you.
    -Sell stuff on the sidewalk in a residential area that’s overall screwed over by zoning restrictions.
    -Simple one: if someone you know needs something you can provide, ninja that help over to them.
    -Need skilled work done? Can you train on-the-job for said work? Enlist someone on the verge of the welfare trap (in either direction) to help you out for pay.
    -See something alarmingly stupid on a poster? Trying to promote a boycott? Keep a sticky notepad handy, the better to spread your rebuttals around.
    -Are you planning to attend a speech on a college campus or other known anti-speech hotspot? Keep a paper on your person that says something like “SILENCE THE HERETIC, CRIED THE MOB”; whip it out if indicated.
    -If a building in your area is seized by the city, put it to some productive use before the drug dealers do. The city sure won’t.
    -The “dragoon system”. I don’t know how well-known the idea is even among this crowd (it comes from my favorite but rather midlist sci-fi novel), but basically: if you’re a single mother, 1) find three other single mothers, 2) make sure three of you are working and the fourth is staying at home, and 3) pay the fourth 25% of your income for childcare. No dole, and certainly no daycare, needed.
    -Make like Lin-Manuel Miranda – get important American events and principles into a striking format it’s impossible to ignore.

    This is, I’m fairly sure, maybe a third of the ideas I’ve had. And of this list, I’ve done exactly two of them. But if you’re willing to run with the principle and strike out on your own, please do. And if you live in the Denver area and want to devote a community club to a specific Tuttle-ish effort, let me know so I can get in on it!

  25. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    I wasn’t going to reblog this because, quite frankly, it’s too big a subject for me to handle right now. Then I read the comments on Vox’s blog. What a pile of vileness.
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/02/no-you-really-werent.html#comment-form
    Here’s the thing, Vox, YOU don’t get a say in who’s an American, not anymore. You’ve given that up for a villa in Italy. I imagine that you enjoy it, that means that you no longer have to deal with America’s problems. All your problem are the problems of Europe and you are welcome to them. As for REAL Americans, I would rather have some of the people I’ve had the pleasure of knowing over the years than somebody who is as childish and cowardly as you, Vox. You ran from America’s problems and then had the unmitigated GALL to say that Sarah isn’t good enough to be an American.

  26. “We have no betters. We are American. When I got citizenship I had to swear never to accept foreign titles of nobility. I thought it was silly. What title of nobility could compare to being an American?” Sarah, I think that that is my favoritist thing that you have ever written. RAH would be proud, and you’ve made ME cry.

  27. Riddle me this. VD is obviously a very intelligent man. His command of the motte and bailey doctrine is second to none, and the kafkatrap he set for Ms. Hoyt would make armies of SJW’s grind their teeth in envy. So how is it that he has attracted such a horde of obviously unintelligent followers? They can’t even parrot his arguments right.

    • kafkatraps only work if you give a damn about who set them and their opinions.

    • As to why his followers are idiots, they’re not–they just don’t quite seem to understand that they’re running into people who reject wholesale the concept of blood tribe.

      • We own the country. It does not own us.
        Seemingly simple concept, but some just cannot seem to grasp it.

        • As of late, I’ve been worried that our “elites” require instruction in that particular matter.

          Your typical liberty minded sort will not strike out in defense before giving a clear warning, which explains the rattlesnake motif of the Gadsden Flag, and the “no more free Wacos” message from the Nevada ranchers.

    • VD is transmogrifying into the very thing he claims to hate.
      In this case, he is taking up the exact same demand for Ideological Conformity that the SJW’s demand of their myrmidons and nuthuggers.
      And like any good Statist, VD cannot tolerate any people who do not bow their knee at his word- so here come his myrmidons and nuthuggers.
      Basically, Vox is going into a similar ego meltdown as a certain other famous blogger did (the memo expert) a little green while ago.

    • Maybe there’s a selection bias in play here. The more intelligent ones have better things to do with their lives than needlessly embarrass themselves.

  28. Those beliefs make me American.

    Does it not follow that those of us who vehemently reject your beliefs yet were born in America of American-born parents (in my case I have ancestors who fought who fought in the Revolutionary War) are not American?

    How should we foreigners in your midst be dealt with? Ought we be forced to renounce our beliefs in order to remain in this country and enjoy the rights and privileges that true Americans like you enjoy? Or might you be satisfied with denying us the right to vote?

    • YellowShapedBox

      We, as proponents of the American idea, will settle for just trying to persuade you otherwise. 🙂

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      But it’s OK to deny Sarah the right to vote or call herself an American because she wasn’t born here?

      • YellowShapedBox

        Before she became an American citizen, well, of course it was okay. But I’m a little more worried by what Bob thinks of our motives than what he probably doesn’t actually think we believe constitutes legal American citizenship.

    • Where you, personally you, are concerned:

      1) We will be extra careful when turning over rocks and old logs.
      2) Reduced danger in colder climates during the winter months.
      3) Might be a good idea to keep a mongoose around, just in case.

      You’re as poisonous to the soul of the Republic as a typical BLM activist.

      P.S. You’re not nearly as good at setting up strawmen as your lord and master.
      P.P.S. Your lord and master has repeatedly stated that he far prefers pack loyalty over any conscience or personal moral code. I’m certain he appreciates yours. Yet, actions have consequences, and you may find yourself in a position where you look in the mirror and loathe what you see.

    • “How should we foreigners in your midst be dealt with?”

      Yeah, whatevs.

  29. We, as proponents of the American idea, will settle for just trying to persuade you otherwise.

    Resorting to such an unprincipled exception such makes you untrue to the beliefs that you pay lip service to, and therefore by your own standards not an American. Why should anyone take what you say seriously when you cannot even follow the logic of your own ideas to their logical conclusion?

  30. But it’s OK to deny Sarah the right to vote or call herself an American because she wasn’t born here?

    Is it okay for the foreign-born to deny me the right to vote or to call myself an American because I don’t accept her ideology? After all, that is precisely what Sarah Hoyt is doing.

    • YellowShapedBox

      Where are you getting this? I mean, if you disagree with the concept of natural rights, or equality before the law, or the social contract (still not sure what part of the Declaration excerpt you disagree with), that’s not a font of policy that’ll perpetuate a free society, but it doesn’t mean you don’t get to vote. If anyone ever said that, it wasn’t Sarah. Or Jefferson for that matter. It just means I’ll argue with you, vote the other way, and/or/and take my fixing-things-at-the-citizen/community-levels ideas into overdrive.

      Seriously, where did anyone say something that even slightly resembles your claims?

      • YellowShapedBox: Kudzu might possibly be referring to my post starting up here (or possibly one of the ones before that):

        https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/02/28/i-was-born-american-a-blast-from-the-past-7-4-2014/#comment-349622

        Where I took the premise and followed it inexorably out that in a propositional nation of ideas, where being an American is based upon a set of foundational ideals, beliefs, and shared principles, that it follows that regardless of birth in the physicality of the country, that one has to assume that those who reject and undermine those ideas, ideals, and principals are not Americans. (or whatever Nation of Ideas is proposed)

        That being the case, what do you do and how do you guard your foundational ideas from nominal “citizens” who reject and work to destroy them? You have to do something: the very tools and institutions that you’ve built will be used via the vote to destroy, subvert, or discredit the ideas that form the components of your national identity. (As is the case in point here in the U.S.)

        Or not, but I’m one of the few here that made any most even remotely resembling that in my conversation with 60guilders and Oldgriz.

        If that’s not it, then… *shrug* I am without clue.

        And with that, the comment string seems to be dying out at this point, so I’m going to bow out here.

        • YellowShapedBox

          Agreed: you can’t vote out the bureaucracy, or those policies having to do with the public discovering it can help itself to the coffers. That’s what’s put us in the position we’re in now (well, that and the foreign-policy direction we’ve been veering toward since Wilson, and unbrokenly since Eisenhower’s presidency. But that’s a set of dumb ideas having little to do with the American idea one way or another.)

          What we can do? Live as an American anyway. Don’t give a flip what the FDA says about your complimentary coffee – serve it anyway. Say what needs to be said, and take any retaliation on the chin (if it’s between sensitivities training and “resigning”, resign. Helps put the sensitivities trainer out of work, for one thing.) Don’t let the existence of EBT prevent you from giving your friend a grocery-store gift card and thus freeing her up to get a job at twenty grand a year rather than ten.

      • Patrick Chester

        He’s fishing for something to use as an excuse to play victim.

        Arguing like an SJW: Decrying things no one ever said, but he insists on interpreting as such.

    • Be honest, your real name is Reed Richards, right? Or maybe Ralph Dibny? Patrick “Eel” O’Brien?

    • “Is it okay for the foreign-born to deny me the right to vote or to call myself an American because I don’t accept her ideology? After all, that is precisely what Sarah Hoyt is doing.”

      Dude, you’re still here. TALKING. What have you been denied again?

  31. Because the “logical conclusion” exists only in your mind.

    If subscribing to a certain ideology makes one an American, how does it not logically follow that not subscribing to that ideology makes one something other than an American?

    • YellowShapedBox

      Ah, okay, I see the distinction you’re stumbling over. There’s an American mindset, and then there’s legal American status. For instance, the American mindset believes in the rule of law and the legal supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution says only citizens can vote, and that being born on American soil and/or to American parents, or being naturalized, yields citizenship. So there’s no real conflict here, as long as you bear in mind that your heart isn’t the same as your legal status, nor should it be.

    • Y’know what, sure: subscribing to “blood and soil” nationalism makes you un-American. But since rules for citizenship & voting need to be matters of law not attitude, this does not make you non-American; i.e., does not strip you of the legal right to vote.

      And yes, this is a weakness of the system: un-American Americans have a say in running the country. But our system of government is “A Republic—if you can keep it”; all this weakness means is that true Americans must remain active in teaching and living the American ideal. We are still today “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure”, and until the Great Experiment has run its full course, I shan’t take what may well be a temporary set-back as an indication of a fundamental flaw

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      None but nobody has said that a native born who refuses to accept the American Ideals should not be a citizen.

      For that matter, my belief in the American Ideals tells me that I don’t want the Government to decide which people have the “wrong beliefs” to be a citizen.

      It’s bad enough when somebody claims that since Sarah wasn’t born in the US she isn’t a “Real American”.

      But it’s worse when people apparently listen to Sarah and believe that her beliefs are non-American beliefs.

  32. I honestly have no idea what you mean. Which belief is at issue here?

    Have you not even read Sarah Hoyt’s piece? Look at the part where she wrote, “Those beliefs make me an American.”

    But the exact nature of her beliefs is at issue, so do not attempt to divert me down that blind alley.

  33. Be honest, your real name is Reed Richards, right? Or maybe Ralph Dibny? Patrick “Eel” O’Brien?

    I am not the one trying to wriggle free of the consequences of my argument. Rather, I am calling out those who are.

    • Look up. Look way, way up. Get a telescope. See that spec way up there? That’s the point sailing far above your head.

      Nowhere did Sarah say that her being “born America” would have earned her the right to vote before becoming a naturalized citizen. Likewise nowhere did she say that people who are citizens should be denied that right based on not being “ideologically American.”

      Your claiming that she’s “denying you those rights” is complete fabrication on your part. The names I listed were allusions to how much stretching you were doing to reach that “conclusion”.

      And it’s not her ideals. They’re the ideals on which the country was founded and was built. To say that you’re American without believing them, well, on paper maybe. But in a real sense? It’s like someone claiming that they were Catholic but they think abortion is OK, divorce should be acceptable for any reason down to the whim of the moment, Jesus may have been a good teacher but not divine, and, you know, I really don’t think this “God” idea holds water. One may have been baptized and attend mass but without believing the core beliefs, can one really say one is “Catholic”?

      America was founded on ideas and beliefs. “We hold these truths to be self evident…” etc. One might have a piece of paper that says one is a citizen just like one might have a baptismal certificate. One might participate in the various “rituals” (voting, even holding public office). But if they don’t agree with the basic beliefs….

      And here’s the thing, the part where you really miss the mark. Those very ideals nevertheless recognize your rights as yours even. if. you. don’t. believe. them.

      Sarah (if she’ll forgive me for speaking in her behalf, as I believe she would, here) recognizes your rights under the Constitution, including your rights as a citizen, even if you don’t share those core beliefs that makes someone ideologically American.

      The idea that she would deny them to you would seem to be pure projection on your part.

  34. Ah, okay, I see the distinction you’re stumbling over. There’s an American mindset, and then there’s legal American status. For instance, the American mindset believes in the rule of law and the legal supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution says only citizens can vote, and that being born on American soil and/or to American parents, or being naturalized, yields citizenship. So there’s no real conflict here, as long as you bear in mind that your heart isn’t the same as your legal status, nor should it be.

    If lack of belief in Sarah Hoyt’s ideology does not make me non-American, how does it logically follow that Sarah Hoyt’s ideology makes her an American, given that we both agree that belief has no bearing on the matter?

    • YellowShapedBox

      Let’s try reframing this, then: on my Sar-El visit to Israel, I fell in love with their social engagement, their rampant volunteerism, the effect of the universal draft, the remembrance of their roots, and all the stray cats ripe for the adoption, and, being part-Jewish, I will probably move there someday. So, you might say I was born an Israeli. (Except for the cat thing. Israelis are definitely dog people.)

      But, in saying so, you wouldn’t mean I can currently vote in Israeli elections or that the Haaretz editorial staff conversely can’t. That would be ridiculous, right?

    • Let’s simplify this down.
      Being an American de jure =/= Being an American de facto
      Not holding American ideas = Not an American de facto
      Holding American ideas = Being an American de facto
      Being born in America/Becoming naturalized = Being an American de jure
      Being an American de jure = Having all the rights and privileges thereof

      Is that clear enough for you?

      • You don’t address the question of why Americans who don’t believe as Sarah Hoyt does should be granted citizenship, given the importance you place on belief. Either belief is paramount or it is not. If it is not paramount, then everything she has said here is self-serving nonsense.

        • Regarding this little bit of idiocy, because we are a nation of laws, and not of men. That’s part of the ideology, you blithering cotton-brain.

        • This strawman argument is getting really dry, please no one bring any flame sources near!

          • Ah, man! You have to dump cold water on everything fun, don’t you?

            (Douses torch and puts cap back on gasoline container.)

    • Wayne Blackburn

      You’re lacking a distinction between “un-American” and “non-American”. “Un-American is a mindset, while “non-American” is a legal status. There are lots of un-Americans who are citizens with fully legal voting rights.

      • But if they’re not Americans, not in the head, where it really counts, why should they have voting rights? That’s the part nobody’s addressing. And if being an American in the head isn’t so important as to be the determinant of citizenship, then what makes Sarah Hoyt so special that she should be admitted because she says she is an American in the head?

        • But if they’re not Americans, not in the head, where it really counts, why should they have voting rights? That’s the part nobody’s addressing.

          Because there’s no practical way to set up an actual government that could follow & vet thoughts of citizens. So as a compromise between the ideal vs the real, it runs on: 1) Those who match criteria as being from the nation because in principle they should be raised with the understanding of the nation’s ideals. (well used to, that gets into the problem of birth-right citizenship) At least they would until the education & multiculturalism virus got into the system and corrupted everything. 2) A legal immigration system designed to find & approve of those who seek the nation’s ideals as best a clumsy government system can (why we make the paperwork a bit challenging and require some civics tests). At least up until illegal immigration has overwhelmed this system.

        • You’re welcome to stay here, and vote as you please, while you maintain your American citizenship. But if you don’t like the American ideal, however, I would have to ask: why do you want to stay here? Why not find some sort of place that better suits your ideal? Of course, you’ll no longer be able to vote in American politics…but then, depending on where you move, you’ll likely have a voice in a place that better suits your ideals.

  35. Did someone turn the ‘random’ up on the automated response generator?

    Given that your comment makes no points nor refutes any, and offers only snark, the answer to your question appears to be “yes.”

  36. Y’know what, sure: subscribing to “blood and soil” nationalism makes you un-American. But since rules for citizenship & voting need to be matters of law not attitude, this does not make you non-American; i.e., does not strip you of the legal right to vote.

    If rules for citizenship and voting need to be matters of law and not attitude, than it follows that the same applies to foreigners.

  37. What we can do? Live as an American anyway. Don’t give a flip what the FDA says about your complimentary coffee – serve it anyway. Say what needs to be said, and take any retaliation on the chin (if it’s between sensitivities training and “resigning”, resign. Helps put the sensitivities trainer out of work, for one thing.) Don’t let the existence of EBT prevent you from giving your friend a grocery-store gift card and thus freeing her up to get a job at twenty grand a year rather than ten.

    You left out the injunction to accept millions of foreigners who pay lip-service to some ideology that the Founding Fathers themselves never advocated in order that they might use their demographic power to further expand the power of government.

    • YellowShapedBox

      If that’s what you think Sarah is after, you didn’t even get as far as the top banner. Holy moly.

      So, what did you disagree with in the Declaration excerpt? I know you called it a blind alley, but you’re the one who brought it up.

  38. Nowhere did Sarah ever say otherwise.

    Nonsense. If certain beliefs ipso facto make one American regardless of where one was born, then the lack of those beliefs ipso facto makes one not an American regardless of where one was born. Therefore someone born in Portugal who subscribes to Sarah’s beliefs ipso facto is not American whereas someone born in America who does not subscribe to Sarah’s beliefs ipso facto is not an American.

    Belief is all, location of birth is nothing, yes? Isn’t that her whole point?

    • Belief is all, location of birth is nothing, yes? Isn’t that her whole point?

      No. It isn’t. She hasn’t said that anywhere. You’re stretching in the gigaparsecs to reach that “conclusion.”

      At this point the only question is if you:
      1) Haven’t bothered to actually read her point.
      2) Are simply functionally illiterate and unable to understand some fairly simple ideas despite having had them explained to you repeatedly.
      3) Are out and out lying trying to score points in some kind of private system.

    • YellowShapedBox

      No, it’s not, and if you don’t grasp that at this point, either you’re spectacularly dense or you’re just screwing with us. What say we call off this little feeding session, y’all?

  39. So, what did you disagree with in the Declaration excerpt? I know you called it a blind alley, but you’re the one who brought it up.

    No, you did when you wrote the following:

    So, what did you disagree with in the Declaration excerpt? I know you called it a blind alley, but you’re the one who brought it up.

    I did not take the bait then, and I continue not to take it. My entire point is that my beliefs are irrelevant to the fact of my being an American. But I give you credit for being persistent in trying to steer the argument in a different direction.

    What I do not give you credit for is writing this:

    If that’s what you think Sarah is after, you didn’t even get as far as the top banner. Holy moly.

    You seek to imply that I have misquoted Sarah Hoyt, or taken her quote out of context. I have done nothing of the sort. Rather, I have followed her line of reasoning to its end, something that you have studiously avoided. I wonder why.

  40. No. It isn’t. She hasn’t said that anywhere. You’re stretching in the gigaparsecs to reach that “conclusion.”

    I see that either you do not understand the nature of an implicit (as opposed to explicit) argument, or else you only understand it when such a course of action suits your purposes. In either case, further discussion is pointless.

    • I see that either you do not understand the nature of an implicit (as opposed to explicit) argument

      Oh, I understand that quite well. The problem is your confusing something you made up out of whole cloth–and hold onto despite people repeatedly telling you otherwise–with an “implicit argument.”

      That you think it follows says far more about you than it does about Sarah.

      The first time is conceivably misunderstanding. The second time is stubbornness. The third time is trolling.

      And your continuing to mindlessly repeat it over and over despite repeated corrections is moving you from simply “troll” to “boring troll”.

  41. There, you’ve finally got the thread.

    No, you have finally got the thread. Sarah Hoyt is the one who contends that being an American is a fact of belief, not I.

    • No. I never did that. Note I mentioned my naturalization. You’re either an idiot or in bad faith. Run back to whoever read this to you and tell them they lied.

      • If believing in certain ideas makes you an American, then how does it not logically follow that refusing to believe those ideas makes me something other than an American? Please explain. It’s a simple question, politely submitted.

        As I said below, if a conqueror offers to spare those who kneel before him, then is it not reasonable to assume that he does intend to spare those who refuse to kneel before him? How does the same logic not apply here?

        • An ideological American, not a legal one. Are you an infant or ESL?

          • ROFL the ESL slam.

          • Is America an ideology or a country? If it is an ideology, shouldn’t rights be extended only to those who accept that ideology? If it is a country, shouldn’t ideology be irrelevant? He who says A must say B.

            • Ah, now we see the problem. Kudzu Bob doesn’t understand that America is a country based on ideology, an ideology that believes that everyone who is a citizen of that country is equal under the law, even if they disagree with the country’s ideology.

            • Is America an ideology or a country?

              Embrace the power of “and”. It’s both. It’s a country founded on an ideology, with that ideology at the core of its being. There is “America” the idea and ideal and there is the polity “America”.

              If it is an ideology, shouldn’t rights be extended only to those who accept that ideology?

              No. You see, part of the ideology is that rights belong to everyone. “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’s the ideology right there.

              And the ideology matters because America is not an ethnicity. I can, in principle, move to Japan, become a permanent resident, even (the bar is high, but it can be cleared) become a citizen. I will never be accepted as “Japanese”. Ever. There are people of Korean extract, whose families have been there for generations who are not considered “Japanese”. Hel’s Misty Halls, there are Ainu that were there before the Yamato people invaded and the Ainu are not considered “Japanese”–and never will be.

              In America, OTOH, aside from a few bigots (some of whom have posted on this blog) Sarah is fully considered American. You can become American by accepting the basic principles that makes it America. And one of those principles is that rights belong to everyone, whether they agree or not. So your “she would take your rights away” is bullshit. Certain rights come from simply being human. Others (voting for instance) come from legally being a citizen. Those are separate issues from being ideologically American. Not quite orthogonal, but not parallel let alone congruent.

              At no point did she say to throw away the naturalization process. At no point did she say take away someones citizenship because they weren’t ideologically American. Those are pure fantasies on your part.

              What you’re doing is engaging in the fallacy of equivocation–taking a word used in one way, with one meaning, and using it in a different way to apply a different meaning. And your compounding that by using it to create a straw man argument–another fallacy.

              The only question is whether it’s deliberate or because you’re just too stupid to understand the basic point.

              Prediction: he’s doing to come back later claiming–again–that none of this has been explained to him.

              • Both ways much? You say that anyone can be an American and yet say that those who do not accept that anyone can be an American are themselves non-American, even if they were born here. So much for the “everyone” part. And so much for the “country” part too, since being an American is contingent upon belief, not birth. An America that holds foreigners who espouse certain ideas to be truly American while disdaining the native-born who do not espouse those ideas is the headquarters of a political party, not a country.

    • To the programmers of the “Kudzu Bob” AI. I regret to inform you that your program fails the Turing Test. It’s inability to put forth a cogent argument and respond in a meaningful fashion to rebuttal and counterargument, relying instead on repeating various wordings on the same basic premise apparently from randomly selected items in a look-up table does not show any evidence of actual intelligence.

      Please return to the drawing board and try again with an improved version that shows evidence, even slim evidence, of actual cognition.

  42. No, it’s not, and if you don’t grasp that at this point, either you’re spectacularly dense or you’re just screwing with us. What say we call off this little feeding session, y’all?

    It is instructive to see you deny the logic of your own argument and then slink away.

    • Wayne Blackburn

      You have long passed the level of pretend incomprehension to qualify as a troll, so all that is left is to point and mock.

      • A troll seeks to disrupt the conversation, whereas I seek to focus directly on Sarah Hoyt’s central point: “Those beliefs make me American.” You appear to be under the impression that a troll is someone who says things with which you disagree, which is consistent with the mindset of someone who says, “An American can only be a person who believes X.”

        • Wayne Blackburn

          You appear to be under the impression that a troll is someone who says things with which you disagree…

          Nope, wrong again. I’m of the mindset that a troll is someone who refuses to understand the explanations of how they misunderstood the concept which have been presented over and over.

          • You keep claiming that I refuse to understand the explanation, but no such explanation has been offered as best I can tell. If I am mistaken, you have but to link to it.

            • Since the explanation has been repeatedly posted in comments to. which. you. have. replied. it’s a bit late to claim you haven’t seen it.

              I’m only left with three possibilities:
              1) You are lying
              2) You are functionally illiterate and cannot understand simple declarative English sentences
              3) the failed AI snark is actually true

              It’s only left to determine which of those counts as “the benefit of the doubt.” I’m leaning toward failed AI at the moment.

              • My contention is simple: To claim that ideology makes one an American is to say that repudiating that ideology makes on non-American. No one here has provided a coherent counterargument. Or if he has and I have missed it, all you have to do is link to it, which is much less trouble than writing out a bunch of snark. That you went to all the bother of doing so instead of saving a little time by linking to it tells me that you are the one who is lying.

                It doesn’t seem too much to ask that I get a relevant link instead of insults. Surely there must be one here that you find especially concise and to-the-point?

                • To claim that ideology makes one an American is to say that repudiating that ideology makes on non-American.

                  That you’re too stubborn, or pigheaded (take your pick–whichever you consider “the benefit of the doubt”) to understand or accept the arguments made is your problem, not theirs.

                  The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in our Kudzu.

                • Query: If someone repudiates the ideology, and then leaves the borders of the country, what would be your designation for that person?

                • Can we get this “gentleman” a scarecrow avatar to go with his strawman argument?

                  Good thing straw doesn’t feel, because he’s beaten it like a dead horse.

                  (Why yes I do like the odd mixed metaphor, why?)

            • Wayne Blackburn

              And this is why I say you have reached and exceeded the point of becoming a troll. They are peppered all through the replies to your comments, and yet you claim that no such explanation has been made.

              I put it as simply as I could, so that even a 5-year-old could understand it by explaining the distinction between “UN-American” and “NON-American”.

        • Patrick Chester

          A troll seeks to disrupt the conversation,

          Or dominate it by repeatedly refusing to acknowledge what their opponents said, fabricate meaning and assigning it to their opponents and generally being a repetitive boor.

          Congrats, you’ve qualified.

          You appear to be under the impression that a troll is someone who says things with which you disagree

          ….aaaaand another flag. When people start realizing what they’re up to, a troll will try to play the victim and whinge things like that.

          • Anyone up to a game of Checklist Bingo?

            I’ve got:
            1) Skim until offended.
            2) Disqualify that Opinion
            3) Attack, Attack, Attack
            4) Disregard inconvenient facts
            5) Make shit up

            Can anyone make a case for the others?

          • You keep saying I refuse to acknowledge the arguments of others, but those boil down to nothing more than the difference between de facto and de jure, when my point is that if belief should be grounds for making one a de jure American, then disbelief should be grounds for making one de facto non-American. Either belief is important or it is not important.

            • Correction: “then disbelief should be grounds for making one de jure non-American.”

              • De Jure, belief is not the question, and never can be absent the Arisians providing us with Lenses.

                In De jure, only actions can or should matter, thus:

                Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

                Note that the action has to be overt, say what William Ayers did by attempting to bomb a US military base, or confessed in open court. Do I think that there’s an excellent case that Barack Obama’s Iran deal, or Rev Wright’s “God Damn America” sermon, would meet that standard? Yes, I do. However, until the jury returns the guilty verdict, Americans they are and will be. “Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent convicted.”

            • If this is your takeaway then you really haven’t been paying attention.

            • Patrick Chester

              I will invite others (but not you, since I know you’ll ignore it, weed) to scroll up and reread the subthread.

              Feel free to whinge about insults, if you wish.

            • While Mr. invasive species weed won’t get it, in case anyone else is truly wondering let me spell it out.

              The belief is important. As such, I want to encourage people who hold those beliefs, whose response to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (yes, there is a list of specific grievances, but consider why they were grievances) and the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is “Well, duh” or something to the effect of oh, say 85% agreement (don’t expect 100% agreement. I don’t agree 100% with anything or anybody, including myself). We want to encourage them to come. If we get some who don’t believe that way as well, we can handle some of that. For those who are here and who are born here, we want to inculcate those ideals in them–teach them and inspire them so that those ideals are strong in them. And if a few don’t get the message? Well, we can handle that too. Because one of the ideals is freedom of thought and freedom of conscience–including the freedom to disagree. WE have laws in place to determine who has the right to vote. We have laws in place establishing certain evidences of commitment to this country for establishing citizenship for those who are not citizens by birth (and other laws that establish the conditions for citizenship by birth). Some tweaking of them may be called for–maybe less, maybe more–but “rule of law, and not of men” is one of those ideals so, we abide by the law even when it is far from perfect. After all:

              “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

              If it gets too bad, well, the next lines:

              “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

              And so we acknowledge the rights of others, even those who disagree with us, because rights must apply to all or they are not rights at all. (And please note, infringing on a right doesn’t make it not a right. It’s just a right being infringed on and the infringer is wrong to do so.)

              Rights are universal. Nobody on our side wants to deny anybody their rights, even if we consider them “un-American”. We acknowledge your rights not because of your belief, but because of ours.

              Those who think that “rights” are merely the privileges granted to one at the moment by “government” will not understand that. I was tempted to say “never understand that” but never is a long time indeed and I have seen less likely things. But the first thing that has to happen is to remove the block that keeps one from hearing, let alone understanding, our position.

              That’s not something we can do for you. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

              • Patrick Chester

                Prediction: The weed completely ignores what you wrote and simply repeats his assertions and then pretends its what the icky awful people he disagrees with “really” believe.

    • The only things “instructive” about this little argument have been the following:
      A. Your inability to use the “reply” function. This indicates that you are attempting to claim you won the argument when no one replied to you, when the real reason was that no one knew you’d replied.
      B. The SJW qualities of most of the people who hang out around Vox Popoli. Protip: If you can’t explain someone’s position to them in a manner they accept, you don’t understand it at all.

      • Thank you for bringing the “reply” button to my attention, although that has no bearing on the argument at hand. Rather, it sinks to level of saying that someone is wrong because there is a typo in his post.

        No one here has yet to acknowledge what is implicit in Sarah Hoyt’s arguments because she didn’t it explicitly. Of course, if she had said it explicitly, then it would not be implicit, now would it?

        If invaders conquers a city and their leader says, “I shall spare all who kneel before me,” then implicit in that statement is his intent not to spare all who refuse to kneel before him, even though he did not come right out and say it.

        • “Thank you for bringing the “reply” button to my attention, although that has no bearing on the argument at hand. Rather, it sinks to level of saying that someone is wrong because there is a typo in his post.”

          The fact that you did not “notice” the reply button is part and parcel with the rest of your behavior, which makes it rather relevant to the discussion of whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

          Also, I’m still not entirely sure what is “implicit” in her argument that is so terrible, given that one of the values of America as she sees it is doing one’s level best to avoid solving ideological disputes with gunpowder and lead.

          • I do not accept Sarah Hoyt’s ideology even though I was born here, as were my ancestors going back for centuries. Does that make me not an American? If it has no bearing on my American-ness, then how does Sarah Hoyt’s ideology have a bearing on her American-ness or the lack thereof? What is the difference, given that she contends place of birth is irrelevant? Are native-born Americans under a unique moral obligation know to no other people in the world to let in anyone who says certain words, the sincerity of which could only be proved with some sort of brain scanner?

            If so, where in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any other writings of the Founding Fathers is this put forth? Since the thinking here seems to be that this is a core principle of America, a citation should be easy to find.

            • “If so, where in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any other writings of the Founding Fathers is this put forth? Since the thinking here seems to be that this is a core principle of America, a citation should be easy to find.”

              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…
              –The Declaration of Independence

              That was the basis for the creation of the American polity.

              As to your first paragraph, you’re an American de jure. You are not one in your head. And your complaint about who we’re supposed to let in is what we have an immigration process for, a process that needs to be fixed.

              • Nothing in the passage from the Declaration that you cited contends that believing certain things ipso facto makes one an American. It could just as easily mean that the French, the Germans, or the Chinese also are created equal, etc. (Indeed, my understanding of the Declaration is that it was written specifically to appeal to the tender sensibilities of European rivals of Britain, whose assistance the Colonies desperately needed, which is a polite way of saying it was propaganda.) It makes no reference whatsoever to belief as being a prerequisite for being an American, nor did the Naturalization Act of 1790 nor any of the changes in the law that followed do such a thing, save perhaps specifically to exclude communists and the diseased.

                • You know, for someone who goes on and on about implicit arguments, you’re really bad at spotting them when they go against your preconceptions.

                  • Perhaps I am. Why don’t spell out the implicit argument that I’m missing?

                    • You have a document in front of you that says “We have an ideological motivation for revolting against someone, even though we share commonalities with them,” and you think that doesn’t support my motivation?

                    • The grievances listed later on the Declaration that are laid out as being the reason for the rebellion deal with very specific matters, not ideology.

                    • You, sir, seem to have a remarkable case of selective confusion over a document that’s as clear as the driven snow. Let me spell it out.

                      1) Here’s the ideology that underpins civilized societies. Here’s how that applies to legitimate governments in a civilized society.

                      2) Here’s a long list of grievances detailing how your actions as the government of the colonies have violated the above.

                      3) We have tried many times to get you to stop being mean to us.

                      4) Since the above has proven fruitless, we’re taking our toys and leaving.

                      The point being, item 2 makes no sense without item 1.

  43. YellowShapedBox

    This current troll rampage, while no longer profitable to address in its own right, does highlight an Internet-specific facet of argument worth addressing: the “YOU HAVE YET TO ADDRESS MY CLAIMS” fake-out.

    Our troll here is demonstrating what happens in the absolutely least fertile ground for that tactic: among people hostile to his point of view, who like to read the entire thread and are on alert for any updates in the conversation. You see, the entire tactic depends on an audience that isn’t paying attention to the whole interchange, whether by bias or simply by not seeing it on their screen.

    This, of course, makes Tumblr a whole different ballgame. A popular political blogger on Tumblr will have an audience almost entirely consisting of politically bubbled people. Even the rare few who are following them in order to pick fights will almost never be followed by the same people who are following the first one. Everyone has their own private filtration of the conversation, and a few passive-aggressive notes and slanders and claims that the argument has gone unaddressed will be completely ignored. Rebuttals? Also invisible over the casual Tumblr conversation. The blog you’re following says the debate’s going a certain way, and if you thought they were lying you wouldn’t follow in the first place. And if the opponent gets REALLY persistent, it’s “This post cannot be replied to” time.

    The minimum climate condition in which this tactic can really succeed is an Internet forum heavily slanted toward one point of view or the other. There, though people are, by and large, reading the whole conversation, a sufficiently sophisticated user who holds the majority opinion can just hold all your evidence to impossibly high review standards, change the subject if you actually manage to meet them, repeat the review process while derailing the topic, and THEN say you haven’t addressed the claims.

    I think the first thing to be done about the phenomenon – something needs to be done, it’s a pretty serious way to further incapacitate the already echo-chamber-esconced – is to give the tactic a snappy name. (Which I suck at.) Then we can all the better leave “ask” notes in the boxes of perps’ subscribers explaining just what they’re up to.

    • How have I misrepresented Sarah Hoyt’s argument rather than carried it out to its ultimate conclusion?

      • Wayne Blackburn

        By twisting the corollary to claim that it means she said you should not be allowed to vote, which is not what it means at all.

        YES, it means that someone who thinks like you say you do is UN-American, NO, it does not mean that you are either a non-citizen, OR not allowed to vote.

        As has been pointed out ad nauseum, but which you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge.

        • In what way as understood by the Founding Fathers does that make me “un-American”? Where is this in the Constitution or some other pertinent document of the Founding Fathers’? As best I can tell, the notion of the proposition nation is much more recent than that.

          • Wayne Blackburn

            Blah, blah, blah. Twist some more.

            • That you supply insults and not a relevant citation does nothing to bolster your case.

              • Wayne Blackburn

                I’ve rested my case already, and everyone else can see that you’re grasping at straws to try to make false and futile claims. I need present no more evidence, as that would be a waste of effort.

                • Liar. You complain about wasted effort when a link would have been even less effort.

                  • Since you’ve ignored the arguments repeatedly he’s supposed to think that “This time for sure”?

                    Most of the folk have already given up on you. You have demonstrated bad faith from the beginning. The only reason anybody is posting rebuttals to you is, well, argument is a spectator sport. You’re not the target. Other people reading the thread are.

                    You, by this point, are only deserving of mockery.

                    Quack.

                  • You have replied to comments with a complete explanation. There’s literally no reason to attempt any more times, because you’re obviously pretending to not understand in order to stir up shit.

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  IMO it’s not worth replying to him even to give him the insults that he deserves. 😈

              • Patrick Chester

                You are getting the respect you deserve, not the respect you desire.

                You poor oppressed soul.

    • A name for this tactic suggests itself, and might work even had our current troll not used such an evocative pseudonym: kudzu arguing—it spreads itself rapidly and thus defies attempts to respond to it.

      • And like kudzu, the only way to get rid of it is to kill it.

        Which is what I suspect our boy is fishing for, either the dropping of the banhammer or some overt threat by one of us. Sarah has control of the one, and no one should accept the free tickets he’s littering this site with for the other.

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          And Sarah has stated that she doesn’t use the Ban Hammer (unless it’s really really needed as in the case of a stalker).

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Kudzu is an invasive alien. It should be destroyed root and vine wherever it trespasses on American soil.

        • Patrick Chester

          Which is what I suspect our boy is fishing for, either the dropping of the banhammer or some overt threat by one of us.

          I could threaten to do nothing to him. Would that count as a threat?
          *evil smile*

  44. I was also born in a foreign country, with a strong affinity for everything America stood for. Eventually, I came here legally, and I’m a citizen now. I’m absolutely a Usaian, like Sarah.

    Am I American in the same way as someone who grew up there, and who has a long family history intertwined with America’s? That’s actually a good question. For a good portion of this nation’s history, the common answer would have been “no.” And I confess that I still see “American” as a process of becoming for me. The question is worth more serious thought than it’s getting.

    But I submit that it isn’t the core question. The core question is a constant:

    “You claim to be a nation. How do you [1] Defend its nationhood against centrifugal forces, AND [2] Win/survive amidst the larger currents of history?”

    America as it stands has weak to no defense against centrifugal forces. And its core Usaian proposition is mostly dead. Vox is right about that. Re: the 2nd half of the equation, America is still picking up talent from everywhere, which has helped it invent and create its way into a unique global power position. Vox’s proposed approach risks crippling this.

    So, can we create a viable nationhood that doesn’t cripple America’s power engine? How? Will blood and soil work? Why is it broken in Europe? Why hasn’t “propositional nation” worked here? Was America’s power engine always a temporary, self-consuming phenomenon that ends when Empire’s room to expand/borrow ends? How DO we resolve imperatives [1] and [2] – and was the way we resolved it in the past inherently self-liquidating? Starting from where we are NOW, vice the way we’d like it to be, where do we go from here?

    This isn’t about my identity, or Sarah’s. It’s about America’s, and that discussion has to be bigger.

    By those criteria… this wasn’t the discussion it could have been.

    • In haste, because I’m at a conference and at a break between work sessions. If I miss anything, remind me:
      1- the us failing as a nation of volition. Not really. The problem is that we lost the cold war. we lost it where it counted, in the propaganda. Our schools and culture centers are functionally centers of the enemy we destroyed economically. So, the idea of the US is no longer taught, or no longer in any functional way. The kids don’t hear this as an option, but as the “tool of white slave holders.” They don’t know what they’re rejecting. Our elites too have rejected it, because they pursue power, mostly.
      Don’t worry. This was possible due to mass media, and the times they are achanging. Be a little patient.
      2- Nations of blood. If you try to make that out of America, you’ll either get a balkanized mess, or rivers of blood. Mind, the other nations aren’t pure either, but they’re old enough to be homogeneous-looking and have myths of common ancestry.
      I will not speculate on which outcome Vox wants, I’ll just point out that the ONLY options for the US are falling apart or blood on the streets up to your ankles. No sane human being can think otherwise.
      3- This post is one half the debate. I’ve written a post about acculturation and how difficult it is. I don’t have the opportunity to search for it, but I’m sure someone will find it for you.
      4- I have guest post coming about how to preserve/restore a nation of ideology. Probably not until I get home, as it’s hard to keep up with mega comment threads on my little tablet/and/or/phone.
      5- the discussion wasn’t interesting because of howling rage monkeys pretending to read into the post what was never there. I apologize for that. This one side attack started when I doubted that that old Northeastern social-democrat Trump meant what he said or would make a good president. Since then I can’t post much of anything without their inventing a reason to take offense.
      You what what these irrational polemicists are like. They don’t unfortunately make blog weed killer so we have to endure critters like Kudzu.
      This too shall pass — I don’t have time to deal with it for at least a month anyway — and we’ll be able to have rational conversation again.
      If you wish to ignore them, I’m sure many of my commenters would be happy to discuss things in a rational manner.

      • I was gone, but ShadowdancerDuskstar dragged me back in. Blame her. 🙂

        I’m just going to note something in passing: Joe Katzman’s observation that, “And its core Usaian proposition is mostly dead. Vox is right about that.” is not a new or recent concept. Billy Beck was making that observation, and arguing it convincingly and vociferously, on UseNet back in the Whitewater days long before (to the best of my knowledge) Vox Day stated it or had even come onto the political commentary scene. (*shrug* He could have been visible before and I just didn’t notice.)

        Of course, the Internet since 1997 has been a much bigger platform with a great deal more visibility than Usenet ever was. I suspect that only the die hard libertarian/anarchist/conservative political computer geeks hunted out the alt dot politics dot Usenet forums and haunted them prior to the explosion of the World Wide Web. So a lot of that stuff wasn’t visible to the mainstream.

        And with that, except for if I get a reply farther up the thread, I really am out. I have other stuff going on today, so I’m going back to just the occasional InstaPundit comment. I’ll see ya’ll in a different topic and comment string at some future point.

        • You’ll be back. 🙂 we’re addictive. And I tbink you’ll find people saying that stuff back to the Whiskey rebellion. No one sait it would be easy.

          • One of us! One of us!

          • Well, yeah, of course I’ll be back. I didn’t say I was dropping out for-evah! *snicker*

            Just from this thread, mostly.

            I just may not always be as vocal on other discussions as on this one. I really tend to mostly comment at Glenn’s these days because the posts there are brief, they scroll down fast, and I can get by with just hitting my computer off and on during the day and doing hitNruns as something piques my interest.

            Conversations like this require a lot more investment of time and energy throughout a day that I can or care to do these days, especially across multiple sites (here, MadGenuis, etc etc) – cuts into time I could spend on writing and doing research.

            I’m also afk a lot: I have a year and a half old Aussie pup to do polishing on his training and exercising with, so that eats a lot of time during the day. (Even if I’m not going to ever work or compete him, he still needs to know how to behave around crowds and livestock.)

            I’ll be back off and on.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Yeah, but when hasn’t America had severe centrifugal tendencies?

      The cultural state that backs the United States developed during the colonial era, and involved some very different groups of people with different interests who didn’t necessarily care for each other much. Regionalism was baked in.

      Distrust of central government is likewise longstanding.

      The revolution was partly driven by George giving the impression that he wanted to buy the service of the Indians with colonial lives. With transport being easier now, we have a viable outside threat again.

      I’ve seen people who are politically Anti-American yet retain American cultural qualities. It may be hard to tell from appearances which is deeper and would win out in the end.

      I grew up hearing stories of how things are getting worse, and I may yet live to raise children on my own tales of gloom and doom.

      As for the future, I intend to do something. My forecasts aren’t certain. We shall see.

  45. BobtheRegisterredFool

    Donald Trump is not eligible to be President. New York City is ruled by foreign interests, and no one born there can be considered an American by reason of extraterritoriality.

    Furthermore, the proposal of deportation is a transparently bankrupt attempt to deflect attention from extermination, the only real solution. Deportation will not scale to finalize the removal of millions the way execution can.

    History tells us that one man can carry out 250 fifty death sentences a day on a continuing basis. Two million prisoners, ten million illegals, and thirty million druggies would be respectively 8,000, 40,000 and 120,000 days of work for one man. With a thousand men, we could be done in around half a year.

    Speaking American English is one of the necessary signs of the highest order of civilization. We only need shot everyone who cannot recite a formulation of a law of thermodynamics and explain it in their own words. Excepting only retards, babies and accredited diplomats.

    Only one candidate is prepared to end the lives of every person who has trespassed on the United States of America. That is Tod Kruez. Only one candidate has already proven their sincerity by killing hundreds of illegals. That is Tod Kruez. Only one candidate will work with any forces and powers needed to eradicate all of America’s enemies. That is Tod Kruez.

    Paid for by Right to Raze on behalf of ‘Wake Up America and Vote for Tod Kruez 2016’.

    • When did you wander in from an alternate reality? Did the UN take over Manhattan? I want Snake Pliskin for Secretary of War. Gotta keep them New Yorkers penned in.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        Misunderstanding extraterritoriality that way is no worse than the guy who called the 1790 controlling legal precedent a loophole.

        We probably agree that the UN is a shithole, due to a combination of all the kleptocracies and socialism. That flavor matches the New York Times well enough that it is plausible that the UN has coopted it. Given the laws that New Yorkers live under, one can wonder whether the inhabitants are more loyal to the constitution, or to being hangers on of the UN.

        If the right to bear arms is absolute in the United States, areas with gun control are not the United States.

        Of course, if one goes down this path, one eventually gets to the point of ‘gun control strongholds held by Democrats for generations are not inhabited by Americans’.

        Really, I just wanted to articulate Trump birtherism.

        In hindsight I should have made it ‘Right to Raze IV’.