You can’t have a constitution without a nation to go with it

Well no time to write this morning, but I shamelessly poached this write-up by Tim Dunkin of Traditional Right, posted at Western Rifle Shooters. I’ll slap a link to that page when I get a chance, but for now here is an article covering the relationship between a constitution and the demographics necessary to uphold it. Let me know what you think, if you would be so kind.

“You can’t have a constitution without a nation to go with it”

You can tell it’s an election year, because the Republicans are all of a sudden talking about the Constitution again. Not that I mind, of course, but it seems that they only start paying attention to it when the generally more conservative and constitutionalist Republican primary voters start paying attention to them. So suddenly, the political realm is filled with talk about what the Constitution says about every issue, from abortion to xylophone maintenance.

The problem that I see with this, however, is that at the same time as they are claiming their love and devotion to our founding document, most of these same politicians are pursuing policies relating to demographics and national sovereignty which are completely at odds with the perpetuation of the diluted remains of constitutional government. Put simply, the mainstream Republican pursuit of amnesty, open borders, and massive immigration (both legal and illegal) works to destroy the very Constitution they profess to be so concerned about.

We must consider the following as a truism: There is no such thing as magic soil. What I mean is that a person’s culture and upbringing do not change simply because that person occupies a new geographical location. An immigrant (regardless of their legality) will not automatically possess a new set of fundamental political, social, cultural, and moral attitudes, simply because they occupy a place on American soil, or even have gone through the extended process of formally attaining American citizenship. To see them acquire an American outlook to go along with their American residency requires time-consuming, extensive, and (in an ideal world) mandatory acculturation to our society and mores. In days gone by, our society and government both worked to try to make that happen (with a fairly good success rate). Unfortunately, our government has completely absconded (and is, in fact, hostile to) its responsibility to assimilate immigrants, and political correctness is increasingly tying the hands of anyone else who would seek to encourage immigrants to become genuine Americans in more than just a formal sense. Diversity–the death-knell of any advanced civilization–is becoming the norm, rather than just an unfortunate but temporary exception.

That, of course, greatly affects our political climate, which in turn affects the reverence for (and consequent adherence to) our Constitution. I believe that we can look at American history and see a steady erosion of our founding principles and constitutional government that goes hand in hand with our absorption of more and more immigrants from abroad.

Broadly speaking, there are three general “peak periods” of immigration to the United States. The first occurred roughly between 1830-1860, and was primarily made up of British and Irish workers and German political refugees, most of them fleeing the crackdowns after the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848. The second wave occurred between approximately 1880 and 1920, and was made up of large number of workers from southern and eastern Europe, though its early years also had a large Scandinavian component as well. This is the immigration that most people have in mind when they fetishize Ellis Island and “coming from the old country”. The third wave began with the liberalization of our laws in the early 1960s, and continues to this day. This wave is characterized by a much greater proportion of immigrants coming from non-European nations, primarily south and east Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and especially Mexico and Central America.

The first two waves of immigration were markedly different from the third. In those waves, the immigrants were largely from Europe, and came from cultures that were at least distantly related to America’s prevailing Anglo-Saxon culture. At the same time, there was pronounced encouragement of these immigrants to become Americans. From official government entry policy down to the social assumptions of the man on the street, our attitude towards immigrants was guardedly welcoming, but on the supposition that they would make the effort to fit into our culture, rather than expecting us to cater to theirs. There were no ballots printed in 75 different languages in those days. Immigrants learned English (if they didn’t know it already) or they starved. They were expected to be patriotic and to operate within our political and social norms. No “honor killings” or shari’a law would have been tolerated back then.

Despite this, we still see that these waves of immigration had a profound (and negative) impact on our political culture and constitutional fidelity. In the decades closely following each wave of immigration, massive changes were made to our government and political realm as the immigrants began to take their places in the pool of available voters.

The first wave brought with it a combination of unprecedented political corruption combined with German radicalism. It was on the heels of this wave that Tammany Hall really broke wide open as a political machine cultivating and controlling the votes of Irish immigrants in New York. It was also in this time period that the newly-formed Republican party adopted its radical turn at the behest of the many Germans in America, during whose dominance America essentially was changed from the federal representative Republic she was founded to be to the sort of increasingly majoritarian and unitary democratic state that bodes so poorly for individual liberties and states’ rights.

The second wave saw large numbers of immigrants come in from countries with authoritarian traditions–especially those from various areas in the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Almost none of them came from countries with genuine traditions of individual liberty or some form of constitutional rule of law. As a result, these immigrants brought in with them the cultural preconception that government should both be obsequiously deferred to and looked to as a paternalistic provider. It was this wave of immigrants who provided fertile grounds for advancing and then cementing the so-called “progressive” movement that looked to technocratic government for all the answers to our problems, and which eventually culminated in Roosevelt’s New Deal.

In spite of the damage done by these waves, America still retained some of its original pristine constitutional purity in the 1950s and into the 1960s. Free speech, freedom of religion, and the rest of the Bill of Rights were still largely in place. Notwithstanding the rampant abuses of that document, the average citizen was still largely free to live as they pleased.

And then came the third wave of immigration to America.

This wave has featured, and continues to feature, huge numbers of immigrants who have absolutely no connection to limited government, no understanding of constitutional restrains on government, and no concern for natural rights and individual liberties. Indeed, in many cases, these immigrants come from places completely outside of any definition of Western civilization, and cannot be expected in any way, shape, or form to understand what American culture and society are really all about.

What’s worse, there is now (official or unofficially) no effort to assimilate these immigrants to American culture and civilization. In many cases, there is not even the expectation that these immigrants will contribute positively to American society even in a purely economic sense. Witness the many who come to America solely to partake of our “entitlements” largesse. Because no effort is made to assimilate them, the American polity continues to balkanize, the “melting pot” model giving way rapidly to the “rocky road ice cream” model where in the underlying substrate must make room for increasingly large and undissolved chunks of foreign objects.

It is coincident with this third wave that we have really seen the rise of undiluted, raw socialism in America. “Progressive” politicians have realized that it is advantageous to themselves to discourage the Americanization of immigrants, since this makes them less likely to reject the politicians’ offer of “free” goodies in exchange for votes. Because these immigrants largely have no understanding of or care for things like individual liberties or constitutional government, they are not in the least concerned that the giving of these goodies will require the loss of liberty and the destruction of constitutionalism. In other words, when you bring in millions of foreigners from socialistic countries with no real tradition of limited, constitutional government, you’ll eventually end up with a socialistic country with no more limited, constitutional government. When that happens, the government is free to take away every liberty you have, regardless of what that dusty ol’ Constitution has to say about the matter.

And that’s what the Democrats (as well as the establishment Republicans) want – a government that they can use to milk the hard-working people of this country for money and power.

This is why it is vitally important that the flow of immigrants into this country be halted, and those who are here be required to Americanize and assimilate, or else be asked to return to where they came from. America is not simply a geographical or political entity. It is a nation with its own unique culture, traditions, mores, and history. Like every other nation on Earth, America deserves to be able to defend and preserve her own traditions–one of which was limited constitutional government designed to safeguard liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny. If immigration presents a threat to that, then that immigration needs to be stopped until such a time as the “indigestible nugget” can be absorbed.

In other words, if you want to preserve (and maybe even restore) the Constitution, you need to make sure that you have a population that understands and believes in its principles to go along with it.

Posted in Primary | Leave a comment


Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment


Image | Posted on by | 1 Comment

Jack Donovan’s “Vote With Your Ass”

Yesterday I posted about why I don’t plan on voting in the upcoming election. This morning I was looking for material to share and found this Jack Donovan essay titled Vote With Your Ass. This essay dates back to 2012, but the content is of course relevant today and summarizes some of my views on why voting is a waste of time. Jack is an author who writes on topics related to masculinity and tribalism. I enjoy his work, you might too.

Here is Vote With Your Ass in its entirety:

Vote with Your Ass

“Hey man, I still think we can turn this thing around.”

That’s what your vote says.

That’s what you’re telling people when you argue in favor of a candidate, or against one.  You’re saying that a change in management could, at least potentially, create a better future. It’s not the system that’s broken; it’s those head-niggas-in-charge who are ruinin’ everything. The bright idea is that if we get their guy out and put our guy in—our nigga—he could really turn things around.

Where, exactly, is your nigga gonna turn it to?

How far is he going to turn back the clock? How much cleaning up are they going to let him do?  How many agencies is he going to close? How many amendments is he going to repeal? How many policies is he going to change, and why is he going to do these things for you? What’s in it for him?

Let’s say there’s an honest man in the race. Let’s just say there is—for the sake of argument.

Let’s say it for the laughs.

Let’s just say there is an honest man in the race who believes in the things that you believe in, a guy who is on your side.  Let’s imagine a candidate—because there isn’t one, not one—who is willing to take a stand against global business conglomerates that wield more power than most nations. Let’s imagine a nationalist candidate—an anti-globalist who isn’t going to make things easier for companies to export jobs, import cheap goods, and price Americans out of their own market. Let’s imagine there’s a guy who is actually willing to draw a line where our borders are supposed to be and say “no more.”

Conjure in your mind, if you will, a fella who is going to side with men when women want something—who won’t beta down and give in every time women nag him a little. I’m trying to keep this fantasy realistic, so let’s not get crazy. Let’s not get into divorce laws or domestic violence polices or sexual discrimination lawsuits or women in the military. Just try to imagine a guy who can stand up and say that men ought to feel free to exclude women from a private golf club if they want to. Imagine that guy—because he’s about the best you can hope for.

This guy, your best hope, is going to get up every morning and tell companies wielding the wealth of nations and 51% of the voting population to go fuck themselves, because he’s on your side.

You see how unrealistic that is, right?

Funny stuff.

What’s your best-case-scenario for America? I think the best that most men can reasonably hope for is for this thing to keep limping along and not get too much worse—that we’ll still be able to find a way to make it, to play the system and win sometimes.

(Some men will inevitably prosper no matter how bad things get for most men. Maybe you want to be that guy. Good on ‘ya. The point here is about changes in your odds.)

The likelihood of feminist laws being rolled back, even as far as the 1980s, is slim. The best you can hope for from elected officials—who also depend on the votes of women—is to fend off deep, hen-pecked “Swedish” feminism.

Whites are going to become minorities in a lot of areas, and hopefully being a minority white man who isn’t wealthy won’t suck too much. We can hope that all of the “youths” and “vibrants” who have been taught that we are their natural oppressors—and that we are naturally to blame for everything bad that happens to them—will be kind and benevolent to us. We can hope that they won’t hold a grudge or take advantage of us or attack us in an angry mob whenever the media winds them up.

We can hope that we’ll still have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves, and that we’ll be treated fairly by a legal system run by and for others.  The average guy can hope that judges and legislators will at least be reminded of the Constitution when they give decisions and write laws.

We can hope that freedom of speech will outlast us. We know that writing or saying the wrong thing may get us fired, but we can hope that they won’t put us in prison for it, like they do in more “evolved” nations like France, Germany, or England.

Basically, we can take a conservative position.  We can try to hold on to what remains from the past and what is good in the present. We can vote to keep things from changing too much, too fast. Maybe, if we’re really lucky, we’ll be able to regain some ground every once in a while—to right some wrongs, to correct some errors. Voting for the guy who is going to fuck things up the least is a conservative position.

Progressives—feminists, multiculturalists, socialists, and others—are more enraptured by their leaders and more excited about the future because they have an end goal in mind. They aren’t voting to keep things from getting too much worse, they are voting to achieve a State of Kumbaya. In the State of Kumbaya, every person of every sex and race is equal in every which way. Everyone shares and shares alike, and no one has a bad word to say about anyone else. In Kumbaya, there is no one to kill or die for (and no religion, too). This is not a radical position, because it is more or less the official position, but people who vote toward Kumbaya are still voting forward.

Conservatives vote to block them, or to go backward. They vote to restore, reclaim, and prevent. Conservatives believe that they can still turn this thing around.

I’m not a conservative.

I don’t believe we can turn this thing around by voting to put a new head-nigga-in-charge.

I’m not going to argue with you about why this nigga is better than that nigga.

I’ll be sitting it out entirely.

From now on, I’m voting with my ass.

I’m not advocating apathy. I don’t want you to stop caring. I want you to stop believing.

Voting implies consent. It implies that you still believe in the system and that you are satisfied with your options.

I want you to withdraw your consent.

In 2008, voter turnout was around 57%. That’s actually high for elections in recent years, and for a variety of reasons I doubt we’ll see that kind of enthusiasm again soon. However, the fact that we are being governed with the active consent of less than 60% of the population is worth consideration. In 1924, less than 49% of the voting age population turned out to elect an established incumbent challenged by a lackluster candidate who was actually a compromise between two other deadlocked candidates.  2012 looks like a great year to aim for under 50% again.

Let the head-nigga-in-charge claim he has a mandate from the people, when half of the voting age population couldn’t be bothered to vote either for or against him. And this isn’t even about him. It’s not about any one candidate. It’s about a system that can only produce globalists to act in our national interests. It’s about a system that makes it easier for men to pander to women than it is for them to stand up for men.

America is losing faith in its public institutions. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 12% expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress. 35% had faith in the presidency, 37% in the Supreme Court. As few had confidence in newspapers (28%) as they did in television news (27%).  Less than 30% trusted the criminal justice system, the banks, the unions or big business.

Withdrawing your support for America’s political system is a more powerful statement than your vote.

Not voting is a vote of “no confidence.”

Your vote isn’t going to turn this thing around. The best thing you can do for your country—for the men around you, for the future—is to let the system tear itself apart. The way to increase personal sovereignty for men is to decrease the sovereignty of the state by withdrawing the consent of the governed.  Sure, this could and probably will result in naked power grabs by “elected” officials. These actions will only decrease confidence further. That’s short-term. I’m thinking about the long game. If American men stop thinking of the government as “us” and start thinking of it as “them”—if we stop thinking of ourselves as Americans and start acting in our own interests, things could get really interesting.

So this year, don’t argue about politics.

Don’t vote.

Vote with your ass.

Or, if you really want to vote, don’t vote for any of the official candidates. Have fun with it. Vote for a write-in.

Vote for Zod. Vote for Cthulu. Vote for Crom. Vote for fucking Cobra Commander for all I care.

Just don’t vote for any of the assholes on the ballot.

Posted in Primary | Leave a comment

Voting is the Consent of the Governed

C__Data_Users_DefApps_Windows Phone_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_10606021_811347245596017_4373779753297326437_n

Well there it is, I won’t be participating in the upcoming presidential election, or the Republican primary. (I’m a Libertarian with fairly Anarchist leanings these days, in case you need to put me in a box). I can already hear it”errrr muh gersh, if you don’t vote than you have no right to complain.” This is typically prior to changing the subject to the latest happenings on Pawn Stars. In case you missed it, yes I’m openly mocking you for your addiction to the vast and sparkling array of distractions present in pop-culture. Not a great way to earn an audience I know, but if the shoe fits wear it, end digression.

As far as I am concerned regarding the election, it is a complete waste of time to vote if you expect positive change as a result. The social views of the United States have become so polarized that there will be no reconciliation between the disenfranchised populations in this 2 party system. We are truly a nation divided, and if you haven’t figured that out already please pick the media outlet of your choosing, be it local or national, pick a story, and read the commentary. Conservative or liberal, the vehemence and venom in the comments display the absolute unwillingness to resolve these issues in any sociable way. Admittedly my own views are diverse enough, compared to the views of my social opponents that I too cannot imagine a common ground.I would bother providing you an example, but my suspicion is that if you are at all informed at all, you know precisely what I am referring to. Am I wrong?

Aside from the great schism in American ideologies, evidence has been presented that elections are rigged. I can’t claim for certain whether this is fact or not, but some of the evidence is pretty damning. Again, I won’t be educating you on this subject, that’s not my goal here. If you’ve never heard this, then you owe it to yourself to investigate that claim. I refuse to do the work for you anymore. I’ve discovered the hard way that I could present a smoking gun for evidence, and still be cast away if the facts dramatically challenge your preconceived notions, so do your own research.

Honestly how hard would it be to imagine the election is rigged anyways? With super PAC’s, the expansion of corporate rights via corporate personhood, and extreme influence of the mainstream media (MSM) in elections, who couldn’t assume it’s all rigged? And what of the outrageous campaign contributions via the banking institution? Banks buying elections? These factors, and more essentially relegate the Electoral process to a quadrennial entertainment event, in which we participate for approximately 6 months to a year by watching television, showing up 1 time at a voting booth, and then proudly displaying a sticker that champions the execution of our civic duty. Heroic I know.

As for the results, they always seem to be the same. An establishment victory after a tight battle between careerists (whom share nothing in common with the working class). These candidates take office, bows graciously to the People, and initiates a campaign of eroding our liberties, finances, and values, typically all at the same time. The flavor in which this is executed seems to rankle the party that elected the candidate just slightly less than the party that didn’t. This is progress.

And the field of candidates allowed airtime by the MSM? Lets see, well this time primarily we have an egomaniacal corporatist, a spineless weasel, a communist, and a traitor, 1 of which is already a member of the existing oligarchy (and Jeb, who has since dropped out, would make 2 from the oligarchical class). While there are of course candidates I share views with, unfortunately their views are not as consistent with the platform the MSM would like to see represented, so they get minimal airtime.

Before you offer that I need to get more involved, allow me to admit I tried that before. I was zealously involved with the Republican Primary, and the complete run up in 2008. I encountered enough corruption to convince me my efforts were better invested elsewhere. Additionally I  discovered that after the primary the state rapidly chose to back the candidate who scored dead last during the primary. The guy who was least electable in my state became our champion overnight. Additionally, the pitiful amount of voting power my State has relegates our votes to a protest at best. They have ZERO actual influence on who is elected.

So where has that left me? Pleading to any gods who will listen that the whole stinking edifice crumbles into the sea? Pretty much. I do endeavor to be more active at a local level. I have also learned to steer clear of the hope that some Daddy Messiah figure, political or otherwise, is going to save me from my enemies. I primarily focus on my family and strengthening myself against the chaos that is surely coming. My last post addressed that in part. What will you do? Well vote of it suits your fancy, but don’t despair to me when the results don’t yield what you were promised.


Posted in Primary | Leave a comment

Is the European Invasion a Precursor to an American Invasion?

So I have decided to reformat and reinvigorate this blog. Current events have alarmed me to the point of speaking out, again… One can only rant to oneself for so long without falling into the clutches of insanity. I have a lot to say, and want to get the “dialogue” started.

This video is one I ran across this morning. While the content is related to sexual values, there is a relationship to the refugee “crisis” in Europe, hence my title. It seems apparent to me that a common view or social identity is clearly lacking in our society, and I find myself agreeing with much of what is in this video. Please watch it, in its 18 minute entirety. I know 18 minutes is beyond the 1-3 minute attention span we have been reduced to, but to fully appreciate the content, you have to see the video in its entirety. I welcome any comments, cries, or general boo-hooery it might provoke. If you can’t stomach 18 minutes, I am sure you can find an episode of “Ow, my balls” to entertain yourself…

Posted in Primary | 2 Comments