Question of the Day: If we had a country, what would it be like?
If we had a country, what would it be like?
For example, would we allow people from Third World Islamic nations that hate Christ and despise the West to immigrate, become citizens, vote, and hold office?
If the children of Muslim visitors beat up a young boy in an American school, would not they and their families be expelled without a hearing?
If Muslim and pro-Muslim students attempted to occupy a college building by force, would we not send in the National Guard to eject them with brute force and then expell the Muslims and give stiff prison sentences to the citizens?
If a teacher, counselor, or doctor encouraged or assisted a minor to undergo gender transformation, would these moral monsters not be subject, at the very least, to confiscation of their wealth and property and to neutering operations?
In the next few days, I'll be adding more questions proposed by me and by collaborative readers.
No to the first question and yes to the rest. I came up with a good suggestion but can’t remember what it was.
One thing judge Napolitano doesn’t seem to get is related to your third question. Regardless of whether we sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza or not, if they stage protests here in America for any reason, then round them up and send them home, period. Tell them to fight for their own country there, in their own country, and not try to turn ours into a battleground. Of course that then brings up another question, ” If we had a country, would we be supplying Israel with weapons to use on the Palestinians? Of course not. We can’t have our cake and eat it too, and ditto regarding Ukraine.
Republicans profess horror about peacefully protesting Palestinians. Their usual short-sighted and deceptive pose. They have been promoting heavy immigration for a half century.
I agree with the points made by both Wilsons, though I wonder if the taxi driver who tried to murder Jewish students with his car in Brooklyn was peacefully protesting. Islam is a religion of violence; it always has been. Srdja Trifkovic used to argue–to deaf-eared conservative Republicans–that the US needs a McCarran Act for Muslims, putting on would be-immigrants the burden of proof to show that they do not take their religion seriously. As Prof. Wilson is indicating: If we want to protect ourselves from Islamic violence, we need to do it by keeping them out of our country, We do not have to kill them in the Middle East.
I suppose one way of phrasing the addition would be: If we actually had a country, we would not be permitting citizens, much less immigrants, to take part in demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise, on behalf of foreign countries or liberation movements.
I have been too lazy to research the U.S. test for allowing visas, green cards, citizenship etc. to visitors. Say citizenship. I assume that there is a requirement that the applicant agree to abide by the Constitution. So let’s say we have a true believing Muslim(sharia law) or an irreligious Muslim(at least at application time). “Spread Islam by the sword…” What happened to your oath to abide by First Amendment which tolerates religious differences? Islam states for Muslim #a it is ok to lie to promote sharia. Muslim #2 could change his mind and certainly would if Muslim #1 put on the pressure. What am I overlooking? I remain lazy.
You don’t have to be an immigration expert or an energetic researcher. In our program, some of which is in an indispensable book, we understated the crisis with our title “A Thousand Year of Jihad.” They have been slaughtering Christians and Jews since the days of the Prophet, and they only make an exception as a tax-collecting measure.
You’d have to be insane to let them in, particularly in large numbers, but then again, democratically elected Presidents on on THEIR side. After 911 George Bush, prompted no doubt by family members who were partners with the Bin Ladens, declared Islam a religion of peace. Obama told us that Muslims had been with America from the beginning. I don’t suppose, when he told this lie, he was thinking of the war with the Barbary Pirates.
Now a nice Liberal or Left-Liberal Academic would reply, “Well what about the Crusades? What about our aggression against Muslims? First off, most of what the poor idiot thinks he know is false, but even if it were all true, what possible difference could it make. Currently, some of our problem with Muslims is in fact due to our unjust support for Israel, but while we might wish to damn Harry Truman to Hell, it makes no difference. Any nation that is a nation must defend itself against its enemies, and our refusal to do so means only one thing: We are not a nation or even a state. America is only a land mass, “a geographical expression”–to borrow Metternich’s term for Italy–a conglomeration of helots who only exist for the power they give their masters.
I hope you realize how silly this litany of gripes is.
Friend Ray, I am sorry you are so annoyed by my funning that you have written a phrase that means nothing. A litany is a series of prayers and entreaties offered by clergy and laity, often in a religious procession. How there could be a “litany of gripes” I cannot possibly imagine. Of course in the Newspeak of NPR, it is regularly used to mean something like “laundry list,” but then they don’t speak English on NPR.
I am definition 2b of “litany” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, “a usu. lengthy recitation or enumeration “. I know the definition that you mention but did not think it at all appropriate to this profane undertaking.
My previous reply should read ‘I am using definition 2b of “litany” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, “a usu. lengthy recitation or enumeration “. I know the definition that you mention but did not think it at all appropriate to this profane undertaking.’
Ray, you cannot possibly think I would take the opinion of a pop-junk piece of trash like the Merriam-Webster. Next we’ll all be going to the Urban Slang lectionaries on the WWW. It is no accident that the institutions of a degraded mass culture devoted to destroying Christendom legitimates the blasphemous misuse of a once coherent and dignified language. A litany is a litany and not something that teenyboppers choose to invent. The first step toward restoring any semblance of civilization, as Confucius so brilliantly stated, is to learn the proper use of words.
Perhaps a better comic series than what I started above would be to list all the current abuses of the meaning of words.
I’m enjoying the enumeration of grievances this propositional little article has generated, Dr Fleming, and I hope that one or two of our more colorful friends will weigh in before the comments are closed.
I for one am amused by the notion of holding anyone (let alone scimitar wielders from the Mahgreb) to what it says in the Constitution. The question is, which Constitution? Seems like it’s been undergoing creative reinterpretation since halfway through the Federalist Papers on up to the Present Day’s epochal 5-4 Supreme Court Mandates. At this stage, doesn’t the Constitution routinely get boiled down to the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment? There’s something The Stupid Party and The Evil Party can agree on. Bipartisanship: stupid and evil.
I’m still coming up to speed on what I know of Machiavellian thought (aided by you, Sam Francis, and James Burnham, among others), but I wonder what the great Florentine would say. Maybe if we actually did get our own country, and even before we started redressing the above-listed grievances, we’d maybe want to lose that old dead letter born in that Convention Catherine Drinker Bowen called the “Miracle At Philadelphia.”
Help me out, Sam!
A listing of abused words would be an interesting albeit lengthy exercise.
I humbly submit the word “icon” as one word cruelly abused. Bad enough it has been marred by computer jargon misuse, but when I see some pop singer, dressed like a street comfort woman, described with the same word used to describe the Theotokos, I just grit my teeth.
First, in rereading my responses to Ray, I realize I have been flippant–though not in my pedantic insistence on using important cultural and religious terms in their proper sense. I ask friend Ray to consider that what strikes him as a mere list of “gripes” is intended–and I hope is–a list of symptoms. Suppose I went to the doctor and complained of shortness of breath, occasional moments of brain fog, and, when I exert myself, a pain in the shoulder. The doctor could of course dismiss my complaints as petty gripes or he could say, “Hmm, sounds like arteriosclerosis. Let’s do some tests. You may be in for a heart attack. About five years ago, I went in for my annual checkup. The doctor asked if I had been sick, and I told him about a case of flu I had in Sicily that left me breathless for about six weeks–unable to walk more than a block uphill without sitting down to rest. He answered, “It’s either congestive heart failure or pneumonia, but since you are not dead, must be pneumonia.” I thought about telling him I had only had the rocking pneumonia and the boogy woogy flu, but considering he was Filipino, I decided to spare him.
“Icon” should be near the top of any list of profaned religious terms.
Ken, it was Clyde Wilson who first opened my eyes to the absurdity of the myth of the Philadelphia Miracle. About 25 years ago I decided to study the Convention as a king of Gangland meeting–remember the Appalachia conference?–at which ward heelers, bootleggers, gamblers et al sat down to broker a general agreement. But at Philadelphia, pace the Beards, it was not merely economic interests but small states versus large, Southerners vs Yankees, secularized Puritans vs Christians and many more special interests. What emerged was a means of bringing a sufficient number to accommodate each other’s interests, and the Constitution is a reflection of those resolved conflicts. Anything but a miracle and not even good political theory, but they did manage to do in a short time what a natural evolution–punctuated by rebellions and regional struggles–might have taken a century.
Abused words is an excellent subject that I think might not lead to the indulgence of revenge fantasies.
We could start with the phrase “revenge fantasies.” This is a sort of pejorative two-fer. But what is a fantasy that is so dreadful? We all, of course, use it to mean a sort of daydream not based on reality, but it comes from a cluster of words that refer to appearance and imagination. Now if one were to say that someone had an imagination or something in his imagination, we might be saying he confused the imaginary with the real; on the other hand we might be referring to what a poet like Blake or Rimbaud conjured up–a vision of things that might be or should be real but are not accessible to the humdrum mind of the shopkeeper,
Then there is revenge, a much maligned word. Revenge is simply the vindication of a wrong that has been done. Like war, it has its uses and abuses. In Just War theory, a war should be entered into by a competent sovereign authority that seeks to right or prevent a wrong and uses proportionate means. So in revenge, the avenger must be the proper authority, which in stateless societies is a member of a victim’s family, and in a more organized state of society, the ruler(s), and, for those of a religious bent, proper acts of revenge come from the Superior Being that declared, “Vengeance is mine.” In essence, vengeance is the justice of tit for tat: The man who kills my brother must either be killed or be forced to pay an acceptable compensation or suffer a punishment that satisfies the family. For Dante and other Italians of his and later times, Vendetta is simply justice.
So “revenge fantasies” might simply be a vision of how justice would work in a properly constituted society. Fortunately, for those who are perplexed by this, my next volume, titled either The Rule of Hate or The Uses of Adversity is even now receiving a final polish and some revision of the conclusion. Help is on the way!
The USA had a rendezvous with catastrophe. Given the deadly words Jefferson penned in the Declaration (“…all men are created equal”), could this country ultimately have ended up anywhere else than the ditch into which the truck is headed?
The question kunder consideration here is fundamental. It is an example of the kind of thinking we should be doing. “Dkuring the winter the farmer looks to his tools.” At present, there is no place for us in so-called “practical politics.” Since we are sidelined for the present, we should be thinking seriously about how our future ethnostate will funciton.
There are scads of practical questions to be thought through.
The most important of these questions is the one being asked.
Who will be allowed to be a citizen or our new state? (I would put it in more drastic terms. I don’t think non-citizens should be allowed to be present in the new state.)
I have a suggestion on the criteria. Tom Fleming will be relieved that my formula is actually theologically rather than racially based but fortunately the theological test matches almost exactly a racial test.
Here is my formula: To be a citizen of the new state it will be necessary that ALL of one’s ancestors must have been Nicene Creed Christians as of 1492.
This formula will admit all of the groups we want (Latins, Teutons, Scandinavians, Slavs, Celts) and exclude the people we don’t want.
All of the major branches of Christianity share the Nicene Creed – Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics so my formula is very inclusive.
While on the subject of our future Whiteopia, we might also include the question of who will be allowed to VOTE in the new state.
I think it is clear that we do not want an absolutist dictatorship except as might be necessary in the hard circumstances of the initial founding. We would want a certain measure of popular input.
There will be lots of people on this list who will have many suggestions of qualifications for the limited franchise we want…as opposed to the catastrophic rule of King Numbers in the current universal suffrage democracy.
I have many additional ideas on limitations on the right to vote but I’ll start with just one…one which would mean that I myself would not be able to vote.
I think the franchise should be limited to married males who have children and who have never been divorced.
If you don’t have any gentic investment in the future, you should not be allowed to have a vote in shaping that future.
I could go on and on…but I will spare all of you. You are probably as tired of listening to me as I am of listening to myself.
Thanks, Sam. I’d live in such a country, even if all we got was the Upper Peninsula. I like your voting stipulations. I think Government employees and people on Government assistance should also not be allowed to vote (Dr Fleming has, I believe, taken this position in the past). And, government means military, as well. I would also exclude, if possible, people working for companies working on government contracts.
I would gladly stay home every election day, if such conditions obtained.
Sam D makes good points, some of which, as Ken reminds, were put into print by someone here decades ago and repeatedly. As for a cutoff date, I think this is a grave mistake, one that has been made in more than one society that perished as a result. Both in genetic terms and cultural, human interaction should be close but not too close. Several generations of inbreeding has generally poor results, and societies that close the doors to talented strangers of good blood become too inward looking and stagnant. Look at Charleston’s St Cecilia Society or the experience of Sparta, where property eventually got concentrated in the hands of a few women.
On the other hand, of course, all modern societies are far too generous. To strike a cautious middle way one might consider the Swiss system. If one of us moved to Switzerland and tried to become a citizen, he would have to be accepted first at the level of his commune, whether a city or rural district, the Canton, and the Federal Republic. I used to know the world’s expert on Greek religion, the German son of a Lutheran pastor. Early in his career he was hired in Zurich and his two boys lived virtually all their lives there. They served in the Swiss army, but were rejected twice, and they gave up, so I heard. Intelligent hardworking sons of a great scholar, whose background is ethnically the same as the German Swiss would be a positive addition, and so would even today, the equivalent people from Scotland, England, and Wales. Yes, we should by all means put every obstacle in the way, and, even after they are given citizenship, the naturalized Americans should be subject for deportation for committing certain serious crimes or just being an irritant.
Ancient Greeks were generally very chary about granting citizenship even to very closely related groups. Some cities established reciprocal privileges, and Athens on certain occasions granted citizenship to talented Greeks who served the Athenians in war or in some vital activity.
In this new country, what practical measures would be prudent to keep the banksters, the corporate lobbyists, the globalist financial vultures, and such from destroying the country from the inside? Is such a thing easily prevented? There must be some way to keep external forces (i.e. the Soros types and lobbyists for other nations) from pumping in oceans of money in order to sway policies, shape legislation, persuade the executive function . . . etc.
The best thing would be to prevent big corporations from arising in the first place. That in turn may mean either no industrial civilization as we have known it, or else industry on a much smaller scale, especially since wage slavery is no good economic model for human happiness.
This, in turn would mean that technology would evolve over time in a way entirely different from what we have known. It would develop in a way that serves people, not big government and big business, the deep state, intelligence organizations and state busybodies.
We would need an economy that would provide the most prosperity for the greatest number, with little or no inflation. Experience seems to indicate that we cannot tolerate central banking, and money must be only gold and silver coin. Perhaps the state would need to control at least some mines from which it could mint coinage and spend it into the economy.
Let us not go too far afield. The object is not to design a utopian society but merely to outline a few essentials for any commonwealth, even a bad one. The only means of keeping the moneychangers our of the temple and out of the seats of power was devised by Lenin and Stalin. Since Cain slew Abel, men have been seeking wealth and power, and even Stalin could not stop it. Communists, as I have too often quoted Milovan Djilas, eliminate all forms of property but their own. If we are going to try to eliminate greed and envy, we must eliminate competition, and if we eliminate competition, we must eliminate private property…
But, in addressing this question, I would point out that significant changes were made in the past 150 year which aided the concentration of wealth. Many of them were implemented by invoking the Interstate Commerce clause to, for example, strike down rules (as in SC) against out of state banks opening branches in a state or (Wisconsin) forbidding banks to have multiple branches. There used to be hundreds of little laws giving preference or monopolies to local businesses. Yes, mom and pop got comparatively well enough, but nothing like the rich white trash who currently own America. In France, they have laws subverting EU and international regulations that outlaw national preferences. Paris has a law that allows only family-held groceries to open on Sunday. That is the difference between profitability and bankruptcy.
I have no illusions about what is possible in a country that permits creature like Fanny Willis or Letitia James to become prosecutors, but restoring the Constitutional balance between state and federal government and adopting Jefferson’s theory of ward government–that is, making small towns and neighborhoods into little republics–is clearly the path to follow. Nationalistic experiments are not, perhaps, as bad as internationalistic, but they are the inevitable step. Both Nationalism and Interenationalism are the fruits of the French Revolution.