Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 24 May 2008 15:54 | #

My working hypothesis is that the adoption of the US Constitution was pretty much a way to shift the war debts onto the yeoman farmers who fought the war and off of the centralized wealth of the slave-owning plantation farmers, as well as off of the merchants.  This shift of war debt repayment is what led to Shay’s Rebellion.  Although I had not heard of the flaws you mention in the adoption of the current constitution, it fits with my working hypothesis quite well—being quite reminiscent of the way immigration liberalization occurs against the will of the people who fought for the land.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 May 2008 21:22 | #

Albert Jay Nock (and possibly also Murray Rothbard) viewed the Constitution as inferior to the Articles of Confederation in one sense:  it opened the door to lots more central-government-type mischief, in large part because of how it decreased the powers of the several states, subordinating them to a more powerful central government which Lincoln of course went further in solidifying, especially by the way he entrenched the (incorrect) view that no state had the right to secede.

From the von Mises Institute:

In his magnum opus, Our Enemy the State (New York:  William Morrow, 1935), [Albert Jay] Nock expanded on his theory and applied it to American history, in particular the formation of the American Constitution.  In contrast to the traditional conservative worshippers of the Constitution, Nock applied Charles A. Beard’s thesis to the history of America, seeing it as a succession of class rule by various groups of privileged businessmen, and the Constitution as a strong national government brought into being in order to create and extend such privilege.  The Constitution, wrote Nock, “enabled an ever-closer centralization of control over the political means.  For instance … many an industrialist could see the great primary advantage of being able to extend his exploiting opportunities over a nationwide free-trade area walled in by a general tariff….  Any speculator in depreciated public securities would be strongly for a system that could offer him the use of the political means to bring back their face value.  Any shipowner or foreign trader would be quick to see that his bread was buttered on the side of a national State which, if properly approached, might lend him the use of the political means by way of a subsidy, or would be able to back up some profitable but dubious freebooting enterprise with ‘diplomatic representations’ or with reprisals.”  Nock concluded that those economic interests, in opposition to the mass of the nation’s farmers, “planned and executed a coup d’etat, simply tossing the Articles of Confederation into the wastebasket….”

From a different source:

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, said in one of his Mises Institute lectures that the great pivot point in American history was not the Lincoln dictatorship, although that certainly played a key role in sending America along an irreversible trajectory towards unlimited imperial government.  However, to find the real seeds of runaway federal government, we really need to go back to the Articles of Confederation and look at the structural changes that were made as a result of the secretive meeting in Philadelphia that created the U.S. Constitution.  This meeting was ostensibly convened to amend the Articles of Confederation, but instead created a whole new document.  Author Gary North calls it “The Conspiracy in Philadelphia.”  To the extent that the public was not notified in advance and given a chance to debate the issues, the meeting in Philadelphia violated republican principles.  Quite frankly, it had many characteristics of a coup d’état.  According to Dr. Murray Rothbard it was led by New York bankers who were more interested in consolidating Revolutionary War debt under a powerful central government than in maintaining the level of state sovereignty that might have been in the best long term interests of the citizens of each state.

My preference for what ought to replace the Constitution leans strongly toward JWH’s concept of Balkanization, with Euros not only getting their own explicitly Euro nation on the North American land mass (from which significant percentages of non-Euros would be excluded and Jews could never again insist it was meant to be multicultural/multiracial because its Euro identity would be explicitly stipulated exactly as the Jews explicitly stipulated Israel’s Jewish identity) but, as I see it, even multiple different Euro nations each duplicating the language, basic culture, and to the extent possible the race, of one of the Ancient Nations of the Mother Continent, so you’d have a little Italy, a little Flanders, a little Greece, a little Germany, a little Russia, and so on.  There’s already a little France (Quebec), so no additional land would be apportioned to form a “little France.”  I don’t know about setting aside land for a little Spain, since there’s already Argentina and other places that fill that role (Mexico doesn’t count for that, since it’s peopled mainly with non-Euros, but Argentina I believe is majority Euro).  I’d also create a proper homeland for the North American Red Indian, whose race threatens to go extinct otherwise.  The major portion of the North American land mass would be reserved for English-speaking “little Britain” which would be the continuation of the failed United States (the British North American Nation didn’t fail, only its most recent attempt at a governmental set-up has failed — the Nation itself, in other words the people, is still in perfect health, waiting to be led out of the present morass into something more workable for the first time in a long time).  That the present morass is going to be swept away and replaced with something better is, in my view, certain.  The biggest cause of its current state of ruination?  The Jews (as I see things).  There have been other factors of course, the they’re the biggest.  For that reason a portion of the land mass ought to be set aside for a separate country for the Jews, since allowing them to settle in any Euro country in any numbers is the same as signing that country’s death warrant:  the Jews will have that poor doomed country’s social fabric destroyed and its people race-replaced with Negroes quicker than you can say Jake Rabinowitz (that’s “Jack Robinson” to you and me).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 May 2008 21:55 | #

Typo:

Make that,

“There have been other factors of course, but they’re the biggest.”

Posted by Red Baron on Sun, 25 May 2008 00:46 | #

Great ideas, now we need to kindly request the elites, the military-industrial complex, the Zionists ( and all their sycophants) to step aside so we can fix things.

In the mean time don’t violate the Patriot Act or you’ll be sent be “suicided”.

Posted by Red Baron on Sun, 25 May 2008 00:49 | #

One more bit of advice, if you’re interested in discussing freedom or living in a free country I’d recommend marrying a foreigner and leaving the United States, and that goes double for UK.

BTW… I do follow my own advice.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 02:04 | #

Changing things is usually preceded by talking about changing them, Red Baron.  If people could communicate by mental telepathy they could shut up and just send brain waves to each other through the ether, but they can’t. 

These people who get annoyed if someone 1) talks about what needs to be changed, then 2) can’t change things five minutes later by snapping his fingers, are bizarre but they keep popping up here.

In the 1950s there were people saying to one another that the white race had to be driven out of existence.  Red Baron would have come up to them and said with bitter sarcasm, “Great ideas, now we need to kindly request the elites, the military-industrial complex, the white people (and all their sycophants) to step aside so we can fix things,” as if they hadn’t a prayer of pulling it off and were wasting their time talking about it.  Hell, I would’ve told them exactly the same thing.

But ya see, they’ve pulled it off, Red Baron, and they’ve gotten white people on the ropes now, so ... maybe talking about it isn’t such a waste of time? 

Hey I dunno, just call it a hunch ....

Posted by Red Baron on Sun, 25 May 2008 02:26 | #

One can hope for an overreach, Fred, or some sort of misstep. Perhaps a scenario like having the military fire on protesters, triggering an unexpected rebellion. I’m not taking my chances on the dumbed-down American population. I’ve visited many other countries recently, and have found the so called liberty that Americans claim to treasure much more available there.

Of course, there are boundaries, but the interesting thing is, in many of these countries the boundaries are known, in the US, the ideology is protean, the acceptable party line changes leaving many exposed to retribution. In the US, cops seek to entrap you in the system, draining your life, seizing your property, children, and finances; in much of the refuge countries the cops are corrupt, but give them a bribe and they’ll leave you alone. The system there is not one of a Gulag, as in the US, but more of a “little bite” system as the Mexicans say.

I’m not wasting my time theorizing, though, that’s for sure.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 03:11 | #

“I’m not wasting my time theorizing, though, that’s for sure.”

Neither are we.  That’s for sure.

Posted by Bo on Sun, 25 May 2008 04:36 | #

Somehow the idea in the posting got lost. The idea was simply that the diverse white American proples (or, those sufficiently sophisticated in what needs doing) use the Articles as our organizing framework for ourselves. There was no over-the-top discussion of how to re-organize the world, Europe, or North America!

At some point we will need governance for our tribe, no?

Red Baron’s remark, “Great ideas, now we need to kindly request the elites, the military-industrial complex, the Zionists ( and all their sycophants) to step aside so we can fix things,” is so beside the point that it is scary-funny.

Maybe we need some reading comprehension coursework.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 May 2008 08:43 | #

Well, Bo, I did raise a relevant issue, although I didn’t put it as succinctly this:

Under the AoC, how should war debts be paid so as to avoid a repeat of Shay’s Rebellion and the ensuing shenanigans by wealthy interests leading up to the “US Constitution” which appears to have had as its main effect the institution of sufficient Federal authority to put down rebellions by war veterans who were being taxed out of their homesteads to pay for the war so that plantation owners grab more land and race replace the posterity of the vets with African slaves?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 14:17 | #

I guess I was the one who got the thread off topic by speculating on balkanization (balkanization as I see it:  there are lots of ways of seeing it; here JWH discusses it, for example). 

But is balkanization off topic?  The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were written with certain assumptions taken for granted, including what we today would call ethnoracial ones:  for both documents there was an assumption of a particular ethnoracial substrate which the agreed-upon set of rules set forth was to govern.  (There was also the assumption that within that taken-for-granted ethnoracial substrate only propertied men would be able to vote, but that, while extremely important in and of itself, is separate from ethnoracial considerations.)  Had the same men expected either document to serve a polity as different ethnoracially from theirs as ours they’d have inserted different (and many more) protections, stressed different points, spelled out different things explicitly so there’d be no “accidentally-on-purpose” misunderstandings by factions placing self-interest above the good of the whole, etc.  (It’s also possible, on the contrary, that they’d have thrown up their hands and said there simply was no way to come up with something workable until they had first restored relative ethnoracial homogeneity.)

Thanks mainly to 1) the preference on the part of American Jewry for applying its immense power in the service of evil in so many ways, rather than in the service of good, and 2) the advent of clueless women’s suffrage (there were other factors at work, of course, such as the groundwork Abraham Lincoln laid, but those first two just named were the main ones), the XXth Century saw the final complete overthrow of the ethnoracial fact-on-the-ground that underlay and undergirded both those original governing documents, the ethnoracial fact-on-the-ground that made them workable. 

To return to something workable — and here I get back to the log entry’s original topic — is in a sense to return to the concept of the ethnoracial fact-on-the-ground, which in turn gets into the concept of balkanization.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 14:27 | #

I used to sign with a signature slogan I got from one of the commenters here, I forget who:

“Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!”

Posted by Bo on Sun, 25 May 2008 15:54 | #

I give up! Just talkin’ tribal governance folks.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 16:14 | #

“I give up!  Just talkin’ tribal governance, folks.”  (—Bo)

Bo, I agree the AoC would have been a better starting point for tribal governance in the 1770s than the Constitution turned out to be.  (The Consitution actually got quite far before Abraham Lincoln took the first major steps in its unraveling, so lots of credit does go to the men who wrote it on that score alone.)  To get back to something potentially holding the promise of working better for tribal governance than the Constitution turned out to hold, wouldn’t we also need to look at somehow getting back to a tribal polity?  How can tribal governance apply to the non-tribal polity we have now?  What am I misunderstanding?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 May 2008 16:18 | #

Replace where I put “polity,” above, with “population.”

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 May 2008 21:30 | #

Bo, tribal governance—any governance—must deal with financing wars.  The fact that the AoC seemed to fall apart under the stress of such financial obligations seems to point to a critical flaw.  That the “cure” (US Constitution) may be worse than the disease is always the first concern of anyone doing remedial work—but let’s give Hippocrates his due and move forward.

Posted by Bo on Sun, 25 May 2008 23:14 | #

Okay, let’s ask the question this way. As our nations balkanize, and the various peoples re-tribalize, how shall the white tribe govern itself in the ways that the NAACP, the Jewish American Congress, La Raza, and the various Indian tribes may be said to govern themselves?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 May 2008 01:04 | #

All of those organizations are founded on parasitism of a host culture.  It is difficult to pattern oneself after a parasite if one is a host.  Essentially, they rely less on rule of law than they do on genetic adaptation to host weaknesses.  They are emergent group phenotypes of strong genetic adaptations such as hypocrisy, kin altruism, etc.

Since we are a host culture we have to start there:  What is the foundation of a host culture?  I submit the foundation of a host culture is the genetic makeup of its people which in turn founds the creation of carrying capacity (carrying capacity that is usually usurped by parasites due to high “diversity” brought by civilization).

Of course, _parasite_ cultures will _claim_ that they are the true hosts and the other co-resident cultures are the parasites.  Witness “the light unto the nations” that is continually breaking down barriers to other nations to dispense upon them their “gift” only then to be “parasitized” by the “ingrates” who are “envious”.  Witness movies like “A Day Without a Mexican” where, so we are told, the folks who created more carrying capacity for more humanity than any other people in the world, are so hopelessly inept at performing basic functions that they can’t get by without hoards of Mexicans who (as is portrayed in the movie) become the legitimate inheritors of the already-developed agricultural lands of the US.  There are more such stories we are going to be treated to endlessly when Obama is president of the US.  And I await with bated breath the arrival of Hollywood’s rendition of “Atlas Shrugged” starring Angela Jolie—when I expect to loose a gale of sardonic laughter.

So when everyone is sitting around calling everyone else in the room a “parasite”, what do we do?

Simple:

Offer to subdivide the room, and watch which of the “hosts” attacks you as someone trying to take over the entire room—then make them a simple offer:  Shut up and subdivide or die here and now.

That’s why I think financing a war effort is so important.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 28 May 2008 15:39 | #

Since we are a host culture we have to start there:  What is the foundation of a host culture?  I submit the foundation of a host culture is the genetic makeup of its people which in turn founds the creation of carrying capacity (carrying capacity that is usually usurped by parasites due to high “diversity” brought by civilization).

I need to remind you gentlemen, that unless you have a ‘cultus’ (i.e., religion) you cannot have a ‘culture.’ The second is the organic, logical outgrowth of the first.

Assuming we all believe in the inherent [sic] ‘racism’ of the Founders, (that this land was meant for White, European, English speaking yeomanry) then next we have to decide what form of religion we shall have, as the ‘glue’ that holds things together.

If you haven’t thought of it, I suggest you start now. Clearly, Roman ‘Catholi-schism’ is not an option. It was not an option in 1770, and the current Bishop of Rome’s visit to the US/UN showed that he is on the side of the mestizo, and NOT the indigenous European that gave Rome her hegemony in the first place!

Second, liberal Protestantism is no better, as they are in the forefront of all the ‘multicultural madness’ now affecting our nation.

Third, cults are inherently unstable, even when amassed of large numbers of Americans (i.e., Mormons) Unfortunately, their predilection for the ‘lost tribes of Israel’ as being synonymous with the Mestizo population/Amerindian, make them clearly race traitors as well as heretics. Sorry if I offend, but the documentation is out there for those who want references…

Finally, the Jews cannot, should not, MUST not be trusted. The crime of deicide still lies heavy on their agnostic breasts, and if anyone were thinking that they ‘might be converted,’ the recent burning of New Testaments in Jerusalem clearly shows the Talmudic beast is alive and well.

That leaves only a few options:
1) a renascent Anglicanism (not Episcopalians- see ‘liberal protestants’ above) of the traditionalist kind.
Some positives: Liturgical uniformity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic excellence, (the KJV, and the BCP are up there on a par with Shakespeare) and an intellectual tradition bar none.

2) Protestant fundamentalism: The Southern Baptists clearly are in a river in Egypt [D- Nial] over mixed-raced marriage issues, and female presbyters. Their ecclesiasstical particularism is not the ‘glue’ one needs to establish a racial/cultural homogeneity. Traditional Lutherans are afraid of Luther, [‘the Jews and their lies’] and are awash in relativism, and are in the forefront of ‘Social Services’ guaranteed to decimate the USA’s Upper Midwest, which is now a ‘favorite destination’ for Somali Negro Muslims!?!?

3) Calvinist traditionalism: the lives of Rousas Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North (quoted in a recent post here!) and the Theonomists are coming out stronger and stronger on the side of the White European. They, too, have a cultural heritage in the USA, a good intellectual tradition, solidarity in congregational polity, and some keen insights into the present situation. [www.spiritwaterblood.com, Chalcedon.edu] Negatives- no cultural heritage in arts, architecture, etc. to pass on. Their legacy is steeped in iconoclasm.

4) Orthodoxy of the Traditionalist stripe - currently this is in fragmentation, (avoid modernist SCOBA/NCC/WCC ‘official’ Orthodoxy- see ‘liberal protestants’ above) However- the rise of an indigenous American Anglo Orthodoxy, with her own ruling hierarchy, using forms already approved from the tradition of the English church (see #1) would give a) legitimacy to #1, and connect the severed ‘branches’ of Christendom- which means Europe would be fighting on the same side, rather than at each other’s throats.

The jews have Talmudism, the pagans their syncretistic faiths, and the Liberals their own brand of ‘Me as messianism.’ [Obama is the current ‘avatar’] What will the West have as her unique, delineating Faith- perhaps the one she used to profess?

Just some thoughts…..

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 May 2008 20:39 | #

So be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 May 2008 20:45 | #

James Bowery: “Shut up and subdivide or die here and now.”

I say we subdivide now only if we lack the strength currently to reconquer.  If we do subdivide now I say we reconquer later once we have the strength.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:18 | #

Watch Richard Cohen endorse when Negroes block-vote by race but not when whites do it (when whites do it for the first time in their voting lives, one might add). 

By the way, “Cohen” — that’s a ... Seventh-Day Adventist name, right? ... I think so .... Either that or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, one or the other ...