America • American Conservatism • Donald Trump • Greatness Agenda

An Interview with Decius

The pseudonymous Publius Decius Mus has angered and mystified his critics with his bracing assessment of our political moment in his essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” which—along with the follow-up essay—quickly went viral and generated commentary from left and right. With so many questions and so much controversy swirling around his ideas, American Greatness spoke with Decius this week about the pursuit of greater clarity in thinking through the politics of our time.

an interview with decius flight 93 jagAmerican Greatness: Hillary Clinton has described at least half of Trump supporters as “a basket of deplorables,” including racists, sexists and the usual litany of leftist epithets. What do you think is the proper response to this charge and what do you have to say to conservative critics who suggest that she has a point?

I’m not much of a campaign guru, so I should leave the response to others. Actually, I think the Trump campaign is doing a good job with it. It could be a gift that keeps on giving for them. Though I would caution Trump supporters against thinking this is a silver bullet. The rules are different for us than for them. The media hung “47 percent” around Mitt Romney’s neck like a millstone. Not that he would have won otherwise. The point is simply that the propaganda value of the Megaphone only really works to damage us and not them. Obama was not sunk by “bitter clingers” and Hillary won’t be sunk by this. She may lose and this may contribute, but it’s a mistake to put too much hope in it.

The conservative critics who think she has a point are liberals. Or useless. Or not conservative. Or maybe all three.

Of course there is ugliness in the hearts of some Trump supporters. Is it any uglier than the ugliness of fringe Democrats and leftists? We just lived through a summer in which police were targeted simply for being police officers—risking death to protect low income, primarily non-white lives. It wasn’t Trump supporters who were doing that or egging it on. But the Left and its propaganda arm instantaneously disavow any connection between that kind of fringe violence and official leftism or Democratic politics and that norm is enforced. Whereas our side is always Hitler and David Duke no matter what. Wolf Blitzer lambasted Mike Pence about Duke recently, but Hillary can have radical BLM activists on stage at the Democratic National  Convention and it’s just fine.

The reason is “the narrative.” The media, intelligentsia, and the opinion-making organs of our society have become overwhelmingly biased, partisan, shameless, dishonest and corrupt. They still wield enormous power, which is a problem, but it’s become virtually impossible not to see them for what they are, which might mean that a turning point is coming.

The “conservatives” have at least two motives for band-wagoning with this nonsense. One is that they simply don’t understand higher principle anymore, because their whole mindset is unconsciously leftist, so they believe that everything the Left calls “racist” is in fact racist. Oppose more immigration? Racist! Don’t believe the police systematically try to kill blacks? Racist!

The other is simple cowardice. Conservatives are terrified of being called racist. I don’t know if this is bad conscience or what—maybe at heart they really believe it? Maybe living in all-white neighborhoods perhaps makes them feel guilty. But being called out for it scares them above all so they are always desperate to make public declarations of their purity as non-racists. They think they will get credit from the Left, which of course they never do, but that never stops them from trying.

AG: Some scholars have suggested that Trump is the only candidate making a serious defense of the Constitution. Yet your critics accuse you of supporting a would-be tyrant who would burn the Constitution. Would would you say to the people who claim you lack sufficient respect for the Constitution? And what about Trump as a constitutionalist?

I’m grateful to Ken Masugi and John Marini for first suggesting in print that Trump is a serious Constitutionalist, which I did not initially take seriously. Not that I was anti-Trump but I just took for granted that a real-estate mogul and reality TV star would not be serious about the Constitution. It turns out that I think they are more correct than my initial assessment was.

It is not that Trump really understands or has thought deeply about the Constitution, but he is trying to do something fundamentally constitutional in my opinion. He wants to assert the right of the sovereign American people to control their government, which is the core constitutional principle. I think he understands this in an instinctive rather than intellectual way. But that’s OK because, one, most of the people who claim to understand it, don’t; two, most of those (very few) who do understand it are ineffectual at defending it; and three, nobody has really tried to do what Trump is doing in a generation. So who cares if his understanding is flawed?

I wrote about this at great length at the Journal of American Greatness, but I think the idea that Trump wants to be a tyrant is preposterous. Does that mean I think his motives are as pure as George Washington’s? No, Trump clearly likes to be a star, to be the center of attention, he’s clearly—if not a narcissist—something in that vein. Then again, Machiavelli says that the selfish desire for glory can only be satisfied by the highest level of service to others, to the greatest possible multitude.

But a tyrant is a very specific thing. People use the term so loosely today—all terms are used loosely today—and they just want to tear him down. So “tyrant” will suffice for  that crowd.  Or, really, “fascist” is more common, since it makes people think of Hitler.

As for Trump’s respect for the Constitution, first let me answer that in the negative. Could he be more destructive of the Constitution than recent political experience has been? I suppose he might be, but what has he actually said that would lead one to believe that this is his intent? He’s said disturbing things about the First Amendment and he is a litigious man, and that is troublesome. But a tyrant is someone who wants to seize or usurp power for his own ends, use it only selfishly and arbitrarily, and never surrender it. What has Trump said to indicate or even hint that this is his intent?

The real issue here is that the mainstream has accepted that the only legitimate rule is rule by the administrative state. Therefore anyone who challenges that, however inchoately, must be a tyrant or proto-tyrant, is by that challenge alone illegitimate. Thou shall not challenge the administrative state!

Personally, I love the Constitution. I find it to be one of the greatest marvels of human history and perhaps the greatest political achievement of all time. But John Adams was right when he said it was designed for a moral and religious people. It requires a certain virtue or character in the people to maintain the Constitution and unfortunately we’ve let that decline. The biggest question of our time is whether we can get it back.

One attack that people have made against me is “this idiot thinks Trump is a savior!”  Of course I haven’t said that and don’t believe it.  He is like a burly blocker who’s opening a path for us to run through.  It’s still up to us to run through the gap.  He won’t—and can’t—do that for us.  We have to do it ourselves.

AG: Michael Walsh, the PJMedia columnist and author of The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, notes that the most vociferous in the conservative NeverTrump camp tend to be those under 50. Do you think there is a generation gap among conservatives and, if so, what accounts for it?

It does seem that, the younger a (nominal) conservative is, the more likely he is to be against Trump. I think this is owing to two things, at least. This will sound like an old man being cranky, so take it with due allowances.

The first is that the young are not educated. Not that I got the greatest education, but it was pretty good. Still the people who taught me were far more educated than I am now, and the oldest ones were the best educated of the bunch. And my sense is that their teachers—most of whom I never met, or were even dead before I was born—were better educated than even they were. So in terms of education and knowledge, we’re on a downward trend and have been for a while.

What that means is that young conservatives learn conservatism as a checklist. They don’t really read books, except recent “conservative” bestsellers. They read excerpts from the Federalist at a summer fellowship and think that’s an education. Not to knock summer fellowships, but they are supposed to be gateways, not complete educations. And they don’t really read anything harder or deeper than the Federalist (not to knock it, either, but the Founders read Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and more).

So on the basis of a rather flimsy education, they think they know what conservatism is, but it’s just a catechism for them, a hymnal. And they compare Trump’s policy positions to their hymnal and they see discrepancies and they just default to “Heretic! Not conservative!”

Which points to the second, which is that older conservative intellectuals tend to have better educations and read more widely so they have a broader perspective. They also have the benefit of hard-won experience and an understanding that compromise, course changes, tactical adjustments and so on are sometimes necessary. They’re less “idealistic” in the sense of uncompromisingly foolish. And—speculating here—they have seen America at its best, or when it was much better, so they know we’ve fallen and they don’t want to see us fall further.

The kidlets, as I call them, were raised on a diet of racism-this and equality-that and that’s-not-who-we-are, so they can’t process anything that seems to contradict the narrative. To them “conservatism” is the 1980 campaign’s economic platform spot-welded to Millennial identity politics and sexual libertarianism. Freedom!

AG: What do you say to the charge that the Trump you describe exists only in your mind, that the Trump you describe is not an accurate reflection of the real DJT?

I admitted from the beginning of the old Journal of American Greatness that Trump is not the candidate that I would have wished for and that I (we) were trying to “understand Trump better than he understands himself.” Or if not Trump, then Trumpism or what you’re calling “the Greatness Agenda.”

Even so, it’s a silly criticism. Statesmen—even the very best—are practical, not theoretical, men. There is a role for interpretation of what the statesman does instinctually. A Lincoln who fully understood his mission on an intellectual level is I think very rare. I would actually not even give Washington or Churchill the same credit. And certainly not Trump.

That said, Trump did something no one else has done in a long time. He broke through the taboo on talking about immigration, trade and economic policy in ways not reflective of Davos-class, administrative state ideology. And he won on those issues.

All the other “conservatives” who’ve run in the past 20 years either opposed Trump’s take on those questions or ran from them or ignored them. But Trump comes along and succeeds and we’re supposed to reject him because he doesn’t have a sufficient command of political theory? Come on.

Trump, perhaps because he is of an older generation, is just patriotic in an unapologetic way. He wants us to win even if that means someone else loses. To the narrative, that’s a blasphemy. We can’t prefer ourselves over others! What about “equality”? Trump just does not get why preferring America is a problem.

Again, I don’t think he’s thought about equality in a theoretical way, but neither has he been corrupted by perversions which say that it’s immoral and illegitimate to prefer fellow citizens over foreigners. That thought literally does not occur to him and when the Left tries to bludgeon him with it he instinctively reacts and says, “That’s insane.” And when the intellectuals say, “How dare you! We know better than you! You must say X, Y and Z and never A, B or C,” he just laughs at them.

Second, I speculate that on some level he remembers how the government used to work and is supposed to work, recognizes that it doesn’t work that way now, and wants to get back to that. Because when it worked correctly we were, in his parlance, “winning.” And he likes that. It’s not a theoretical defense of constitutionalism. But again I find it laughable that we’re all supposed to reject Trump and support the election of a corrupt Progressive-Left administrative state apparatchik because Trump never took constitutional law from a Federalist Society professor. And, oh by the way, how have all those Federalist Society judges worked out for us? John Roberts, anyone?

AG: When did Conservatism, Inc. go off the rails and why?

This is a huge question better posed to a true intellectual historian of the American right, which I am not. Then again, most—if not all—of them are so anti-Trump that their answer might not be so useful.

Modern conservatism is a creation of the 1950s, to replace the so-called “Old Right” which was routed by FDR, the New Deal, World War II and the like. William F. Buckley and the crew he assembled had to build something new to respond to the challenges of their time. Which, as they perceived it, was a totally dominant liberalism in academia, the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy plus an accommodationist Republican party. Sound familiar?

The Old Right didn’t want the New Deal. It lost. It didn’t want World War II. It lost. It didn’t want desegregation and Civil Rights. It lost. Buckley’s “New Right” at first thought Ike and the post-war Republicans were too soft on the New Deal, but they eventually gave up that fight. They fought the Great Society and also lost, but at least scored a partial victory with the Reagan Revolution. They thought the Republicans were too soft on Communism, and they eventually won that argument almost totally. And they began by supporting the old South on Civil Rights but eventually turned.

The point is, the New Right was a departure from the Old Right.  It was trying to respond to what it perceived to be the challenges of its time. In a way, every bow-tied “conservative” kidlet who invokes Buckley today is just saying, “The solutions of 1955—stand athwart history yelling stop!—are all still apt!”

Conservatism has not adapted in half a century or more. It “adapts” in that it takes up new policy prescriptions, on broadband and the like, but otherwise it still thinks that the fundamental challenges are always the same. Now, the great issue of 1860 was the possible expansion of slavery into the territories. Is that an issue now? There is an underlying matter of high principle, to be sure, but is that issue the issue? Any fool can see that answer is “no.” Why would the great issues of 2016 be the same as those of 1955? Or even 1980?

“Fusionism” is a case in point. This is the so-called three-legged stool: economic freedom, strong defense, “moral values.” These are great things, so it seems. Are they always the priority? For instance, in Puritan times, what’s more needful? A greater emphasis on moral purity? Or maybe a little recognition of human weakness? In dissolute times, of course the former is more needful.

Economic freedom is a human right. But with finance having seized the economy by the … whatevers … and income inequality skyrocketing, should lower taxes really be top priority? Carried interest, 2 and 20?  Or is fostering economic solidarity more important? Conservatives have conniptions at the very question. But Aristotle says that the greatest wealth gap in a good regime should be 5 to 1. I’m not saying we want that, but in what way does making hedge fund managers the ultimate winners in our society make any sense? It made sense to challenge the Soviet Union, as it still makes sense to maintain a strong defense. But “strong defense” has morphed into endless, pointless, winless war.

In 1980, we had to unshackle the economy, rebuild the military and alliance structure, and recover from the ’60s-’70s orgy. Today our priorities are different—or should be. But conservatives only know the formula they learned from the crib sheet.

On a higher level, the success of people like Harry Jaffa and other Claremont scholars had a very negative consequence, one they did not intend. They properly interpreted the Founding and Lincoln, in my view, but in so doing they made it very easy for lazy people to say “America is an idea” full stop, and “equality means open borders” and so on. These people abandoned prudence for abstractions. The Founders are very clear about the particularity of Americans as a distinct people. They warn against indiscriminate immigration. They insist on vigorous assimilation and Americanization. We’ve abandoned almost all of that. The Left says that to do anything else is “racist.” The conservatives, as noted, are terrified of that charge. But more than that, they believe the abstraction. Rootedness is bad. Particularity is bad.

The Old Right was, in my view, too particular in that it tried to base everything on tradition, on kith and kin, blood and soil and so on. It rejected any transcendence (beyond the religious) as “universalist” and liberal. This is my ultimate problem with Kirk, Bradford and the like.  They want to say that certain things are good while rejecting any fundamental, permanent ground for the good.  The New Right swung way to the other direction and insists on universals and sees all particulars—at least when asserted by Americans and Europeans—as insular and racist. The truth is that both are true in their sphere and both are necessary. Restoring a proper relationship between the universal and the particular is in my view the paramount theoretical challenge for whatever it is that follows conservatism. I made the beginnings of an attempt in an essay called “Paleo-Straussianism,” but there is much more to do.

AG: How do you respond to conservatives concerned about Donald Trump’s character? They perceive his shortcomings as somehow unique, though Reagan was divorced, Lincoln and Truman failed in business, Romney flip-flopped on abortion, and so forth Yet it is only for Donald Trump that these things are perceived as evidence of a uniquely bad character.

I’ve read troubling things about Trump’s character so I don’t dismiss those concerns. But character isn’t everything. Aside from smoking a lot of pot, Obama’s character seems sterling. He’s a good family man, was a good student, has had a good career (in the narrow sense), does not appear to be corrupt in any way, and so on. But he is an ideological disaster for America. Really, since Nixon, American has had only one president of bad character—obviously I mean Bill Clinton.

I find what I know of Hillary’s character, it is much worse than anything alleged against Trump. If I thought Trump were an Aaron Burr, I would feel differently. But I don’t. He’s a showboat and a ladies’ man and I gather he has done some shady things in business. But I don’t think he wants to use the presidency for his own ends, beyond self-aggrandizement, which I noted above, can correlate with the common good. Bottom line, if he builds a wall, gets serious about trade and economics, stops the bleeding overseas, and takes on the administrative state, then I can overlook his sins. I would rather have a sinless president, sure. But I wonder if a sinless man could win in these times. Plus, all the sinless men—such as Jeb—are horrible on the issues that really matter. I am against infidelity to be sure. But it is fundamentally unserious at this point to say that you would rather have a chaste president who favors open borders than a horndog who will build a wall. Hell, at this point I would reelect Bill Clinton if I thought he would build a wall.

AG: Finally, what do you say to people who  claim that Trump is just a false prophet, whipping up the masses with promises of things he cannot deliver?

What difference, at this point, does it make? What have you got to lose? Can’t you see that Hillary is certain death for constitutionalism and conservatism?

489 replies
  1. QET
    QET says:

    Here’s to hoping that if Trump wins, he will have the good sense to bring Decius in from the cold and make him one of his advisors.

  2. ricocat1
    ricocat1 says:

    So many good points in this discussion but I would like to focus on the Deplorable point which seems to have energized the right. Rush Limbaugh is selling “Deplorable t-shirts. Many bloggers have added ‘deplorable’ to their screen names. Yesterday in Miami Donald Trump entered before a banner saying “Les Deplorables” and the music was “Do you hear the people sing” while the crowd went wild. Just like in the musical Les Miserables Donald Trump has a real movement. Let’s hope this story has a happier ending. Donald Trump & America First.

    • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
      Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

      I’m surprised Trump hasn’t trade marked “deplorables” yet. And yes, if he did I would buy “deplorable” merchandise for myself and all my family to fund his campaign.

  3. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “It is not that Trump really understands or has thought deeply about the Constitution, but he is trying to do something fundamentally constitutional in my opinion. He wants to assert the right of the sovereign American people to control their government, which is the core constitutional principle. ”

    This is a profoundly unintelligent statement.

  4. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “But again I find it laughable that we’re all supposed to reject Trump and support the election of a corrupt Progressive-Left administrative state apparatchik because Trump never took constitutional law from a Federalist Society professor. And, oh by the way, how have all those Federalist Society judges worked out for us? John Roberts, anyone?”

    False dichotomy. There are more than two choices.

  5. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “The Founders are very clear about the particularity of Americans as a distinct people. They warn against indiscriminate immigration. They insist on vigorous assimilation and Americanization. ”

    Not really. And certainly not by force.

  6. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “Can’t you see that Hillary is certain death for constitutionalism and conservatism?”

    Nope. She is evil, but she is neither of those things. Republicans haven’t defended the Constitution. Well. Not ever. From Lincoln forward, they have been nationalists, not Constitutionalists, and for that, they are perpetually damned.

    • Michel Houellebecq
      Michel Houellebecq says:

      you don’t know what nationalism is if you think the gop is run by nationalists… a true nationalist gop wouldn’t have agreed to the 1965 immigration act, 1986 amnesty, and would call for copying israel and japan’s immigration policies.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        Okay, so your point is that Trump is not the strongest national socialist we could run. Being a weak nationalist doesn’t make one not a nationalist Trump is copying 10-15 planks of the 25 plank Nazi platform and treats immigrants like Jews. Hitler didn’t run on killing the Jews, he ran on solving the problem with Jews.

        • Michael Hayes
          Michael Hayes says:

          The party that deports nothing but factory jobs is a “nationalist” party. You are an idiot.
          But an entertaining one:)

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Right, Republicans are globalists, big global government, as long as the US controls it. Democrats want to outsource. And libertarians want global trade and local government.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Almost correct. But ultimately the 1% doesn’t care about the US controlling anything, because the US includes us, the 99%. What they do care about is big global government, as long as it’s controlled by the 1%. The GOP pre -trump serves the interests of the 1% donor class. In what way is that “Nationalist”?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            The Jewish people have always been travelers, merchants, traders. They understand how freedom of trade increases prosperity. They’re also very intelligent, measurably more so than the typical white person, so I can see why that might scare you.

  7. John Ash
    John Ash says:

    “But it is fundamentally unserious at this point to say that you would rather have a chaste president who favors open borders than a horndog who will build a wall. ”

    It is fundamentally serious to expect such at thing. This is America, not Nazi Germany. We were founded in Natural Rights, not nationalism, not xenophobia, not protectionism. It is fundamentally UNSERIOUS to get behind Trump for any reason. And it is Russian Roulette on top of it.

    • Shep
      Shep says:

      You have it all backwards.

      Read some history about the founding of this country.

      “It’s better to appear the fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

          • bossmanglb
            bossmanglb says:

            How’d Open Borders work out for Native Americans?

            I’m sure they had some village idiot like John Ash telling them nationalism was evil. And instead they should usher in the destruction of their culture and the dispossession of their people with enthusiasm!

            It’s ridiculous. How anyone can be an American–no, a vertebrate–and not think that this country was explicitly founded on what today the loony left calls “xenophobia” is just jaw dropping.

            Of course it was, numb nuts.

            We’re not even at the point of arguing whether it’s right or wrong, or in the best interest of our country. No. We have retards who literally think the American Founding Fathers were a bunch of hippies who supported Open Borders, Diversity, and Multiculturalism. Lemme guess, you also think they supported same-fag marriage?

            Truly. The indoctrination that liberals have accomplished in public schools and the academy is incredible.

          • Severn
            Severn says:

            We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Considering that Indians didn’t become citizens until 70 years after the 14th amendment was passed, they knew what “under the jurisdiction thereof” meant

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Incorrect. Because it was a) assumed that Indians didn’t want citizenship and b) they were considered to be their own nations. However, overtime, it became clear that Indians WANTED to be citizens and so they made it so they could be. It was never meant to exclude them based on race or culture.

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            I think you may have misconstrued where I was going with that question as your comment is disjointed at best.

            Calling me “numb nuts” didn’t make any sense.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Right. Everyone knows the original colonists were angry with King George because he refused to implement their open borders agenda of filling up the cities with African and Hispanic immigrants.
            You are an idiot.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Oh but I have. I guess I missed the demands for multiracial society. Or maybe that’s just a more recent form of anti-white bigotry.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I guess you clearly missed the part about migration. There should be no government demand for a multi-racial society, nor laws against one. That is the American way.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            That is not the American way. That is the way of the hate left, and their allies, certain moronic libertarians. Most of our history the “American way” prioritized family, tribe and nation; just like the Somali way, the French way, the Jewish way the literally everybody way. Today haters and weaklings systematically attack whites, and only whites for this formulation. What does that make you?

            It makes you an idiot. At best.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            No, we did not. We prioritized Natural Rights and were welcoming to all kinds for a century before and after the revolution.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Yes of course. We welcomed “all kinds”. Which is why so many free blacks and Arabs were allowed to immigrate. And when the Chinese finally arrived in huge numbers to lower the wages of Americans and enrich the 1% (sound familiar) there never was a Chinese exclusion act. Because we welcomed “all kinds”.

            The founders welcomed “all kinds” so long as they were Englishman, and later some Western Europeans who assimilated well to English ideas like Natural Rights.

            When difficult or unassimilable immigrants began arriving there were immigration restrictions which had not been nescassary before. Your argument amounts to ” because we had no immigration restrictions the founders welcomed the non-western European immigration that was not occurring”. Yet when that immigration appeared, so did the restriction. Go figure.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            No, those restrictions happened because Lincoln proved that the 9th and 10th Amendments weren’t going to be enforced and the Feds could do whatever they wished and would back it up with extreme violence.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Occams razor. Look it up. The restrictions happened not because Lincoln blah blah the Feds blah blah, the white people blah blah. No conspiracies need be propounded. Too many immigrants+too many from shame cultures, primitive cultures, or just plain old too different cultures = immigration restrictions. Which set off a boom in middle and working class incomes which lasted until the floodgates were opened in 65. You serve the banksters, the crooks the Clintons and the post American 1%. Shilling for cheap labor and deporting jobs, smearing as racists the middle American who won’t take the banisters c*ck between his cheeks. Either pair. Welcome to the the 21st Century. We are gonna fight back against the bigots and the cucks and the weaklings. And we are going to make a difference. You are on the wrong side of history.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Where do you think they got the idea they could simply break the Constitution like that? Where is immigration authority? Do you know how the 10th Amendment works?

          • Matt Frihart
            Matt Frihart says:

            all due respect, you’re both wrong….. immigration became an issue when assimilation ended…… its not like we’re talking about ending immigration as whole here, something trump isnt doing, anyone is welcome to immigrate here so long as they are vetted properly, get in line, and assimilate to becoming an american. This can change at any time depending on circumstances for any reason, safety of the nation’s people being among them.

            Immigration policies were not needed early in america’s history precisely because we were a growing nation and all who were coming to america, were coming to be american, when the becoming american part stopped, immigration law was first made. for a good third of the 20th century we had no immigration at all, in order to foster assimilation. and i believe sometime in the early 60s i forget the exact year right now, immigration was reinstated, we’ve had it since, but we never HAD to have it, they come here at our pleasure, if that’s abused, it can be cut off.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Importing millions of low IQ savage moslems directly onto welfare & giving them taxpayer paid classes on how to use toilets is not in the constitution. ((((People))) are profiting from importing low IQ savages into the first world. Same people who owned the slave boats in the US, and who sold white people as slaves in Spain before the Inquisition.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            I didn’t need to other people have. The results are in the books “The global bell curve” & “IQ & the wealth of nations” . Do you think if blacks got squatted out in rice paddies they would have the same chance of getting a perfect SAT as Asian males. Asian males get a perfect math SAT around twice as likely as White boys

          • Matt Frihart
            Matt Frihart says:

            the declaration of independence is not our governing document, it was our “go EFF yourself Brittania” document. our ruling document is the constitution.

            no matter the intentions experssed in the DoI, the constitution is what matters.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Right, and nowhere in the Constitution is any authority at all for the Federal government to regulate or impede immigration. I’ll give you $1B if you can quote it.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            You misunderstand. It’s super simple: TRUMP’s pro-American, and JEWS like you identify with non-America, so he’s anti-them, so they hate him for being pro-us. And it would take force to stop anti-us people from hurting us, therefore he’s an evil authoritarian.

            It’s all very emotional and irrational, and generally based on Jews not being
            able to even perceive serfdom, since as nomads they’re really only concerned
            with pogroms.

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            No you don’t. If you’re not a paid troll then you live in a progressive reality warp and are mentally ill. Your illness will become more acute and debilitating as reality diverges from the progressive bubble you live inside. You’re going to have a very hard and joyless life. I pity you and truly hope you seek help and free yourself.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            The US was founded by American liberals. And that is what “conservatives” are supposed to be conserving.

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their (mis)understanding of the principle of liberty. Don’t conflate our founders with your anti-free speech thought control crowd.

            And yes, conservatives have done an atrocious job of conserving American values, culture, and freedom. That’s why we are replacing them.

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            So was England promoting immigration of Africans or something?

            Also, tell me about the “Free Trade Policies” of the 1700s.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            They repeatedly said the government had no business restraining or promoting immigrations. One of the two biggest reasons for the Constitution was the power of the Federal government to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers. The entire purpose of the Commerce Clause.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            “The American colonists were never fully comfortable with those laws, but became ardently opposed with the passage of the Sugar Act of 1733. Under that law, a duty was placed on the importation of sugar from the French West Indies, forcing the American rum distillers to buy more costly sugar from the British West Indies. The most significant result of the Navigation Acts upon American history was the stifling of colonial manufacturing and increased resentment against the mother country.”

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Only 3% of the Colonists actually fought. You might as well say it was over a 4% tax on tea. It took all of CA law enforcement, national guard and federal help over a week to catch the affirmative action LOW IQ black Chris Dorner after he shot up a judges family. If 2 people in each state fought the system would be overwhelmed

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            I believed in equality until I encountered enough reality to know better. Have you ever meet a black as smart or a White leading man as stupid AS SEEN ON (((TV)))?

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Name a black you have meet in REAL LIFE that is as smart and law abiding as seen on (((TV))). Will be rare enough you could link his linkin page Bill Cosby no longer counts

    • Severn
      Severn says:

      All you leftists think that an America with borders would be “Nazi Germany” – as if the distinctive feature of Nazi Germany was border control. The problem with this country is that most people are appallingly poorly educated, as your attempt at argument illustrates.

      We were in fact founded on nationalism and on protectionism, as anybody with even a casual familiarity with the writings of the Founders would know.

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party

        1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

        2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

        3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

        4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

        5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

        6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

        We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

        8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

        9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

        10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Weird how nicely Trump dovetails with Nazi beliefs. Separate laws for immigrants, evicting immigrants, stopping immigration, etc, etc.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            No, but you guys think one is coming. You think white people are somehow going to be exterminated because a black family moves into the neighborhood.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            I have come to understand that nearly always the haters and weaklings who indulge in anti-gringo bigotry live in the whitest zip codes, and send their children to the whitest schools. Barack Obama, Rev Jeremiah White, Louis Farakhan, the cucks, the ayn rand fetishists, and of course the entirety of the media being examples.

            And yet, it is only those unfortunate Gringoes who are forced to live with the reality of minority violence, minority racism, and minority dyscivic impact that are demonized as “racist”. Morons like you, who often have few NAM minorities in their lives, have drunk of the mindfuck so deeply that you can imagine no other reason why your fellow human beings (black and white) often do not want to live in proximity to blacks other than (in the case of the Gringoes) racism. No rational reasons for avoiding blacks enters your pretty little head. You think pretty little thoughts that carefully steer away from threatening any 1% priorities. You are a pageant Libertarian and a weakling.

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            Preach it brother. My go to question is “what are the demographics of your block and your kids school”. The answers almost always are what you’d expect. My recent favorite is the cucked white bragging how he lives in (recently ethnically cleansed) Harlem as if he’s living in the ghetto. I can’t even.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Actually if you look at the site White Girl Bleed A Lot, you will see how interracial crime works out.
            San Fran Public schools are 8% black but blacks are 71% of students arrested in school. Adult numbers are more “disparate”. Unless the Gaykk cops and teachers collaborated to ignore Asian girls stabbing people for money because of their ninja heritage equalism doesn’t exist

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Colon’s relatives regress to the mean. The richest black neighborhoods have higher per capital crime than the poorest white neighborhoods. Don’t play the unicorn outlier with me, I know how rare Pink Pistols members are in the gay community. There are more guys like Anderson Cooper who hopes moslems bring Bacha Bazi to the US so he doesn’t have to fly to their lands.

            Obvious you didn’t see Colon Powell’s hacked Email from Bohemian Grove last week.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            The problem with your scenario is that blacks are a serious minority, so there are essentially zero rich black neighborhoods, because rich blacks live with rich white, hispanic and Asian people.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Idiot. You can’t understand that even if that preposterously ignorant assertion WERE true that would strengthen BGS’s argument? What it would mean is even high income blacks LIVING AMONGST whites and Asians, sharing their schools, jobs, shopping etc (IOW not living in the hood) even so have higher crime rates than poorer whites who do not share those same benefits. Your environmental bullshit doesn’t explain the large differences, probably less than half of the difference in many important quality of life issues like crime, IQ, welfare participation. Really kid, this is just getting embarrassing. You don’t reason well and you only read your fundamentalist dogma so you don’t know very much.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Go ahead, try to explain it. I know what you think you’re saying, but I want to actually see how ridiculous it is in print.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Jews come from a rent-seeking region, and tend to dominate rent-seeking and appointment-based professions. Therefore they tend to instinctively see the world in zero-sum terms. This is why simple white survival appears to them to be white supremacy: everything is a life-and-death struggle for that tenure-track position.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Oddly it was bath house Barry Obama who raised the exit tax to renounce US citizenship to higher than the Not Sees

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            Brah. You’re getting thoroughly thrashed and it’s amusing that you are too dim to know it. I thought you were just a troll at first but nope. You seem to really believe you’re making coherent points
            PS I love when you called them racists. So bold!
            You get em tiger.

        • BigGaySteve
          BigGaySteve says:

          Why do jews like you hate those who say “I wish Israel well but don’t think we should keep giving them $8billion a year from the taxpayers” more than the moslem imams who say “the holo cost didn’t go far enough”

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        You need to read about the difference between a nation and a federation. Federalist 39, you ignorant savage. “Give me liberty or give me death” is not the cry of a protectionist. You are the ignorant product of public indoctrination.

        • Severn
          Severn says:

          Liberty at the time of the Founders meant the liberty of peoples, not of individuals. In fact the word “individual’ is conspicuously absent from the writings of the Founders – and completely absent in its modern, libertarian sense.

          That’s why the Constitution opens with the words “We the people of the United States”, and the Declaration of Independence with “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
          to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”.

          “Give me liberty of give me death” was the cry of a populist nationalist, not of a anarcho-individualist expressing his wish to “do his own thing”.

    • bossmanglb
      bossmanglb says:

      Are you serious? Have acquainted yourself with the biographies of our founders or seriously studied history? What makes you go plenty off the reservation and say dumb things like “we’re not Nazi Germany” when quoting a passage about building a freaking border wall?

      You think building a border wall is Nazi Germany? Are you retarded?! It’s a wall–not concentration camps with ovens.

      Have you every read, oh, the Naturalization Act of 1790

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

      “Alternately known as the Nationality Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person” who had been in the U.S. for two years. In effect, it left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women.”

      Our Founders had views on race and nationalism that would make your head spin.
      I mean, I can’t believe knowing even the rudiments of American history–say, on slavery and Native Americans, or trade tariffs–you would make such silly declarations. America was founded on heaps and heaps of nationalism, xenophobia, protectionism–and much, much worse.

      If we could resurrect the Founders and you think they would look neutrally on the importation of around 50 million Mexican immigrants in a very short time, you really have no understanding whatsoever.

    • Michel Houellebecq
      Michel Houellebecq says:

      read every immigration act between 1790 and 1952. the “america has always been open,” narrative is a retconning of history.

      this country is supposed to be a wasp ethno-state (as are canada, australia, and new zealand).

    • Solaire Of Astora
      Solaire Of Astora says:

      The country was founded by slave owners who straight up said that foreigners didn’t possess the magnanimity native to British men and that immigrants from other cultures would dilute the nation’s adherence to constitutional principles.

    • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
      Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

      The founding fathers and the subsequent generation was very clear, America was founded for THEIR posterity. To expect uneducated impoverished law breakers from socialist nations to accept the American “proposition” en masse upon stepping across the border is fantastical, especially when the culture and the political establishment makes it so easy not to assimilate.

      What do you think? The sum of Western knowledge will magically download into their minds en Espanol?

      I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe you love America (which you don’t). How long do you think America will resemble a free and democratic America at the current rate of unfettered immigration?

        • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
          Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

          Mexico is full of poor semi literates weaned on socialism, but not as full as it used to be thanks to our open borders. I live amongst immigrants and promise you, most have no love whatsoever for the USA.

          The typical illegal immigrant can’t even write in his own language beyond the basics.

          And for the record, they wear cheap western shirts and pointy toe cowboy boots.

          :-)

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            You don’t understand the difference between public and private property and the fact that I have the right to invite them.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Of course he doesn’t. He expects you and the public to share the costs of importing 3rd world failures while he expects to privatize the benefits I.e. Lower wages, greater sales. That’s what he means when he says you don’t understand the difference between private and public. The profit is mine and the costs are ours. A useful idiot for the 1%.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Uh….no, dummy, it is Republicans who believe in welfare and medicare and other social programs. Ask Trump.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Whose taxes are paying to give Somalia moslems classes on how to use toilets in section 8 houses?
            We fled die verse city after the food stamp card went down for 8 hours on 10-12-2013, you can see the chimp out videos on youtube. When the food stamps fail the free stuff army will cannibalize the white liberals near by that think they are equal

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            That’s mighty white of you, John. Even if I believed you, which I don’t, the hundreds registering for your class has a desire to learn. The thousands upon thousands more don’t.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Again with the racism.

            Imagine what would happen if, instead of spending $millions on keeping foreigners out, and instead of harassing them and insulting them and paying to elect xenophobic bigots like Trump, the Republican Party gave free English lessons to immigrants along with classes on the Constitution and American history. You’d never lose another election, but the problem is, your hatred of minorities is more important to you than winning.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Leftists only import low IQ 3rd worlders because they know they will always vote for the party of more free stuff. That’s why bath house barry Obama deported German homeschoolers but welcomes MS-13 facial tattooed bangers.
            The real White supremacists are those willing to risk life & limb to get onto the welfare system of a white nation

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            Everyone please notice how the paid Soros troll redefines reality:

            Enforcing immigration law = harassment.
            Speaking truth = insulting
            Patriotic = xenophobic

            If you do not suspend your grasp of reality to buy into his progressive double speak then you’re hateful.

            Ash, you just don’t get it. No one here other than you cares about being called a racist or a bigot. I snort laugh every time I see a nervous nancy like you use that label and talk like a preschooler throwing around infantile expressions like “that’s hateful.”

            These weapons of the left, and yes you are very much a leftist, are ineffectual on the new right.

            Welcome to a new world of Alt Right ascendancy. You and your kind are toast.

            And FYI, I’m a minority. LOL

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Ahhhhhhhsheeeet! I am the slow one here. He’s been trolling us. No one could be this stupid. Trolls=boring.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Even 4th generation Hispanics have made no headway, while Asians fresh off the boat leave ESL classes in 3 months. The only group 4th gen Hispanics beats is US blacks.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Not true. I lived in New Mexico and knew many, many hispanics and all could speak English. You’re simply making shit up.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            And vote Libertarian, right? Good thing they don’t vote to bring more hatred, bigotry and racism into our society by supporting the hate left. Gracias a Dios!
            You don’t think well. And unfortunately you are not emotionally healthy enough to substitute your feeling for reason. We call that childhood.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Actually, they increasingly are. I know Mexicans who have started a libertarian party in Mexico and who are libertarians living in the US.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Well as well as long as you know “Mexicans” then I guess we can all just take a hit off your fundie Bong and ignore decades of data about how Latino immigrants vote. Idiot.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Actually, I’m the guy in the bowtie, and I teach Mexican kids about anarchy and libertarianism and natural rights.

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            I’m gonna assume you meant to say, “Mexico isn’t socialistic” … Mexico is more complex than you let on, the elite class doesn’t have total control but neither do the cartels. Mexico is however steeped in socialism, from entitlements to education. The government, the entire government from local to national levels is corrupt, nepotistic and nothing can be accomplished without bribes or quid pro quo politics. And Mexico is just one of many corrupt Latin nations, most of which are very socialistic to some degree. We are importing entire populations baked in that dysfunctional oven. And that’s not even mentioning illegals from Communist China.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Tell me what good American conservatives like yourself are teaching immigrants about good government and the Constitution. I’ll wait.

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            1st, I’m not a conservative. Conservatism failed America and most leaders of the movement are progressives in conservative drag.

            2nd, why do we, as individuals or as a government need to provide free classes on civics or the constitution? If someone truly loves this nation and wants to relinquish their former national identity and become a US citizen, they will learn it on their own. There is no stopping a determined soul.

            Anything given and free is never appreciated or cherished.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Well, you can ignore immigrants and allow them to be indoctrinated as they did with blacks, and lose, or you can take control and win. Your choice. I couldn’t care less.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Oh well, as long as you know one immigrant who is “well paid” fuck the working and middle class, amirite? After all that’s how science works. I know a person…

            You are an idiot

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            That is the only intelligent thing you have said. So naturally we should welcome tens of millions, why not hundreds of millions more kleptocrats to improve America? Cuz the hugely majority white, low immigration, low import, working class loving America of the fifties sucked! Let us be Somalia. That’s a program every idiot can get behind.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Now this is hysterical. The libertarian who asserts that (white) individuals have no need for big government now asserts that (brown) immigrants can’t learn to be Americans without it.

            Yet another admission that immigration is a net drag on Americans.

        • Shep
          Shep says:

          Are you intoning that the individuals that come here from Mexico are a sophisticated bunch?

          You do realize that most Latin American countries are run by Whites of Spanish descent….right?

          • Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ
            Mike ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃᶫᶦˢᵗ says:

            The irony is that “white” doesn’t refer to the color of skin for most Latins. It’s synonymous with Anglos now. I’m friends with several wealthy Mexicans, all 100% European by blood, and they regularly use the term “white people” solely as a label for Anglo Americans. And BTW they are some of the most racist people you’ll ever meet.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Patriotic? To the country they left? Or to the country whose laws many tens of millions violated?
            You are an idiot.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            You can’t serve 2 masters. You like the guy who took down the Puerto Rican flag and replaced it with an American flag at the OH house of Horrors. If the 3 Puerto Ricans had cured cancer instead of kidnaping white girls and raping them in their basement it would have been a hate crime.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Fredo Arias-King, aide to
            Vicente Fox, wrote about how both leftists and cuckservative politicians both wanted more low class immigrants because they are more comfortable with corruption and the client-patron Nobility that the founders wanted to avoid. He knew corruption was Mexico’s biggest problem

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Blaming the victim. Despicable. But once again you are too slow to recognize you have weakened your own argument: even if true it begs the question “why should we want immigrants we must reeducate as opposed to those wo don’t? Or none at all?”

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Oh, hahaha, you think “conservatives” are the “victims” of immigration. Fucking hilarious.

            No, the question is, why do you get to decide who has rights and who doesn’t?

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            We get to decide who gets to come into and live in this country.full stop. And any reason up to and including because “I just feel like it” are acceptable.
            Furthermore it is not our responsibility beyond basic niceties to arrainge, assure or persuade their assimilation.
            Have you ever spent time in another country? Would you ever make these demands for yourself on another nation? You’re ridiculous.

        • BigGaySteve
          BigGaySteve says:

          Actually all the smart Mexicans are in Mexico, what we get are who would be on welfare if mexico had welfare. That’s why the Clintons extracted Elian Gonzalez from a closet to send back, only the right side of the IQ bell curve flees Cuban collectivism.

        • John Ash
          John Ash says:

          Yep, because I know them and they still believe in America the Free, even though that is just a quaint fiction now.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            That was the initial plan in the Constitutution. Free trade, strong defense, zero offense, individual freedom. Natural Rights.

            Any questions?

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            You have to be one of the dumbest trolls in the internet’s history.
            The stuff you say is mind numbingly stupid.

            Good God Man!

            Retreat!

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            And there you have it. This idiot admits he believes that the 65 million immigrants we have imported since the 1965 act are “natural conservatives”. Of course! And now we understand why conservatives have been so successful implementing their agenda of smaller government, lower taxes, originalist judges, race neutral laws and policies. Because of the support of the titanic new wave of immigrants that arrived on our shores, and upon setting foot on our magic dirt promptly shook off their thousands of years of national/ tribal/religious/linguistic and genetic programming and emerged, butterfly-like, as fully formed conservative Americans. Thank Allah they didn’t all vote democratic/hate left, amirite? Where would we be now!
            Thank you, Genius, for explaining the last 50 years so lucidly.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            You don’t seem to understand how saying “we hate immigrants” keeps natural conservatives from voting for conservatives. Good jawb.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            We we have received tens of millions of legal immigrants. We have further received tens of millions of illegal immigrants, all since 1965. In that time middle and working class wages have stopped rising and have either declined or stagnated. The share of national income earned by the same middle and working class that was once rising are also declining. The share of national income earned by the 1%, falling during the years of low immigration! have risen since the floodgates have been opened in 1965. Tens of millions of good factory jobs have been deported through 1% trade deals though few illegal immigrants have.

            We don’t hate immigrants. But neither do we drink the low IQ open borders koolaid which proclaims that despite your lying eyes all human beings are equvabots. Some tribes make better athletes than others. Some tribes make better mathematicians than others. Some tribes make better neighbors than others. some tribes make better Americans than others. We like science more than fundamentalist dogma that protects weaklings from facing the facts of life. We like America. We like borders. We like Americans. Better than we like many foreighners. None of that means we hate immigrants. But you know that. You are simply unwilling to give up the hate weapon that will blunt your opponents in the way that your “arguments” utterly fail to do.

            And you say it is WE who are responsible for the behavior and attitudes of immigrants. If only we would give them more, love them more- they have no moral agency themselves, this is all on us. All that enters your pageant head is to blame the victim.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Hahahaha, when “conservatives” had power, they implemented no smaller government or originalist judges or race neutral policies. They governed like Democrats.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            i’m sorry, not everyone is born white, speaking English and gets to call themselves a “natural conservative”

    • BigGaySteve
      BigGaySteve says:

      The original law in the US was that only whites of good character could become citizens. Russian Roulette is importing 3rd world moslems from a nation Doctors Without Borders fled from and expecting MAJIK DIRT to turn them into 1stworlders. Why are we importing savage somolia moslems like the one who beheaded a male Nurse in Lewistown Maine last AUG or the Mall Of America attacks this week when there are White homeless children in the US?

      • John Ash
        John Ash says:

        That had nothing to do with immigration, which applied to everyone and also was designed to keep the South on board, by denying citizenship to blacks, in part to keep them from being used to puff up Southern political power.

        • Michael Hayes
          Michael Hayes says:

          My you are slow. What BGS relates is that the founders were not naive white weaklings, like you know- libertarians. They clearly and in many words and acts prioritized family, tribe, nation- just like the rest of the world, except for weakling cucks.

  8. Shep
    Shep says:

    Decius wrote probably the best piece I’ve read in the last 15 years.

    I’ve read ‘The Flight 93 Election’ at least 7 times now and it still blows my mind.

    I turned my whole family and friends on to it and they think the same thing.

    Rush Limbaugh did a whole show on it about 10 days ago.

    Therefore I think Decius is being humble when he says “Not that I got the greatest education, but it was pretty good. Still the people who taught me were far more
    educated than I am now, and the oldest ones were the best educated of
    the bunch.”

    It’s safe to say he that since the time “he didn’t get the greatest education” he learned a helluva lot up to this point.

    His writing and critical thinking skills are totally impressive to the point that he makes all other contemporary conservative “Thinkfluencers” look like charlatans.

    • jack dobson
      jack dobson says:

      Agreed. “The Flight 93 Election” easily is among the most influential political essays in this nation’s history. The harsh reaction of True Conservatism, Inc., was predictable although the ferocity has been stunning.

      • Shep
        Shep says:

        Yes and their lack of seriousness in addressing the indictment says it all.

        Conservatism Inc has shown their true colors.

        • Jac Wright
          Jac Wright says:

          The sheet of paper Donald Trump passed to Mr. Oz is a self typed LIE with a BRIBE telling Oz: “$100K If you say on TV my health is great.” It is a self-typed up LIE starting with the HEIGHT: Trump is 1 inch shorter than the LIE on his self typed sheet. And so is every thing else- weight, blood pressure, …. – EVERYTHING is a self typed LIE.

          Trump is waving his arms around and kicking the air to HIDE his LONG HISTORYT of HEART ATTACKS and STAMACH ULCERS! Trump is a OLD, OLD dying man. He is resorting to all sorts of FAKE ANTICS and LIES to HIDE his HISTORY of HEART ATTACKS & ATOMACH ULCERS. This candidate doth protest too much. This candidate doth do LIES, scams & fake antics too much.

          Trump has FAILED the HEALTH REPORT requirement for this job.
          Trump has FAILED the CREDIT REPORT requirement for this job.
          Trump is NOT UNDER AUDIT.
          All A LONG LITANY OF LIES.

          Trump is up to his ears in debt to the RUSSIAN MAFIA, the MUSLIM OIL TYCOONS, and the CHINESE TRIADS. Trump is drowning in debt many times more than his few hundred million $$ assets. The reason he is running for Presidency is to RAID the PEOPLE’s BANK and save hiself from his 7th bankruptcy.

          Trump is an ailing, dying, imcompetant, bankrupt business failure.

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            Ah the sign of a butt hurt “True Conservative.”

            You called me an idiot.

            Remember, Anger and Fear are almost the same thing.

            Tell us what you have to lose if Trump is elected?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            More freedoms than I’ve already lost. The remains of a damaged economy as we go into trade war after trade war. And more.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            That’s why I’m voting for a guy that supports free trade AND wants to simplify trade agreements and eliminate crony capitalism. Trump wants crony capitalism. As much as possible, for the US.

          • Matt Frihart
            Matt Frihart says:

            so you cant even see we are already IN a trade war? in fact several of them, and we’re losing thanks to inept politicians of the last 30 years…….. for someone so deadly afraid of trade wars, you might want to open your eyes to whats going on around you.

            Johnson represents zero knowledge of foreign policy or trade, its clear from his interviews so while he spouts the game, for a man of his experience in the political arena, he should be vastly more experienced than he is, and have a more complete view of the world as its currently constituted…… his lack of that knowledge is plainly evidenced by the public by and large and why he never had and never has cracked 15% of the electorate.

            also you may want to look up the definition of crony capitalism……. because what you describe as crony, as actually governments playing favorite, which every government in the world does, including ours…… if we stop, we get run over. so might as well have someone that champions american companies and does what he can to protect them in a hostile world economic environment. Johnson doesnt have the political know-how to do that, no politician before trump, since reagan has.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            No, we have trade tension, not a war. Trump is risking an actual trade war because he is showing his willingness to start one unilaterally.

          • TSA_TheSexualAssault
            TSA_TheSexualAssault says:

            A left blogger would have requested that you are so frustrating that you ought to suicide. Maybe that’s soon from the right as well?

          • Ace
            Ace says:

            The libertarian mantra. Stupidity (inundation by parasitic foreigners) passed off as a love of liberty.

            I don’t blame Johnson but the Libertarian Party convention was emblematic of what to expect from libertarians – sounds great but sooner or later the guy will get up on stage and dance in his jock strap.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            No one on earth can produce the golden eggs that Western civilization can but everyone wants them. In order to produce them they would have to adapt to western values. China and Israel can copy but not innovate.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Israel’s tech sector is growing exponentially. They are innovating like crazy. Western culture is replacing conquistador culture and all other cultures, slowly but surely.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            It is especially valued by people who have low self-esteem or are narcissistic and it feeds their warped ego.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            I couldn’t care less if someone calls me a racist. Water off a duck’s back. I’ve dated all kinds of women and have had gay, black, hispanic, indian roommates.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            You could not be more stupid. Nationalism is about the Nation, the tribe, the People- not the government. The Nation and the country are 2 different things. We speak of the Navaho Nation not because the Navaho have a country, idiot, but because they are nevertheless a Nation.

          • jack dobson
            jack dobson says:

            That made me howl; politics isn’t about love. Nationalism is the basis of all politics outside of communism and global utopianism, which is pretty much the same. Internationalism is just an excuse for larger, global tyranny. Fortunately nationalism is rising and has become the dominant force in the world.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Nationalism is big government. It is just globalism light. It stops people from having local laws and government that fits their circumstance.

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            All of human psychology throughout history contradicts, John Ash.

            My first duty is to those whose first duty is to me. I am not obligated to love humans who would not lift a finger to save me, who don’t care about me or even like me. If there is an imbalance in love, the one who loves more will naturally be taken advantage of – as we see in terrorism, as we see in foreign aid which is stolen by warlords, and so forth. Enough.

            We love those who love us, like those who like us, tolerate those who tolerate us, dislike those who dislike us, hate those who hate us. There will be no pitying from a higher perch, neither slavish devotion from a lower one. We are America, we are great, but not so great that we can afford to act as a god treating lesser beings are though they are misguided either.

          • Urbanus_II
            Urbanus_II says:

            I am not obligated to love humans who would not lift a finger to save me, who don’t care about me or even like me.

            Jesus says we do have such an obligation: “If you love those who love you, what credit can you expect? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit can you expect? For even sinners do that much. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to sinners to get back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend without any hope of return.”

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            So what you’re saying is that Christians have dumb beliefs? Already knew that but thanks for the confirmation LOL

          • Tehy
            Tehy says:

            So basically, endure immigrant hell in this life to ensure heaven in the hereafter? What kind of sucker do I look like? Not like you I should hope.

          • Urbanus_II
            Urbanus_II says:

            I implied no such thing. God asks us to love even those who hate us. How that love manifest itself is unique to the given situation and it certainly doesn’t imply any particular macro government policy. The obligation to love is yours and can only be achieved through your own personal actions and words. I can only give you the Good News, what you do with it is your choice.

          • Wiffle The Deplorable
            Wiffle The Deplorable says:

            Just to add to Urbanus_II’s point, I agree Christianity does not call for social suicide or current political solutions.

            In fact, if we wanted to flip this argument over, we could say that the West’s willingness to just hand over what’s built is modern laziness and not Christian love or stewardship. Bringing immigrants here is disorienting to them personally, expensive (as it seems to require tax dollars) and cuts them off from their heritage. We can also help just a very few that way.

            In an idealized Christian world, people keep their traditional groups and homelands. We would voluntary go to them to help them, where they live, with the surplus that would God would provide from our thrift and hard work. (And that is after we’ve cared for our children.)

            A Western built and supplied Christian hospital in Syria would help many more people, in their home, then giving a few select asylum. (So would staying the heck out of it, but that’s a different story.) Examples of helpful types of foriegn missionary type work are endless. However, unfortunately a critical mass of current church goers are not making the connection that “their” charity is a cheap sort of grace bought on the backs of their children and fellow taxpayers.

            It’s unfortunately just part of the decay of the modern church. We go to Mass, but we give only enough to keep the lights on at a local church and specifically to charities that fit a Christian mission. I am frustrated and appalled that Catholic charities is involved with relocation work using taxpayer money, when it should be involved with missionary work from voluntarily supplied funds at the location of problems.

          • Matt Frihart
            Matt Frihart says:

            love is also love for the common good of your fellow man. while we should always love those who hate us, that doesn’t mean we should not defend against those who wish to take advantage of such love, for such love leads to death of self in this life and the next.

            basically what god said is, place only god above yourself.

            this explicitly means while we do not place the concerns of our fellow man below us, we also dont place those concerns above us, for without us gets no concern at all. we are all equal in the eyes of god, not each other.

          • sotto voce
            sotto voce says:

            Nationalism is fundamentally about protecting the people you love. Only a foolish man denies human nature to the extent that he would leave his doors unlocked and his family unprotected because he refuses to admit that there are Barbarians who would take what he has and destroy what’s left, or who convinces himself that he can bargain with savages and they’ll leave him alone.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            You are an idiot I’d you believe this. Nationalism is about using the seven sins manipulate the people and gain power.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Its a choice between nationalist and globalists. The (((globalists))) have been selling out America since before 1913

          • Ace
            Ace says:

            Johnson supports open borders and amnesty but you are the “thinker” here?

            PS – idiot and nationalist are mutually exclusive terms.

      • sotto voce
        sotto voce says:

        Yes, “Flight 93”, as far as importance, is right up there with Angelo Codevilla’s 2010 essay “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution”. Codevilla provided the diagnosis and Decius wrote the prescription.

      • Patrick
        Patrick says:

        It goes to the education thing that is spoken about. Conservatives of today are emersed in “pop con” books, mags, and media personalities. Being introduced to someone of the older style is a mind blowing experience. The past decade has seen a lot of the writers of that sort die off. They were not replaced by men of the same caliber.

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            So you’re a Libertarian.

            That’s fine.

            Now sell your ideas to the American people and get Libertarians elected to implement them.

            The Decius indictment is that Conservatism Inc. failed because they were ineffective in selling their ideas.

            No need to come on here and berate people for their choice of a candidate.

            What are you hoping to accomplish?

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Conservative Inc. failed because they’re not selling conservatism, they’re selling corporatism disguised as nationalism, and were then shocked to find that it worked and that people now want to be Nazis.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            Conservatism isn’t nationalist. It globalist and anti-nationalist on immigration and jobs/trade. It acquiesces to the anti-white, anti core, anti – mainstream agenda of the hate left. An Israel first foreighn policy isn’t nationalist. People who believe what 99% of the world believe in, namely borders, and prioritizing the priorities of ones own family, tribe, nation aren’t “Nazis”. Isn’t it remarkable how well your agenda dovetails with that of the hate left?

            You are an idiot.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            Real American conservatism isn’t globalist OR nationalist. It isn’t pro immigration or anti-immigration. It isn’t pro-race or anti-race. It is Natural Rights, all day, all night, for everyone. You have no right to oppress others out of your petty fear.

          • Michael Hayes
            Michael Hayes says:

            But that’s just it, by maintaining borders we preserve our rights and deny none to foreighners, since Ther is no constitutional nor moral right to immigrate to America.

            And by the way kid, when you get older you will have heard many, many times various fundies defend their idiotic extremism with the argument ” sure it hasn’t worked yet but it hasn’t really been tried yet”. The commies do it better than you do, but you’re a kid yet.

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            If you think you are preserving your rights by denying them to others, you have been had by the greatest political con job ever.

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            So you’re going to force everyone else “to be fine with that”. Your arrogance matches your midwittery

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            That makes no sense. Are you saying my neighbors are horrified by the white guy in their neighborhood or something? Weird.

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            No stud. Your going to demand we enjoy our minority status as a cuck like you since borders are racist because “Muh natural rights”.
            Qué te den por culo cabron

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            We are a minority. There are maybe a billion white people. A billion blacks, a billion muslims, a billion latinos. A few billion Asians. Get used to it.

          • Nigel McPhearson
            Nigel McPhearson says:

            I point out youre malfeasance in forcing us to take immigrants we don’t want and you dodge the point to rant about “we’re already a world minority”. Same dishonorable shiesty word games you’ve been playing on here the whole time. Seriously. Feels like I’m talking to a hormonal woman.

          • Shep
            Shep says:

            Conservatism Inc. has been selling “Invade the World, Invite the World for 30 years.

            Dude, are you like 20 years old or something?

            It’s the opposite of Nationalism and everyone knew it, it’s why Trump is the nominee.

            Now I’m irritated with you.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            The (((NEO-COheNS))) sold crony capitalism, liberalism and war for Israel. They couldn’t conserve little girls bath rooms from men

          • Matt Frihart
            Matt Frihart says:

            while youre right that conservatism failed because they’re not selling conservatism, its not because they were selling corporatism disguised as nationalism, its that they were selling nationalism disguised as conservatism. its apparent from the moment they broke the “conservatism” agenda from the national one.

            the public by and large wants to be proud of where they’re from and nationalism will always be popular no matter what form it takes. the conservative official doctrine as stated by its general thinking leaders heads its issues as set in stone, no matter the times as they change. its the very thing buckley and his kin rebelled against in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. the largest problem with that is that the issues never changed as the world did, and thats not to say they should break with thought processes that got them there. they do seem to be married to one way of doing things, no matter the circumstances.

            each major group has their agenda that breaks from national pride, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, statists especially. the one that most closely resembles that national pride, in a free and fair election will always win.

            If I were you , I would examine why the libertarian platform has never reverberated throughout the american public and see what you can do to change that…… btw what you are doing in these threads, not working as all lol

          • John Ash
            John Ash says:

            They’re selling corporatism and disguising it as nationalism. Libertarianism isn’t winning because we have public schools.

          • BigGaySteve
            BigGaySteve says:

            Free pot and open borders what a party. How would you stop Latrina’s (actual person in NJ) 21 crackbabies from leeching off my earnings when I never touched her?

      • BigGaySteve
        BigGaySteve says:

        If I am willing to give up $5 wet back BJs to have less illegal alien drunk drivers and moslem beheaders you should be also.

        • John Ash
          John Ash says:

          Sad that a gay man has to pay for BJs. I’m straight and gay men always offered them and I always refused. I guess I am the forbidden fruit though, versus some male whore at a bar.

    • Solaire Of Astora
      Solaire Of Astora says:

      My only question is why the presumption of Jeb’s greater moral character. How is it that Trump, the man of supposedly lesser character, produced better children? Everything else was fine.

  9. jack dobson
    jack dobson says:

    The biggest question of our time is whether we can get it back.

    It seems clear to me we have entered a post-constitutional era and we won’t get it back as a governing document. Nonetheless, I would enjoy your thoughts on the matter after we hopefully staunch the bleeding November 8th. In the meantime, please keep up your outstanding work about this crucial election. Your work has influenced many people I know in my profession to vote for Trump rather than abstain or go third party.

  10. Clark Coleman
    Clark Coleman says:

    “How do you respond to conservatives concerned about Donald Trump’s character? They perceive his shortcomings as somehow unique, though Reagan was divorced, …”

    Good interview until this demonic moral equivalence from the interviewer. Reagan was divorced against his will by Jane Wyman, which was common knowledge in Hollywood (and the nation) at the time. Then he married Nancy years later and stayed married to her until death. To compare such a thing to Donald Trump’s marital history and general moral character is in a class with the worst examples of Leftists drawing moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the United States. Anyone making such a comparison is trying to drag down Reagan so that Trump will not look so bad, and does not deserve to be taken seriously as a writer or thinker.

      • Clark Coleman
        Clark Coleman says:

        I said that the piece was good until this egregiously bad statement. What if someone wrote a generally good article about a variety of issues, then slipped in “of course, I favor amnesty and open borders.” Would you respond, or would you be cautious about “cherry-picking” from the article?

  11. Deplorable-Puppy ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ
    Deplorable-Puppy ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ says: