David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
To survive as an independent nation, America must discriminate. America must exclude, and no longer tolerate its enemies. America must be prejudiced. History presents no example of any nation with a constitutional invitation to all foreigners, all religions, all values, or all social institutions. So-called Americans who advocate plurality, diversity, and the multicultural ‘melting pot’ approach to nationhood are not Americans, but the enemies of America. I’m afraid that includes many so-called “conservatives.”
The Pilgrims, during the first moments of their invasion, December, 1620. Not an auspicious beginning.
Every nation must have the power to determine who its citizens are. A nation without this right, without this power, will soon not exist as a nation. It will be overrun with invaders of every ilk, even as we see America invaded today. It will become a ware house of crooks, globalists, and desperados. In America today, our most deadly, determined foes–the murderous Muslims, are invited here. They are encouraged to come to America and to denounce every principle upon which the government of America was founded. They are defended by congress and the media. They are praised by every oedipal white liberal. This is the antithesis of nationhood.
As a member of the Comanche Nation, I must remind Americans of what it means to be a nation at all. I hold out the Indian way as exemplary. Indian nations are public exibit No.1 for what it means to be a nation.
I can freely say to all non-Comanches, here or abroad, “You will never be Comanche. You will never be a member of the Comanche Nation.” I in fact did say this to Jared Taylor, president of American Renaissance, when I spoke at the 2011 AmRen Conference in Charlotte, NC, last month. “And no one will accuse me of racism, discrimination, or intolerance,” I asserted. Now, the question is, Why can I, as an Indian, say such a thing, and be fully understood and unquestioned, and yet, if a white American even hints at such a thought, he is anathematized beyond Satan himself? He may be sued or jailed–or both. He will surely lose his job.
Dr. Yeagley, speaking at the American Renaissance
Conference, February 6, 2011, in Charlotte, NC.
The Comanche Nation, as all Indian nations, is race-based. Indian nations have our own blood, our own language, our own religion, our own territory, and our own customs. No one questions this. No one opposes this. No one would think to war against this reality–except liberals like George Soros. Historically, nationhood has a race, an ethnicity, at its very foundation. For America, that would be the white, Anglo-Saxon protestant. This is the race, the religion, and the social norm which created the United States of America. Americans ignore this fact at their greatest peril. History is against any other manner of nationhood. Even empires fail for lack of this appreciation. The growth of an empire is contagious, hypnotic, and overwhelming; but, in the end, empires crumble because people prefer their own ethnicity. People prefer their individual identities.
Comanche Indian Veterans Association (CIVA) on parade, 2008, at the Comanche Nation Fair.
Yes, America does have a lot more variety now than simply the white Anglo-Saxon protestant. All manner of European white nations are here, to say nothing of African, Asian, and Latin American people, and all the religions and social norms they represent. But, this is not a good thing. This is a bad thing. There is no strength in diversity, but only perpetual discontent, strife, and potential dissolution.
Conservatives have generally failed to recognize this most basic reality. Conservatives have one fear: racism. They dread, more than anything, to be called a “racist.”
But America must become racist! America, to survive must develop a healthy, active principle of discrimination. America can no longer afford to tolerate (much less encourage) its enemies. America’s leadership has utterly failed to understand the very basics of nationhood.
The continued presense of the American Indian nations testifies, not to WASP tolerance, but to WASP respect. Indian nations today testify to the reality that the WASP was an invading force–invading a land already inhabited by many nations. The presence of the American Indian nations shows not only that Indians prefer nationhood, but that the white Anglo-Saxon protestant respected that, and once appreciated the value in that state of mind. I can only wish that America would remember these things, and revive their emimence.
Where is it written that any man can live anywhere in the world? Where is the command to integrate, to emulate, assimilate, or otherwise abandon one’s natural identity and homeland? America has provided a home for many of the dislocated, persecuted, and lost. Indeed, American Indians charitably accepted the very first of such people, the Pilgrims. America has offered opportunity for any and all. But, these things must end. The party is over. The doors must be closed. Survival demands it.
American people, real, true American people, must listen to their own hearts. News media, political leaders–this is all false and deceptive. This is all mistaken. The professional public voices are shaped by the legal profession, nothing more. The artificially generated public voice is the lusus naturae of attorneys and judges–the social architects of our time. Jerry Doyle is right: It’s all “BS”. News has become meaningless hot air.
I say, the reason is because the professional public voice, and all its participants, whether political or media personnel, have abandoned the most basic tenets of nationhood.
Racist Negro Eric Holder,
Attorney General of the United States.
Racist Negro Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, says Americans are cowards when it comes to talking about race. If they weren’t, he would never be in office, nor would his racist clown superior. This malcontent descendent of imports has no place in America, let alone American leadership.
But, until those in power are willing to use the words “impeach,” Holder is right. Until leadership and media call black Barry the “enemy” he is, Holder’s words stand unchallenged. Negroes rule.
63 responses so far ↓
1 David Yeagley // Mar 3, 2011 at 11:42 am
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Eric Holder being a racist. He should look out for his own people. This is natural.
This is precisely why minorities cannot lead. They should never be put in public office. They will always cripple government, distort values, and corrupt the national focus.
America must descriminate! America is a white nation, not a black nation. How ridiculous can American people be!
2 Stella // Mar 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“But America must become racist!”
Good point!
“Racist Negro Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, says Americans are cowards when it comes to talking about race.”
Are you saying that us white folks should be racist but the negros shouldn’t be racist?
That seems unfair!
3 David Yeagley // Mar 3, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Negroes are racist. White people try to act like they’re not. Everyone is! It’s the way we’re wired! Nothing wrong with it.
What the term refers to, really, is the natural instinct to protect, preserve, defend, etc. When in conflict with another race, then we have the term “racist.”
Historically, it is a completely subjective, sociological, political term. Perhaps an American, Puritan original.
Like at Indians. We couldn’t even unite with each other to defend the continent. Why? We weren’t “racist.” We were individual nations, with different cultures, languages, religions, etc. If we were racist, there would have been no America. We would have united on the basis of “race.”
4 Thrasymachus // Mar 3, 2011 at 2:09 pm
To me, “racist” simply means a believer in the reality and moral value of race. It means a philosophy of nationalism based, not on “propositions” alone (or even primarily), but on common ancestry, common descent, common culture, and the shared history of a particular people — the population which lives within set borders and speaks the same language.
The concept that “America is a ‘proposition nation’ is not only offensive, it makes for a serious loss of freedom of thought and speech. If this were true, then to be an American, you would have to believe certain things — “propositions” — or be an outcast. This is the exact opposite of what the Founders intended.
Of course I can never be a member of the Comanche Nation. (That is an honor to which I have not been born.) But the world at large is enriched because of this fact. This established distinction allows two (or more) nations to exist and maintain themselves and add to the true diversity of the world.
Without nationhood, as traditionally understood, “diversity” is worse than meaningless — it is self-defeating, self destructive, and hostile to human survival.
5 Thrasymachus // Mar 3, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“Racism” is a word invented by the Communists. I think it may have been Trotsky who first used it. But, in any event, it definitely was a communist ploy.
6 Thrasymachus // Mar 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm
The whole New World Order can be looked at in terms of the Satanic Rebellion spoken of in Holy Scripture.
In Isaiah 14, we read:
“12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.”
Notice, please, in verse 12 above, that Satan “weakened the NATIONS.” The Evil One is an opponent of nationalism!
Satan is the god of this present world-system, and the creation of a “new” world-order in opposition to that of God (the original and natural world order) is his work.
But Jesus endured the cross (the penalty of the Rebellion), in order to destroy the works of the devil. Ultimately, the Lord will have to intervene, so as to set things in right order once again.
7 zephyr // Mar 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“We have to prove to the world that we will never act in our own country’s best interest. That’s the foreign policy of this administration.”
—Rush Limbaugh, 2 March 2011
I like “impeach”, but I like “treason” better.
8 Pamela K. // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I think it is wrong that a black man like our president can use the color of his skin to silence and intimidate his critics. Or have his lap dog/Obamaism Socialist agenda pushers in the news media call them “racists.”
Anyone who dares to stand up and speak the truth about what is going on in our nation today is called a “racist”.
Or, you are “Islamaphobic” if you speak out against the “religion of peace”, Islam.
I guess I am a racist! And while I might be an infidel, I am only afraid of remaining silent.
The terrible tragedy that happened in Germany should be a wake up call to all Americans. My heart goes out to the families of those US servicemen shot by the Bosnian peacenik screaming “Allu Akhbar!”
Our asinine government refuses to use the words “Islam” and “terrorism” in the same sentence. Obama could use the US military to patrol the waters off the coast of Somalia where four innocent Americans were recently killed by Muslim pirates, but he’s more concerned about declaring the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconsitutional so that he can appease all his homosexual friends pushing the radical gay agenda. Yet, even in this, Obama is a hypocrite. He claims that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Yet, he claims that DOMA is unconstitutional because it is unfair to gays.
Can’t have it both ways!
9 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2011 at 12:36 am
But that’s the liberal agenda. “We can, you can’t. Yes, we can! No you can’t.
Good to see you again, Pamela! Such conviction is invigorating!
10 Stella // Mar 4, 2011 at 7:27 am
“Negroes are racist. White people try to act like they’re not. Everyone is! It’s the way we’re wired! Nothing wrong with it.”
In that case, it appears that the racist Eric Holder was correct when he said that Americans are “cowards when it comes to talking about race,” right?
Not only was he correct, and honest about it, he’s also a racist, which according to you is a good thing — whereas white people are too afraid to acknowledge that they too are racist.
So why aren’t you applauding Eric Holder? He seems to embody the values you espouse, so what’s the problem?
Could it be that your animus against Eric Holder is based on racism rather than logic?
11 Pamela K. // Mar 4, 2011 at 9:20 am
Eric Holder’s pronouncement, “Americans are cowards when it comes to talking about race” is typical of how ignorant and antagonistic black men of his generation with an ingrained, “you’re white so you owe me” attitude can and typically do use the issue of their skin color/race for political advantage. Holder knows he can make statements like this and get away with it because he is a black man and no one in the white liberal establishment will ever challenge him or his attitude. White liberals are afraid of black people just like they are afraid of the Muslims.
The general consensus among the white liberal elitists is that the white race is never allowed to be forgiven for the sins of the past and are to be constantly reminded of how our forefathers oppressed and humiliated the black race. There has been no more highly touted victim in white oedipal eschatology than the emasculated black male. No apologies or government-sanctioned history months or holidays will ever be enough to remove the stain of our sins. Heck, you can’t even order a “black and white” milkshake today without ruffling someone’s feathers! Both “black” and “white” are basic colors in any artist’s palette are they not? What’s next? Banning Crayola from making “black” and “white” crayons because some university- educated derelict full of hatred for themselves and others deems them racially insensitive? Meanwhile, the rest of us bewildered peons are shaking our heads and wondering, “Whatever happened to God given common sense?” Answer: It was tossed out along with integrity and self-respect.
Imagine the uproar if a white US Attorney General made the same statement as Holder. He would have been run out of Washington on a rail, but not before being punished by the self-righteous witch hunters in the news media. He or she would have been called a “racist” and forced into publicly apologizing to the whole black race and all other non-white minorities he or she might have “offended” for speaking his or her mind.
What about Obama’s “my grandmother was a typical white woman” statement? What white politician could ever say, “my grandmother was a typical black woman” and get away with it? None!
12 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2011 at 11:21 am
Stella, I say only that a minority race should never be put in charge of a majority race. If Holder is looking out for his own, fine. (If he’s really doing that. I question that.)
He’s CLEARLY NOT looking out for the nation. That is a bad thing. I think it is either because of his race, or his personal challenges. Either way, he, nor his superior, belong in public office, except maybe in a black neighborhood.
I think everything Pamela said was “right on!”
This is all about liberal “charity” for minorities. Letting them have a big piece of the pie. What happens? They ruin it for everyone else. That’s all. Minorities should be quiet, meek, and grateful. That is the only honorable way. Instead, white oedipal liberals train minorities to protest, to be profoundly discontent, and to make trouble at every opportunity.
I say this is an indulgence of self-righteousness on the part of liberals, and is really quite bad for minorities. It infantalizes them, perpetuates unhappiness, and cripples true self- acceptance and aspiration.
13 Edwin M. Wright // Mar 4, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Excellent comments !
14 Following Him // Mar 4, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Once again Dr. Yeagley you are 100% right on target. Keep telling it like it should be. Maybe someday it will get there.
15 David Yeagley // Mar 5, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Indians are in a unique position, of course. We have our pre-existing “nations,” with territory, etc. We have our mini-governments. The immigrant “minorities” on the other hand have no such conclaves. The “hispanic,” the “negro,” the “oriental,” come from the largest races in the world. Yet, when they cross American borders, they’re suddenly “minorities.” This is preposterous. A remarkable, historical aberrancy. They may have “ghettos,” but they do not have separate governments, lands, or historical propriety on the land. They also cannot really assimilate, except through economic status. This is superficial, and does not represent true assimilation. Integration is the more visceral route, but that means racism–the destruction of a race.
Multiculturalism is a curse, plain and simple.
16 agrneydgrl // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:15 am
I grew up in the early 50′s and things are so much different now. I go into a business in my hometown and sometimes see no white people working at all. On the new TV shows, they have minority “bosses” over white people. Not that that matters, per se, but ….. I think it is a bad idea to have “hate crimes”.They all are hate crimes, not just for a certain part of society. I also think that stopping don’t ask don’t tell is opening up a whole new can of worms. I do not like multicultruism because, except for a few, people do not like to mix. That is why we have little Tokyo, China town, Olivera street, little Vietnam etc. They do not assimilate so we have countries within our country. I think we should stop ALL immigration for at least 5 years and then think long and hard on who we let in.
17 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 4:19 am
So, Yeagley, you went ahead and put the bullseye on your back, huh?
How was your speech in NC received? This is what you spoke upon? Racism? Nationhood? At a conference for White Supremacists? (shaking head)
As soon as Brits came to America to get away from religious persecution and intolerance, and pulled it off, the dye was cast, the precedent set. Euros conquered the Indians, but they also set the stage for immigration such as the world had never seen. They did not come here to conquer, but that’s how it worked out – a dual result.
Americanism has to be redefined. At one time people came here to be Americans, albeit generally tagged with a pre-nation status – Italian American, Irish American, Polish American, French/Franco American – mostly Roman Catholic (second wave, Papal policy for ultimate control). They came to be Americans. They learned English. They learned the history, the laws, etc. The third wave (mostly Hispanic) is happening now. All that is really cared about is money, financial gain, freedom to get money. Or, in the case of Islam, to dominate and conquer.
Little Italy has existed for almost a century. Little Frances have existed since the first immigration. from Canada.
America was built on immigration. It suited her well. Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and all. It’s a history befitting no other nation in history. It can’t be stopped. What CAN be restarted, if real Americans have the courage, is the re-installation of Americanism. THAT’s what matters. I would applaud a Walter Williams, a Herman Cain, an Allen West being President.
Men of principle, men of foundational Americanism, whatever skin color, is what America needs for leaders.
18 David Yeagley // Mar 6, 2011 at 8:59 am
Williams, Cain, and West represent a reactionary notion, nothing more. This is the conservative “catch-up” to liberal racism. It is exactly the same thing, and will never work.
America is a white nation. A white Anglo-Saxon protestant nation. That is the foundation, and the core. That is what all must measure toward (except Indians–for we don’t have to. Everyone else does.)
Minorities will only further destroy the nation. A nation is not solely an idea. That is naive and irrational. That is not human nature. Human nature always wins out.
19 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 10:27 am
If that logic is true I question if America could have survived this far. Various non-Brits, non-whites, and non-Protestants, blessed with the influence of Americanism, have contributed to all fields of endeavor that have blessed the world, from medical science, invention, and music, etc.
America needs Americanism. THAT is the great experiment, not WASPs. FREEDOM, LIBERTY, SELF-GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and ENTERPRISE under GOD’s SOVEREIGNTY. Anyone can enjoy that, from any nation on earth, if it is allowed to grow and remain the foundation.
The America that won WW2 was not a totally WASP nation. A totally WASP nation of no Americanism is no better than the England the early settlers left.
The horses are out of the barn, David. If you cannot lift Americanism as the national hope and foundation, kicking out every non WASP will never save this country. It’s still doomed, regardless.
20 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 10:33 am
America was a strong Protestant nation. Having left that foundation she began to drift in the 19th century.
You will never bring the nation back to those principles. They are lost forever, and prophetic time is running out.
But if America ever WAS a Christian nation, it could never BE a WASP nation for freedom come from God is for all men, not just WASPs and America has done more to promote the gospel than any nation in history. Skin color has zero to do with the gospel. Freedom knows no skin color, nor do any of the other principles of Americanism.
Sorry, my brother, I cannot follow you on this one.
21 Pamela K. // Mar 6, 2011 at 10:42 am
“America is a white nation. A white Anglo-Saxon protestant nation.”
Okay, how do we determine who is ‘white enough’? There was a time when certain ethnic groups like Jews, Latins, and Slavs were deemed “inferior to the gene pool” by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She also felt that blacks should be randomly exterminated at birth. I’m not sure how she felt about American Indians. Anyway, should we now operate under a process of elimination concerning who is American based on pigmentation of skin color? In what way does being a white-skinned person and an Anglo Saxon Protestant make you more patriotic and loving of America than someone with olive skin from Italy whose Roman Catholic? Or someone from Puerto Rico with brown skin who attends an Assembly of God Church?
“Minorities will only further destroy the nation.”
I suppose that’s the same thing President Andrew Jackson was thinking when he mandated his policies of forced removal and extermination against the Cherokee Nation to appease greedy white Georgia landowners who wanted their land. Conveniently forgotten from white Anglo Saxon Protestant history is the fact that it was one of the Cherokee “minorities” who saved Jackson’s white butt from certain death at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.
22 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Skin color has zero to do with the gospel.”
——————————————–
First off, race is something much more than mere skin color. The boy in the original Karate Kid movie has olive skin, whereas I have white skin. Yet we are both, in my opinion, of the same RACE. And nearl all white people would agree.
Second, the Gospel does not obliterate race and nation; it is not at war with these principles. Every race and nation may choose to worship God and be Christian. But this is very different from multicultural society.
America was founded as a White Christian Nation. The original immigration policy made this explicit. Only White Christians could legally emigrate to the United States. Such was the express will, enacted into LAW, of the Founders themselves. And Jefferson, one of the founders, and others of them with him, founded an organization to repatriate the Negro to Africa or somewhere else removed from American soil. These are historical facts.
23 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:03 am
I was about to type what Pamela K wrote above: patriotism is love of country. Any skin color, any person on the planet can love America, Americanism, and live the American dream. The problem is people of all colors who do not love America and Americanism: who have no use of God’s authority and sovereignty, who care not for self-government, but want others to rule them, or want to rule over others.
If someone comes here who has no love for America, and by stealth or by insurrection of any type seeks to bring down Americanism, that is the problem, and it is not a skin color or even cultural problem. I couldn’t care less what language anyone speaks as long as they learn English, this nation’s language. I do not care what kind of cultural food they eat, nor music they listen to, as long as they can sing the Star Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful with passion and principle.
Multi-culturalism is not necessarily anti-American. With Islam, which is another epitome of the union of church and state, it IS a problem and cannot be allowed to practice with Quran freedoms in America. It is not just a religion. It’s a ideology determined to rule every person on the planet. There is no place for it on American soil. Only apostate Islam can function here: a moderate, ignorant of its own teachings Islam. But even that becomes a danger at some point, because it makes demands of lessening the Constitution. No religion can have special rights, period.
I have no use for Romanism. It also is a danger to the Constitution in its ultra form. But the Roman Catholic who swears his allegiance to the flag of the USA not the papacy is as welcome here as any other person.
24 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:10 am
America was not founded as a white Christian nation. The name Jesus Christ does not appear on any document of historical foundation of law in this nation. The majority were Christians. They were Protestants. But not all. Two Roman Catholics signed the Declaration. But America was not founded as a Christian nation, for they knew, as should all Christians, that Christ said My kingdom is not of this world. All religions are free to practice here, if they are civil to their neighbors. That is law and should be so.
Now David has attempted to say that the founders never thought of anything but Christianity to be the norm here. I have disagreed and done so from principle and documents of the day.
Perhaps “culture” needs definition for the discussion to remain clear.
25 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:11 am
“In what way does being a white-skinned person and an Anglo Saxon Protestant make you more patriotic and loving of America than someone with olive skin from Italy whose Roman Catholic?”
—————————————————-
It doesn’t!
For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
However, I have listened to their online sermons. And they state that Roman Catholics are welcome to join them. I believe that olive skin would pose no problem, either.
About their anti-semitism:
The Klan believes, as Benjamin Freedman, himself a Jew, taught, viz., that modern Jews are not the same Jews who were Israelites of the Old Testament. The Klan thinks that modern Jews are impostors and are really “Edomite Jews.”
26 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:13 am
“Multi-culturalism is not necessarily anti-American.”
—————————————-
Multiculturalism is anti-nationalism — ANY nationalism. And anti-nationalism is the religion of the Satanic Rebellion.
27 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:18 am
I should have said “Professed Roman Catholics” signed the Declaration. It is unlikely, if not impossible for two devout Roman Catholics of that time to sign such a document as the Declaration. It went against Papal documents and doctrine of the day (and has never been rescinded or recanted).
28 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:22 am
Definition of MULTICULTURAL
: of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism \-rə-ˌli-zəm\ noun
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ist \-rə-list\ noun or adjective
— mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ly \-rə-lē\ adverb
Merriam-Webster online.
I do not see a threat to Americanism in that definition.
29 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:23 am
The first law on citizenship application to the United States would not allow even Whites who were indentured servants (thus my ancestors) to become citizens, much less non-Whites!
Read up on the origingal law, the Naturalization Act of 1790
30 David Yeagley // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:24 am
This is the kind of discussion that needs to be going on in conservative circles! I thank you all.
Later today, I hope to make another post. For now, I can only say that the “American experiment” is in the white laboratory. Elements of its dissolution are evident.
If one says America is declining, one must admit that the negative elements are those not present in the foundation–i.e, those elements extraneous to the white Anglo-Saxon protestant dynasty. I don’t see how history can be seen any other way.
I’m not advocating some impossible purity, or purification. I’m advocating an understanding of the foundations, that’s all. I voice a meek memorial to the foundations. A memory, a sentiment of what was, and what is required for continuity. I realize the story has already ended. All points are moot.
31 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:27 am
“. . . That any alien, being a FREE WHITE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen . . .”
– from the Naturalization Act of 1790.
At the time, there were Whites who were not free, as they were indentured servants. These Whites, one of whom was my ancestor, were not allowed to apply for citizenship. Blacks, Asians, and virtually all other non-European Whites were excluded as well.
32 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:33 am
Naturalization Act of 1790
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .
“Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant becomes a citizen, and thereby gains all of the rights that accompany citizenship. In 1790, the U.S. Congress established naturalization procedures that were quaint in comparison to today’s elaborate maze.
Less quaint was the fact that only white immigrants were eligible to become citizens. Later on, California and many other states would use ‘eligibility for citizenship’ as a criterion to deny still other rights to non-white immigrants, like the right to own land. This racist restriction on naturalization would remain in effect until 1952.”
Interesting link. If nothing else it shows Obama cannot be a natural born citizen.
But, should America own slaves? That is the background of this legislation. Should it have been revoked in 1952 or not?
33 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:36 am
True! The original America cannot be restored now. An entirely different solution, if one can even be found, is required to make the population here stable.
Personally, I advocate the formation of new nations on this continent, reflecting population groups, and maintaining the American Indian nations as historically pre-existing nations.
The Founder’s America is no more. The American Indian survives and is to continue to survive. Now what remains is to find a way to secure some kind of decent future for those who are White and Christian, so as to prevent their physical and cultural extinction.
34 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:44 am
You see, Asaph, I do not believe in “Americanism.” Whatever that may have meant in 1776, it cannot have the same meaning today. It’s an idea whose time has passed.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery.
Abraham Lincoln was willing to pay ANY price in blood and treasure, not only to abolish slavery, but to send the freed slaves away from American soil. That was Lincoln’s ultimate objective. Book: Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves. (This was the same policy of Thomas Jefferson, a member of the American Colonization Society, of which Lincoln himself was probably a member.)
Slavery was a huge mistake and has proved the ultimate undoing of the country. The seeds of the destruction of the nation were sown right at the very beginning.
35 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:49 am
The gospel, thankfully, cannot be bound by borders of any kind. Where faith is, there is Christ, and there is hope. If America is no longer a Christian nation, or is in danger of no longer being one (Chairman Obama has already declared it is not), who’s fault, whose responsibility is that? The current American, western culture, enriched by this world’s goods, has ruined the Christian culture of this nation, not influx of immigrants, who should have been evangelized with greater passion and fervency by professed Christians in this nation. The churches have squandered their freedom and liberty and allowed abominations to excel. On the other hand, it is the end of the world, Christ is soon to return, and everything happening all over the globe, including America, was predicted ages ago. We are in the days of Noah, the days of Sodom. All we can do is strive to enter in at the strait gate and spread the gospel as we can. That is first priority of any and all Christians. But when the Super Bowl or NASCAR means more to professed Christians than their own church services do, Obama and Co. are not the biggest problem “Christian America” has.
36 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:53 am
As an American, I do believe in the principles of Americanism, and also believe they can remain the dominant principles this nation functions under. But that becomes a question of civil servants being elected who believe the same. Finding those articulate proponents of the same is becoming more and more difficult, but not impossible.
37 Pamela K. // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:54 am
When my Italian-American father was a little boy visiting family up in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the local branch of the Ku Klux Klan burned a wooden cross in the empty lot separating my great-grandparents’ house from the house next door. This was not a racial or ethnic-motivated incident. My great-grandparents’ neighbor was a white man and known in the neighborhood as a drunk and a wife-beater and the Klan burned the cross as a warning.
When my maternal grandmother was a little girl, the Ku Klux Klan burned a wooden cross on the edge of her grandfather’s farm property in south Jersey. Again, this was not a racially-motivated incident. My grandmother’s maternal grandfather was born in Germany. He had a violent temper and once shot at his wife and locked her inside the chicken coop. Again, this was a warning from the local Klan for him to shape up or ship out of the community. However, not far from where I live in southern New Jersey, members of the Lenni-Lenape Indian tribe in Cumberland County were often harassed by the local chapter of klansmen in their rural community in the late 1940′s and early 1950′. These cloaked night marauders were not imports from down South either. And their motivation was racial. In her book, “Strong Medicine Speaks” tribal elder Marion Gould revealed that the klansman were not only white men, but prominent members of the local community.
Contrary to the Klan’s alleged relaxation of the rules concerning Jews, traditionally, the Klan regarded Jews, or “Semites” as having tainted the white race through encouraging miscegenation with the African black and thus polluting the white race. The Klan felt it was their “sacred honor to God and future generations of little white children” to prevent this continued tainting of the gene pool by exterminating the African black. Perhaps this is why Planned Parenthood founder and practicing eugenicist Margaret Sanger was so enamored of the Klan and why she agreed to be the guest speaker at a clandestine meeting of the women’s auxiliary branch of the organization in Spring Lake, NJ in 1926.
38 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm
There can be no doubt, Pamela, that the Klan wants to keep Negro blood out of the white population. However, this is a view not limited to the Klan, nor a peculiarly “Klan” idea. It was once the norm in polite white society. Even Johnny Carson disowned his son when the son married a black woman.
Here is a speeck given, not by a Klansman, but an anthroplogist, the author of a once well-know book, “Race and Reason.” This speech was sponsored by the State government of Mississippi. Hardly a fringe Klan group.
(BTW, there are many KKK groups. One would have to trace the group back to the founder to make it a legitimate Klan group. I think that Nathan Bedford Forest was the founder?)
Carleton Putnam – Race and Reason Day Speech October 26 1961
For the record, I find nothing wrong with Mr. Putnam’s views on miscegenation of the White and the Black races. It makes the white population smaller and weaker and poorer. It is not good for Whites at large.
39 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:15 pm
I certainly do not see myself as an enemy of America, and believe the only discrimination America needs to practice is to abide by its own laws – protect the borders, remove illegal immigrants, penalize employers who employ them, force elected civil servants to abide by the Constitution and limit ALL spending of federal monies to Constitutional ends. States the same. Remove ALL unconstitutional agencies and federal programs. Bring home all armed forces and close all foreign military bases, and stop the empire building. Stop receiving goods from China and any other nation persecuting their citizens. Period. Drain every single drop of fossil fuels out of American soil while allowing business and entrepreneurs the freedom they need to propel the new energy systems they can come up with, without taxing them to death and regulating them out of practical existence.
In short, we need Americans to be Americans again.
40 Edwin M. Wright // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 4:19 am
Un-quote
IMO you sound to me like a P.C. minister, NKVD/alphabet type of Nation/freedom hating Marxist through and through.
Always say no to genocide.
Starting with the S.T.D. infected Woodrow Wilson, and up through every compromised puppet with the exception of John Calvin Coolidge, J.F.K. partially, but he was independant enough to get him self ventilated, sadly.
Your side IMO has always been willing to intimadate, bribe or id that does not work then out right Murder as was the case of Huey P. Long in 1935. See Huey P. Long by T. Harry William’s.
Solzhenitsyn’s “Live Not Lie’s 1974, still carrie’s a power punch to the face for sleepy heads and p.c. Red Guard type’s if anything can ever get through theri brain washed skulls.
41 Edwin M. Wright // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm
. It was once the norm in polite white society. Even Johnny Carson disowned his son when the son married a black woman.
I do not watch TV, but that shows Mr. Carson had foundation and was a man of principles to the hilt!
42 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Are you talking to me? What on earth are you using to reference such an opinion?
43 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“In short, we need Americans to be Americans again.” — Asaph
—————————————-
What is an American? How are we to decide who is and who is not an American? What is the litmus test?
My opinion is that the Founders’ America is no more. The U.S. has transmogrified into a socialist and multicultural society that can never be restored. Conservatives in the 1950s and beyond failed to defend the Founders’ America and now it’s too late. We cannot turn back the clock.
What is needed now is a future for white children. And a future for American Indian children as well.
Asaph, the things you would like to accomplish could only be done, most of them, by a unicultural and basically homogeneous nation.
Though under a seeming appearance of tranquility and stability, the United States is in fact in a state of inner turmoil. It is a question merely of how long the fear of government will keep the population in reins. Ultimately, the union will, like the former Soviet Union, come apart. Hopefully, the process will be as peaceful as the crumbling of the Soviet Empire was.
44 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
multiculturalism
The term ‘multiculturalism’ emerged in the 1960s in Anglophone countries in relation to the cultural needs of non-European migrants. It now means the political accommodation by the state and/or a dominant group of all minority cultures defined first and foremost by reference to race or ethnicity; and more controversially, by reference to nationality, aboriginality, or religion, the latter being groups that tend to make larger claims and so tend to resist having their claims reduced to those of immigrants.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/multiculturalism#ixzz1FqYQodnv”
Even this is not necessarily dangerous to the Republic. It is when such things as Islam, which is more than defined here, begins to impose it’s own laws and standards upon their host society.
45 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm
A Long-Failed Experiment
46 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm
From the Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
“A similar question has been raised about the long-term political stability of a liberal society. Non-liberal societies are typically held together by shared conceptions of the good, such as a common religion, or by common ethnicity. Members of these societies are willing to make sacrifices for each other because of their commonalities. But what holds a society together when its members come from different ethnic and racial backgrounds and do not share a common conception of the good life?”
47 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm
An American is someone who believes in Americanism, the excellence of Constitutional freedoms, liberty, and law under the sovereignty of God, the Creator of all freedom and liberty which He has ordained. It isn’t rocket science. But, I do agree, it’s pretty much lost for good.
On the other hand, as a believer in Scripture and prophecy of last day events, and a line of prophecy which mentions the American nation, I cannot subscribe to an idea which expects America to implode into various factions, a la Europe, Russia, etc. I do not believe that will happen. Time will tell on that.
48 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Indeed, if Americanism cannot be instilled in all Americans then, of course, America cannot stand. It will fall. But as I stated above, the battlefield between good and evil has yet to be fought, in full, on American soil. That day comes soon enough, and then to the world field. Cannot come soon enough, for me.
49 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:08 pm
“Even this is not necessarily dangerous to the Republic.”
————————————————
Sir, you need to study the Fall of the Roman Empire. Having large numbers people of different racial and cultural backgrounds IS the reason nations and empires fall. There is an inevitable struggle for power and wealth and also a destruction of a common morality — and the thing — the disorganized mixture, like feet of clay mixed with iron, crumbles, and the statue falls. (This is a reference to the Bible, Daniel, chapter two.)
50 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I have always heard that Armageddon was to be fought with Russia and China on the one hand and Israel on the other.
Dr. J. Vernon McGee, a radio Bible teacher, once said that he saw no mention of America in Scripture. If there is a clear one, I have yet to learn of it. I feel that the U.S. will become a third-world nation and that Europe and the Mid-East will take center stage in the final battle between good and evil. However, this is only my person opinion. I do not really know how events will unfold.
Finally, I believe that the definition of Americanism is too vague, and that instilling a philosophy of distinct European and Christian origin into non-Whites — a large population of non-white imported peoples — is not going to be successful on any large-scale basis.
The Bible says that the strong and weak nations cannot mix, even as iron and clay cannot mix, and that the American empire (if indeed that is the reference) will fall. My interpretation, however, is that this is about all the modern West.
51 Asaph // Mar 6, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Daniel 2 refers to the march on nations beginning with Babylon, then Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, the division of the Roman empire (not the “fall” of it), and the ultimate coming of the “stone cut out of a mountain without man’s hands – the second coming of Christ.
In the history I have read Rome was divided because it, like all nations before it in that march of time, rejected the call of God through His people. An apostate religion became the ruling influence (the papacy). That left them subject to the full impress and construct of Satan until warring hordes chipped it apart. But the Bible specifically states Rome did not fall, it was divided. It became the original nations of Europe, and no power would unite it again, despite the mixing of churchcraft and statecraft, the marrying of princes and princesses, or any kind of military might.
They shall not cleave one to another.” That was the prophecy, and so it has stood down through time.
America will find itself, IS finding itself in the same place. It is rejecting the sovereignty of God decade after decade.
I do not consider J. Vernon McGee an authority I look to. His overall theology is not one I subscribe to, he being Calvinist. My theology is more Weslyan in nature.
The fact is, many non-whites HAVE subscribed to the tenets of Americanism in two centuries of time. They fought wars with those principles guiding them. Because of a sector of people in America who hate America and Americanism, the simple tenets which joined America together to become the greatest nation in history have been perverted, denounced and twisted by twisted people in most institutions of “higher” learning. Corruption abounds. Another sign of the times.
If the discussion stays on the political side, it still must enjoin the sovereignty of God. If it does not, no political group can or will keep America from disaster.
I do believe the second beast of Revelation 13 IS the United States of America, which will come under the influence of a false, miracle-working revival, and will enjoin policies of church and state which will bring about its destruction.
Until then, while not being a political animal, or activist myself, I might hope that men and women of principle can keep things from falling apart as long as possible. Freedom and liberty, much of it lost, is too precious to just let go of without a fight. It is God’s gift. It must be maintained as long as possible.
52 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm
“I do not consider J. Vernon McGee an authority I look to. His overall theology is not one I subscribe to, he being Calvinist. My theology is more Weslyan in nature.”
Whoa there!
You post is very interesting up to this point (And it’s fine that you don’t follow Dr. McGee.): Dr. McGee was NOT a Calvinist! He definitely believed in FREE WILL. He was more like a modern “Free Will Baptist.” That is, he held some Calvinist-like attitudes, but was not a determinist.
Certainly McGee is not the Authority on the Bible. I do not know of anyone who is. When I read the Bible, I simply want the Holy Spirit to lead me into the Truth. I never rely on any man’s private interpretation.
I am very strong in my faith in Free Will. Indeed, without it there can be no true religion, as I understand the word. Religion requires at least three things: God (the Creator), Man (the created), and Free Will in which Man can love the Lord, his Maker.
Personally, I am non-denominational. I accept Christians of all reasonable denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ. I do attend a church of a particular denomination, but I do not actually believe in denominationalism itself. I consider myself simply a Christian, rather than a “this or that” Christian.
53 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 2:48 pm
The solution I personally advocate and plead for can be read here (though I am not the author) A Modest Proposal.
54 Thrasymachus // Mar 6, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I do not want the liberal U.S. to hold together, because I want it to be possible for persons who oppose miscegenation to opt out of the system. As long as the current democracy holds together, miscegenation is being forced on all Whites, whether they are aware of it or not.
Whites who want their children to marry within their race and religion must, like the Amish, have communities of their own.
Racial separation is the only way for the White Race, which is now shrinking with every passing day, to survive.
Article on the need for racial Separation by Rabbi Mayer Schiller.
55 David Yeagley // Mar 6, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I suppose the bottom line is whether or not the founding WASP fathers of the country and constitution envisioned what’s happening today. I think not, ergo the need to eliminate that which they did not envision.
56 Asaph // Mar 7, 2011 at 5:14 am
David, if we believe, I do anyway, that God led these men, the Founders, to establish this experiment, then it is the principles of God which must be maintained, not necessarily the understanding of the men who put this whole thing in order. They were visionaries, but they were not omnipotent. There understanding was as incomplete as all men. Slavery is enough to see that, along with other things that were not perfect, and in truth, cannot be.
Indeed there are those proposing some kind of split in this nation. Will not happen. But what if it did? ONE split would please everyone? Impossible. Factions would splinter such a notion to atoms. In many ways I would fear religious zealots in power as much as liberal zealots. The pendulum can swing hard either way and freedoms can be further trounced upon.
I’d be thankful if people just followed the Constitution. But Conservatives who care not for the sovereignty of God have shown by their words and deeds they would make America not much of a better a place than liberals have made it.
BTW, based on things I have read in Thomas Jefferson’s writings he envisioned exactly what is happening today. Others shared their warnings and thoughts on the future and saw the problems inherent in our system without constant vigilance on the part of both citizen and civil servant. They pegged it. After all, is it not just returning to the way things were in all nations controlled by leaders with power and control over people?
57 Asaph // Mar 7, 2011 at 5:29 am
Thrasymachus, stating that McGee was a “free-will Baptist” certainly makes him Calvinist enough for me. I am staunch believer in a free will which leaves no room for the doctrine of “eternal security.” I have read where McGee believed in the doctrine and espoused it regularly.
58 Thrasymachus // Mar 7, 2011 at 9:25 am
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson
“Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” –Thomas Jefferson
59 Thrasymachus // Mar 7, 2011 at 9:30 am
I am staunch believer in a free will which leaves no room for the doctrine of “eternal security.”
– Asaph
——————————————————-
Point well taken. You are right in this — that was McGee’s position. It certainly seems to me that the Bible teaches that believers can turn away or fall away from the faith, and that of their own free will. I too am not sold on the “eternal security” doctrine.
60 Thrasymachus // Mar 7, 2011 at 9:44 am
Jefferson only envisioned an eventual and inevitable nightmare if the Negro was not sent away from American soil:
“It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly and their place be pari passu filled
with free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up…” — Thomas Jefferson
61 nikeairmax // Mar 31, 2011 at 7:32 am
http://www.myairmaxstore.com/nike-air-max-2011-c-7.html
62 Welcome to the Worldwide White Backlash! - WesternFront America : WesternFront America // Mar 31, 2011 at 2:32 pm
[...] http://www.badeagle.com/2011/03/03/amercia-must-discriminate/ [...]
63 Compassion of Deguello | jeffersondavisboulevard // Jan 30, 2012 at 10:01 pm
[...] http://www.badeagle.com/2011/03/03/amercia-must-discriminate/ [...]
You must log in to post a comment.