So I hear all these people and the media cry about it being "racist". But i noticed how none of of them(including Vance himself and his supporters) are saying that this statement is wrong or incorrect.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
Exactly. But you need an in group to have an in group preference. Most halfs struggle to fit in. Not all cross race offspring will have these issues but that's because they eventually assimilate completely into one group or the other. If you deracinate there is not group to assimilate into so you are left with people with shattered roots and a broken tradition.
Back in the day a single offspring or two would later marry a local and their children would be further integrated into the group. And again with THEIR children. Now it's just a raceless rootless free for all and people suffer when they don't know where they belong. Look at how many amerimutts, myself included, are trying to research in reintegrate our European roots instead of just being "american". It's because "american" is raceless and religionless. We have no identity anymore beyond McDonald's and gay rights.
I'd say there's 3 things that really defined America: Individual rights and enrichment, Christian values and militaristic pride.
And wonder every one of those were the first targets of the left..
You are forgetting we were an Anglo nation. That was the most core part. Of that protestant Christianity was central, with an allowance for catholics in Maryland.
But everyone anglicized, by learning English and followed an English common law precedent (contrasted to civil or napoleonic code found only in Louisiana).
Everything is downstream of that core belief that we are Anglos. That is why the revolution was based on rights of British people. Even after that, the American identity was knitted closely with the British and explains our cultural proclivity for each other through shared traditions, language, and constitutional tradition.
The monarchy is irrelevant, just like Cromwell showed the English, that they didn't need a monarchy to still be a nation.
Cromwell ruined your argument a bit as thanks to his rule, the English WANTED a monarchy again and even referred to Charles II coming back as 'The great Restoration'
I'm half and half on monarchy. On the one hand there is more inclination to legacy with monarchy, you can have strong leadership and the weak emotionals can't enforce their rules by mob.
On the other, it's a lot easier for one generation to fuck up everything..
I don't know, maybe combine monarchy with a requirement that you need to pass special forces training with NO leniency and only then you get the title of successor.
Just because the possible ideological spread within a race is substantial, doesn't make race unimportant.
It's more like, people wanted monarchy but, they remained English through the transition. If monarchy was requisite for being English, the country would have fallen apart with the monarchy. But instead it flourished under Cromwell in many ways.