My Response To John C. Wright

February 12, 2017 Hunter Wallace Alternative Right, History, Race Relations 47

Editor’s Note: Vox Day’s response can be found here.

John C. Wright says:

“Never. One is either born Japanese or not at all. America is different. It is a nation with the soul of a Church. A Church is an institution that one joins when one joins spiritually, that is, when one learns and loves the truths she holds as dogma. …”

Did you know America is different?

If America is so different, why did President Theodore Roosevelt negotiate the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907 with Japan that restricted Japanese immigration? Why was Japanese immigration to the United States banned altogether under the Immigration Act of 1924? Why did the Supreme Court rule in Ozawa v. United States in 1922 that the Japanese were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens? Why did the Supreme Court rule in Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle in 1922 that the Washington Supreme Court was justified in ruling that the Japanese were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens? Why did the Supreme Court rule in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923 that high caste Hindu Indians were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens?

Here are some of California’s Jim Crow laws:

1866-1947: Segregation, voting [Statute] Enacted 17 Jim Crow laws between 1866 and 1947 in the areas of miscegenation (6) and education (2), employment (1) and a residential ordinance passed by the city of San Francisco that required all Chinese inhabitants to live in one area of the city. Similarly, a miscegenation law passed in 1901 broadened an 1850 law, adding that it was unlawful for white persons to marry “Mongolians.”

1870: Education [Statute] African and Indian children must attend separate schools. A separate school would be established upon the written request by the parents of ten such children. “A less number may be provided for in separate schools in any other manner.”

1872: Alcohol sales [Statute] Prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians. The act remained legal until its repeal in 1920.

1879: Voter rights [Constitution] “No native of China” would ever have the right to vote in the state of California. Repealed in 1926.

1879: Employment [Constitution] Prohibited public bodies from employing Chinese and called upon the legislature to protect “the state…from the burdens and evils arising from” their presence. A statewide anti-Chinese referendum was passed by 99.4 percent of voters in 1879.

1880: Miscegenation [Statute] Made it illegal for white persons to marry a “Negro, mulatto, or Mongolian.”

1890: Residential [City Ordinance] The city of San Francisco ordered all Chinese inhabitants to move into a certain area of the city within six months or face imprisonment. The Bingham Ordinance was later found to be unconstitutional by a federal court.

1891: Residential [Statute] Required all Chinese to carry with them at all times a “certificate of residence.” Without it, a Chinese immigrant could be arrested and jailed.

1894: Voter rights [Constitution] Any person who could not read the Constitution in English or write his name would be disfranchised. An advisory referendum indicated that nearly 80 percent of voters supported an educational requirement.

1901: Miscegenation [Statute] The 1850 law prohibiting marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes was amended, adding “Mongolian.”

1909: Miscegenation [Statute] Persons of Japanese descent were added to the list of undesirable marriage partners of white Californians as noted in the earlier 1880 statute.

1913: Property [Statute] Known as the “Alien Land Laws,” Asian immigrants were prohibited from owning or leasing property. The California Supreme Court struck down the Alien Land Laws in 1952.

1931: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited marriages between persons of the Caucasian and Asian races.

1933: Miscegenation [Statute] Broadened earlier miscegenation statute to also prohibit marriages between whites and Malays.

1945: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited marriage between whites and “Negroes, mulattos, Mongolians and Malays.”

1947: Miscegenation [Statute] Subjected U.S. servicemen and Japanese women who wanted to marry to rigorous background checks. Barred the marriage of Japanese women to white servicemen if they were employed in undesirable occupations.

“America has a dogma. America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal. Anyone learning and loving that dogma, who comes here, is a candidate for becoming an American, and, upon legal naturalization, will be as much an American as the man whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower.”

1.) President Thomas Jefferson wrote a book, Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he explained the concept of heritable racial differences. He was actually one of the pioneers of what is now called “scientific racism.” At the end of his life, he was still advocating the emancipation and deportation of the black population to tropical climes outside of the United States:

“Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people 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. 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 up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”
– President Thomas Jefferson, 1821

This is acknowledged on the Monticello website:

“Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country.14 Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,”15 coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential followup to emancipation.”

2.) From the Naturalization Act of 1790 until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, whiteness was a necessary criterion to become eligible for US citizenship. This is why the state and federal courts ruled on the whiteness of the Japanese, Indians, Syrians, North Africans, etc. Congress passed dozens of naturalization laws which reaffirmed that whiteness was necessary to become an American. It wasn’t until the 1950s that this was changed.

Even in United States v. Sandoval in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled that “the people of the Pueblos, although sedentary rather than nomadic in their inclinations and disposed to peace and industry, are nevertheless Indians in race, culture, and domestic government … adhering to primitive modes of life, largely influenced by superstition and fetishism, and chiefly governed according to the crude customs inherited from their ancestors. They are essentially a simple, uninformed, and inferior people.” They were denied US citizenship.

3.) This is how the US State Department saw Haiti and Liberia a century ago:

“The experience of Liberia and Haiti show that the African race are devoid of any capacity for political organization and lack genius for government. Unquestionably there is an inherent tendency to revert to savagery and to cast aside the shackles of civilization which are irksome to their physical nature. Of course, there are many exceptions to this racial weakness, but it is true of the mass, as we know from experience in this country. It is that which makes the negro problem practically unsolvable.”
– Secretary of State Robert Lansing, 1918

A century ago, President Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government.

“The Left, in order to destroy this concept, wrote immigration laws and misinterpreted constitutional principles, to make it so that anyone with an anchor baby, or any relative, living here, could be welcomed here. This was done by enemies of American and is alien to our entire way of life.”

The real change here which was “alien to our entire way of life” was decoupling whiteness from Americanism. In 1912, for example, Texas restricted the right to own land to “members of the white race.” Indians didn’t gain the right to vote in New Mexico until Trujillo v. Garley in 1948.

“America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are. We are exceptional. We are a new concept.”

“American exceptionalism” is a concept that was popularized by Joseph Stalin in the late 1920s. This mythology that America is a raceless, cosmopolitan, proposition nation was created by the New York Intellectuals in the 1930s. It was popularized and mainstreamed over the next three decades.

“Why do I need to be explaining to you something we have both known since childhood?”

Just because you have been taught this since childhood doesn’t mean Americanism hasn’t changed over your lifetime. The concept of “racism,” for example, which we take for granted is the worst thing you can be in this society was introduced in the 1920s and popularized in the 1930s and 1940s.

“How can anyone American or not, who is aware of America, be unaware of how America works or what is the secret of our unparalleled success?”

The secret of our unparalleled success was that our European ancestors settled a virgin continent and pushed aside the nomadic and settled Indian tribes that were already here.

“Now, certain loudmouths on the Alt-Right heaps contempt on all these ideas, but never says anything that actually addresses or casts honest doubt on them. Aside from the emotion of scorn, there is no argument there. It is shouting, but no words underneath the noise.”

My response would be that these ideas are drawn from mainstream conservatism, which is a discourse which can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century, and that conservatism was heavily influenced by the ideas of the New York Intellectuals who redefined Americanism in between the Great Depression and Civil Rights Movement.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

45 Comments

  1. When Rush Limbaugh waxed lyrical about American Exceptionalism do you think he doesn’t know Stalin coined the term?

  2. I don’t really care for Vox Day. He’s a video game and fantasy dork with a Shitty blogspot blog who publishes his Lord of the Rings fan fiction. But anyone attacking the Golden Calf of Civic Nationalism is doing good work. My question is whether Vox Day has been bought off by people like Jeff Giesea and Mike Cernovich. Why the caveat defending Cernovich at the beginning of the article. If Vox Day had any principles, he’d attack Cernovich for the unprincipled Cuck that Cernovich is.

      • Yes, Vox Day’s response is linked and at the top of the article. In Vox Day’s article, he excuses Cernovich’s Civic Nationalism, then goes on to attack Civic Nationalism.

    • Vox Day is a Principal of a small publishing company (Castalia House) which publishes Cernovich. His blind spot, defense & adoration for Cernovich is profit motivated.

      • I just read Vox’s post on Bill Kristol’s White working class should be replaced by Mexicans comment. It could have been written by David Duke. I will cut Vox some slack, I guess he just freaked out over Heilgate. He still needs to throw Cernovich under the bus.

  3. As with Jefferson in 1821

    “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. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably…”

    As with Jefferson then, we have been calling for Partition now, so that this land can be divided peacefully. For now, we will push as hard as we can with Trump so as to strengthen our bargaining position, and bring the other side truly to the table (“CalExit” is not yet a serious proposition).

    As it stands, enough white land will be liberated to make genocide an impossibility, the only questions remaining are how much land will we have, how soon we will get to the stars, and how much time and pain it will take to get to that point. To my knowledge, once we get off this planet, there is no one “up there” who can stop our infinite spread.

  4. In a coastal town in Washington state, there is a stone marker 100s of yards off the dock, still in the ground that says, no Chinese past this point, or you will be killed.
    Its a sjw showpiece now.
    All my older history books claim that the law of 1924 was directed at Jewish immigration into the US.

      • Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, pp. 261-262:

        Writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A. Ross believed that liberal im- migration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue. Ross quotes the prominent author and Zionist pioneer Israel Zangwill who articulated the idea that the United States is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests.

        America has ample room for all the six millions of the Pale [i.e., the Pale of Settlement, home to most of Russia’s Jews]; any one of her fifty states could absorb them. And next to being in a country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution.” (Israel Zangwill, in Ross 1914, 144)

        Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy:

        Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission’s bill. The power of the million Jews in the Metropolis lined up the Congressional delegation from New York in solid opposition to the literacy test. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains. (Ross 1914, 144–145)

        Ross (1914, 150) also reported that immigration officials had “become very sore over the incessant fire of false accusations to which they are subjected by the Jewish press and societies. United States senators complain that during the close of the struggle over the immigration bill they were overwhelmed with a torrent of crooked statistics and misrepresentations of Hebrews fighting the literacy test.”

        Zangwill’s views were well known to restrictionists in the debates over the 1924 immigration law (see below). In an address reprinted in The American Hebrew (Oct. 19, 1923, 582), Zangwill noted, “There is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses, and all other devices that make of the population of our planet not a co-operating civilization but a mutual irritation society.” His famous play, The Melting Pot (1908), was dedicated to Theodore Roosevelt and depicts Jewish immigrants as eager to assimilate and intermarry. The lead character describes the United States as a crucible in which all the races, including the “black and yellow” races, are being melted together. However, Zangwill’s views on Jewish-gentile intermarriage were ambiguous at best (Biale 1998, 22–24) and he detested Christian proselytism to Jews.

        Zangwill was an ardent Zionist and an admirer of his father’s religious orthodoxy as a model for the preservation of Judaism. He believed Jews were a morally superior race whose moral vision had shaped Christian and Muslim societies and would eventually shape the world, although Christianity remained morally inferior to Judaism (see Leftwich 1957, 162ff).

        http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/cofcchap7.pdf

    • It was a Sho~~~~~~~~~~~ah!!!!

      Foundations of Holocaust: 1924, Congress decides No More Jews

      The Jerusalem Post – Israel News

      02.13.2017 | 17 Shevat, 5777

      “I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship,” Senator Ellison DuRant Smith in support of the Quota Act of 1921.

      “Upon signing the [1924 Immigration Restriction] Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, ‘America must remain American.’

      Introduction: If Germany’s 1932 election of National Socialism threatened a “final solution” to the West’s pathological preoccupation with its Jewish Problem, America’s Congress ensured its near-success.

      The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the last in a decade’s long series of racist Congressional efforts to limit immigration of “undesirables” to the United States, to encourage immigration of “desired” North European Aryan “racial stock.” Before the 1924 Act Congress passed the not-quite-adequate Emergency Quota Act:

      “The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration to 3% of foreign-born persons of each nationality that reside[d] in the United States in 1910.”

      What a difference three years of Congressional reflection makes: in 1910 (reflecting mass flight from Russian pogroms) Jews constituted some 2% of the population; in 1890 there were far fewer even than 1%. So the 1924 bill chose the 1890 census and for good measure reduced the allowable quota of the “unfit” from 3% to 2%.:

      “It initially permitted annual immigration of up to two percent of the number of foreign-born persons of a particular nationality in the United States as set forth in the 1890 census. In operation, the quota system “materially favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe because the great waves from Southern and Eastern Europe did not arrive until after 1890.””

      If the law sounds as if inspired by American eugenics, it was: it was based directly on testimony provided by the head of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO):

      “Eugenics Record Office Superintendent Harry Laughlin became the anti-immigration movement”s most persuasive lobbyist… [He was appointed by the chairman of the committee writing the law] expert eugenics agent.” By deceptive data and reasoning Laughlin fed Congress what it wanted to hear, that new immigrants were polluting America’s bloodline with “feeblemindedness, insanity, criminality, and dependency.” The resulting bill “did everything eugenicists had hoped for… it restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe countries to only 9% of the total. Northern and western European countries got 86% of the quota, even though they made up the minority of immigrants in 1923.”

      [Photo: President Coolidge signs the immigration act on the south lawn of the White House]

      “Upon signing the Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, ‘America must remain American.’ This phrase would become the rallying cry of anti-immigration sentiment until after World War II.”

      The degree of antisemitism inspiring the 1924 anti-immigrant Act accurately reflected the mood of the country. Eugenics, in the imagination of the United States, was the wave of the future.

      In 1894, although the movement was still in its infancy, several Harvard graduates created the, Immigration Restriction League dedicated to preserving American racial purity by closing the gates to “inferior races.” Intent of preserving America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage as represented by its upper class, League membership included,

      “A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, William DeWitt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College, James T. Young, director of Wharton School and David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University.”

      Antisemitism in America kept pace with the influx of Jews fleeing the pogroms. The great- grandson of Henry Adams, second president of the United States said,

      ““The Jew atmosphere isolates me.” In Ignatius Donnelly’s 1890-novel “Caesar’s Columns,” the Jews seized power to take revenge against the Christians for how they had made them suffer.”

      Eugenics inspired such widely read scholarship as Madison Grant’s, The Passing of the Great Race which, in good eugenics terms, blamed the Jews for “mongrelizing” the white race.

      This was also the period that produced the lynching of Leo Frank (longer discussion to come) and its defensive response to a spreading anti-Jewish threat, the Anti-defamation League for Jews; inspired by that lynch mob also the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that, within eight years grew from the few murderers of Leo Frank to a mass movement of more than four million by 1924:

      “The Leo Frank case was a harbinger of an upsurge of overt Judeophobia after WW1. The artificial national unity was over, and postwar disillusionment brought during the 1920’s fear that the old way of life was under the onslaught of the foreign born, the city, and religious liberalism.”

      In the 1920’s automobile magnate Henry Ford published and distributed millions of copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; Harvard introduced a quota system for Jews, followed quickly by numerous institutions of higher education across the country (Dartmouth refused to abandon its quota until 1945); Jews were banished from white collar professions, including medicine, law and, ironically, banking.

      Henry Ford distributed the Protocols at all dealerships across the U.S. His purchase of The Dearborn Independent allowed hit to spread antisemitism beyond the showroom.

      Eugenics was the rage and sterilization was forced on tens of thousands of Americans that the US Supreme Court determined “unfit.” Adolph Hitler, already an admirer and promoter of the writings of Henry Ford held the United States a model for what Germany should aspire to:

      “When Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1924, he held up a foreign law as a model for his program of racial purification: The U.S. Immigration Restriction Act of 1924… When the Nazis took power in 1933, they installed a program of eugenics–the attempted “improvement” of the population through forced sterilization and marriage controls–that consciously drew on the U.S. example… Small wonder that the Nazi laws led one eugenics activist in Virginia to complain, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.””

      We will return in more detail to the impact of this restrictive immigration law on European Jewry when we turn to the Holocaust proper. One result rarely mentioned in histories of the Holocaust is that, beyond providing a fig leaf for the administration to justify its inaction responding to Germany’s ever-intensifying persecution of the Jews from 1933 on, the fact that the leading western democracy, self-described representative of humanistic and liberal ideals, “refuge to the oppressed;” the fact that the one country that might have provided a model of moral and ethical behavior in protecting Jewish refugees instead set an example for other potential countries of refuge to close their borders.

      The single exception was tiny Bolivia, which accepted 30,000 refugees between 1938 and 1941.

      Such theatrical gestures by the administration as the Bermuda Conference and that “too little-too late” afterthought, the War Refugee Board, were mere window dressing to placate critics at home, and particularly America’s own and mostly impotent Jewish community itself fearing antisemitism at home.

      Postscript: The antisemitic 1924 Congressional Act remained in force until 1965, long after the Final Solution eliminated the threat of a “massive” Jewish immigration had passed. In the meantime the Congressional ban was scrupulously observed, and its surviving Jewish victims, approximately one million, were forced by the US Army to remain in the same concentration camps renamed DP camps, from which they had recently been “liberated,” American soldiers as guards at the same camps they had suffered under German rule!

      Three years after Auschwitz the United States was still imprisoning Jews while providing sanctuary from the Nuremberg Trials for “useful” Nazi war criminals like SS colonel Werner von Braun. Sanctuary for Nazis, concentration camps for Jews.

      Recent writings in this Series:

      1. Foundations of Holocaust: Corporate America, camp inmates and slave labor

      2. Foundations of Holocaust: Corporate America and the Fuhrer, a Love Story

      3. Foundations of Holocaust: a two-thousand year long Jewish Problem

      4. Foundations of Holocaust: American eugenics and the Nazi connection

      • The last view paragraphs I find misleading.

        Certainly the will of the American people went ignored, and (((their))) lackey FDR sealed our fate.

  5. I think the full title should be:
    “- Vox Day: Response to John C. Wright by Hunter Wallace”

    Otherwise, it seems to say that Vox Day is responding to John C. Wright.

    • Actually, I am married to a nice Christian Scientist who can trace her ancestry back before the founding of the Republic. Try to keep your random and insane libels straight in your mind, there, Mr. Browning.

      • Then justify your hatred of whites. You want my address too?? Your kind must be dealt with. This is my country, a white country and I get to say what ever I want. You want to Jew away my rights Mr Attorney??? Go ahead.

      • Wallace won’t ban me. He is a real American. He believes in freedom of thought and freedom of expression. I knew you were going to ban me. I knew you are a Jew at heart. I knew it. Goddamned you, you filthy disgusting Jew.

        Here is my reply, faggott.

        There are only two political parties. The political relationship, the
        friction point is Jew versus non-Jew. Jews are very different from
        non-Jews. Jews possess Neanderthal genes and those genes make Jews twice
        as aggressive as us Cro-Magnan derived races. That is the reason why
        Jews have been a problem every where they go.

        It wasn’t just
        Hitler or Germany. The Jews have been a problem where ever they have
        lived through out history. The Jews have been expelled from 109
        countries since 250AD. 2017 is the 100th anniversary of the Russian/Jew
        revolution. The Jews over threw the Czar by uniting the minority against
        the majority, just like here in America the plan and tactics are
        unchanged. Millions of innocent Christian were executed by Jew
        executioners, Mister Christian. Hitler saw and new of the Jew crimes in
        Russia. Hitler stood up and defended his own people from Jew predation.
        And for that you hate him.

        You are not a Christian, you are a
        multiculturalist. Multiculturialism is the New Jew created religion
        design to destroy and replace Christianity, in preparation for the long
        awaited messiah of the Jews the anti-Christ. You worship the beast. You
        are a tool of the devil and you will be defeated by the spirit and the
        will of God almighty and the power of goodness over evil.

        Take
        you blue pill with a glass of hard liquor and go to sleep. Your ideal,
        you way of thinking is all a product of Jew propaganda and has no
        connection to truth, reality and the all to obvious truth of Jew hatred
        for white Christians.

  8. The amount of reality-denial that cucks engage in would give lefties a run for their money. Even funnier is the sheer indignation they display when someone like Hunter calmly dismantles their asinine historical revisions.

  9. Legally and socially, all those antient cases and Ye Founders’ orations that you cited and quoted are now irrelevant, in The Current Year, in The United State. You might as well recite Magna Carta or the Code of Gilgamesh.

    Regarding the Vox Day quote: He’s actually got it backwards. Because Japan is a much much more homogeneous society than what’s going on in the USA, they can actually accept a foreigner “into their clan” more than Americans can. What I mean is that in the USA, massive immigration, naturalisation and “birthright citizenship” make American citizenship mostly meaningless, shallow, empty, just a legal formality; while in Japan it is still a significant process and event, and (unlike in the USA) the host nation has a strong self-identity and boldly asserts its identity. America, the USA (Canada also), is constantly becoming a great big blancmange. Vox Day uses the metaphor of a Church. Japan is more like a Church than the USA is.

  11. “New York intellectuals.”

    Uh-huh. Got that one right! And they weren’t Scandinavians, that’s for sure! We all know what I mean.

  14. I said: ““America has a dogma. America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal. Anyone learning and loving that dogma, who comes here, is a candidate for becoming an American, and, upon legal naturalization, will be as much an American as the man whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower.””

    You said:
    “If America is so different, why did President Theodore Roosevelt negotiate the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907 with Japan that restricted Japanese immigration? Why was Japanese immigration to the United States banned altogether under the Immigration Act of 1924? Why did the Supreme Court rule in Ozawa v. United States in 1922 that the Japanese were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens? Why did the Supreme Court rule in Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle in 1922 that the Washington Supreme Court was justified in ruling that the Japanese were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens? Why did the Supreme Court rule in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923 that high caste Hindu Indians were ineligible to become naturalized US citizens?”

    Five rhetorical questions that are not remotely on the topic. The next section repeats fifteen Jim Crow laws which segregate by race, dating from the Nineteenth Century. The next section quotes Thomas Jefferson on the prudence of emancipating but deporting all black slaves back to Africa.

    The question of who is allowed to immigrate under our laws is not related to the question of whether it is or is not impossible for non-Englishmen to become naturalized American citizens based, not on their bloodline, but on their consent to the proposition on which American is based.

    The question of segregation is tangential, particularly in cases where equality means a right to associate, or to be free from associating, with whomso one will. The misquote from Jefferson is on a different and unrelated topic, not even remotely tangential. And it is a misquote, for Jefferson says the differences between the races are just as much a matter of upbringing and opinion as nature.

    “From the Naturalization Act of 1790 until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, whiteness was a necessary criterion to become eligible for US citizenship.”

    Interesting, but not related to the topic being discussed, which was whom the law had the power to naturalize, not whom the law, for good reasons or bad, did or did not naturalize.

    Perhaps our amateur lawyer is here attempting to produce a reductio, and make the claim that IF America could naturalize any man who consents to become an American, THEN she could not place any other restriction of any kind (including membership in races that have divergent loyalties to the core American ideals) but the SINCE five example of persons being denied citizenship for reasons vaguely related to bloodline or national origin are lawful THEREFORE America cannot naturalize citizens based on ideology, only on racial identity.

    Do I need to identify the logical errors in this argument? I will not bother, since this is only a speculation on my part as to what argument might have been made on these facts, not one that was actually made.

    ““American exceptionalism” is a concept that was popularized by Joseph Stalin in the late 1920s”

    Oh, puh-lease. Whom do you think is young and gullible enough to be fooled by simple logical fallacies like this? Ad hominem. If Hitler says twice two is four, it does not mean twice two is three.

    No honest doubt has been cast on anything said. You neither answered nor even addressed the argument. Learn basic logic. You will find I am helpless against it.

    Get your arguments in order before presenting them to me.

Comments are closed.