“Unprecedented,” a Profound and Disturbing Essay by Michael Anton

 

In the campaign season of 2016, an essay appeared out of the blue titled “The Flight 93 Election” exploring, in considerable depth, the very real dangers for our Nation should Hillary Clinton be elected President. Word of this epochal essay spread like wildfire and it became — not the cliché but the real thing — an overnight sensation. It was introduced to the wider world when Rush Limbaugh read every word of it on his radio show. How much impact it had on the eventual outcome of the election we will never know, but I would speculate that it almost certainly had a measurable effect. Like many in those pivotal days – we had no idea just how pivotal they were at the time — I devoured the article which simply corroborated my conviction that the style of the title was not at all overdone but described the importance of that decision precisely. The author was identified at the time of its release as Publius Decius Mus, the essay may be accessed here. His real identity was Michael Anton.

This very same scholar and highly accomplished analyst has now published another masterful essay in which he reviews the increasingly disturbing, chilling, and, in some cases, frightening developments wrenching our society these days, defined broadly as the last five to six years since approximately — and this is my marker, not the author’s — the most famous escalator ride in history. The theme is the large catalog of savage attacks on, to use Victor Davis Hanson’s phrase, the very pillars of Western Civilization.

I will try to couch my feelings about both the excellence of this piece of scholarship and the severity of its alarms for our future in somewhat muted tones, but, to put it as mildly as I know how to use the King’s English, every single American citizen with a sentient mind should read this essay, at least once but, more beneficially, twice, as I did. It may be accessed here; as noted, the publishers have most graciously granted me permission to provide this link and it is my hope that it will be spread far and wide so many will have the benefit of the depth of analysis it offers of the problems we face. They are so much more serious than the usual jokes and memes about the blithering fools who occupy our highest two offices presently and I hope to briefly review the major areas of Anton’s concerns — issues which are unprecedented in American history and, in some cases, all recorded history.

The author opens his discussion with these pithy observations on the current state of the “Republic” (about which more later) and its seemingly inevitable decline:

When I have thought about this, I have been in some part inclined to the opinion that present arrangements are unstable and may be approaching their end. Yet in thinking it through further, I am forced to admit that our times are marked by so many unprecedented trends and events that making predictions seems foolhardy.

He then turns to a familiar theme:

Are We Rome?

Noting that there seem to be many similarities between the fall of Rome and our present rapidly deteriorating situation, and examining the two examples extensively, he indicates that America, because of the confluence of so many unprecedented developments, is almost certainly headed for at least a slow, steady decline, if not imminent fall. One conclusion which jumped off the page to me was this one, which we seem to hear more and more often of late:

Yet in all important respects, our country is no longer a republic, much less a democracy, but rather a kind of hybrid corporate-administrative oligarchy.

There follows an analysis of the “cycle of regimes” theory which holds that “[j]ust as Rome was born, grew, matured, peaked, declined and eventually fell, so will — and must — America.” Under this theory, every regime — monarchy, autocracy, or democracy — falls when it becomes “overbearing and odious.” This phrase really hit home with me because our present system has clearly become overbearing and to call many of those in national “leadership” positions just “odious” would be to commit an act of kindness.

Unprecedented Immigration Policy Never Seen Before In World History.

We — that is, those of us of a certain level of “maturity” — were raised to regard the “Melting Pot” as one of those bedrock foundational principles which make the USA exceptional and to believe that E Pluribus Unum was not just some slogan on the currency. However, the author reminds us that Aristotle cautioned, in his Politics, that “dissimilation of stock is conducive to factional conflict,” and notes that we pride ourselves on our “exceptional track record of assimilating peoples from all over the world.” After reviewing the changes wrought by the devastating 1965 Immigration Act and the denunciation of the very idea of assimilation by our Ruling Elite as “racist” (is there a single thing left in our society that is not racist?) we have seen another development unprecedented in world history:

Be that as it may, no nation in recorded history has ever willingly opened its doors to millions of immigrants only to insist that they must never adapt to the traditional ways of their new country…

Other examples follow, such as the size of the tidal wave of humanity coming to America now estimated to be in the range of 100,000,000 — one hundred million! — since 1965. As he notes, no native-born population of any country has ever cheered its own dispossession. Ever.

Unsayable: The “Great Replacement” is Happening.

Not only is it happening- it is accelerating under the “Biden” administration. We are seeing another unprecedented move by a nation as described by the author:

No majority stock in any nation has ever deliberately sought its own replacement…

A headline today announced, as if it were believable enough to be taken seriously, that the administration has issued a massive number of show cause orders directing illegal immigrants all over the country to appear in court to prove why they should not be deported back to Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/Somalia/Uzbekistan. I represent, in good faith, that this was not a headline in the Babylon Bee.

Anton also notes that while examples can be found of a new elite rising and then replacing an older one:

But of a ruling class coming to despise its own (broadly speaking) ethnic group and seeking ways to rob their fellow co-ethnics of power, standing, and influence? I can’t think of any other such cases.

Ugliness Is Everywhere. Decreed From On High?

Anton then turns his analytical acumen to the qualities which make our current class of elites markedly different from tyrants of old, who have always despoiled their countries for personal gain. Today’s “Anointed”, to use Dr. Sowell’s word, are driven by a “malice … atypical to the native despot,” continuing:

To force degeneracy on the whole of society, with the explicit intent of bringing the rest us to our knees, literally and figuratively—that, I think, has never happened before.

The author then views the landscape of ugliness the ruling class has “created,” noting that throughout history autocrats wanted to leave behind “beauty, the arts, and great works.” Now, since about the middle of the last century, everything has turned brutally ugly, including “not just the buildings, but the art, the literature, the music, almost everything.”

What follows at this point was a discussion which must have taken a serious measure of courage to write, and of The New Criterion to publish, as it is a depiction of not one, but two, areas which The Anointed have decreed to be off-limits in so-called “polite company” (an ever-dwindling group in our coarse society). He actually discusses — out loud — the ugliness of the people and the inexplicable choice of George Floyd as something approaching Sainthood.

As to the ugliness of the people, he notes that “[t]he point seems to be humiliation, forcing us little people to say ‘the thing which is not’” and further illustrates the “malice” of today’s ruling elite thusly:

That trick is also as old as the hills, but the deliberate promotion of ugliness seems to be a new way to play it.

Anton’s dissection of the George Floyd phenomenon surely should rank as one of the most honest, forthright, unsparing, and truthful discussions of this madness to be found anywhere and it alone makes the entire essay worth close attention and study.

At this point, I should note that by publishing this passage, in particular, and the essay, in general, The New Criterion has once again exemplified its credo:

“At The New Criterion we will always call things by their real names.”

Before having the sheer temerity to sketch out the many reasons George Floyd was no Saint, he begins this discussion as follows:

But in terms of what we choose to elevate, nothing illustrates the perversity of present America more than the deification of George Floyd.

He concludes:

But has any people ever chosen such an undeserving object of worship?

The Tragic State of Education Today.

If forced to sum up this entire depressing section of the essay (as I am due to the conditions of the gracious permission of the publication to publish the link to the entire article) in a few passages, it would be these:

There’s ample historical precedent for widespread illiteracy. But for teaching one’s own citizens self-hatred, degeneracy, and despondency—without teaching them to read and write?

Besieged by Barbarians.

The next section, entitled “Barbarians at the Gate,” discusses the destruction being wrought upon our society by crime and the sacking of our cities at the instigation of our “overlords” and also by modern technology, which he describes as “anti-human,” designed to “remake [Man’s] very soul.” He further discusses the never-before-seen “passionate hatred” of the “cultural locusts” who will leave no statue standing and no name unchanged.

Conclusion: Uncertain.

His very tentative prognosis is that we will be “somewhere between imminent collapse and drawn-out decline” and ends with this vivid, if not disquieting, finale:

Whatever the case, couple all this unprecedentedness with all this incompetence, and going long on Wokemerica seems a sucker bet. But, to end where we began, the very unprecedentedness of our situation means that all bets are off.

I have racked my brain — the few surviving parts of it — to try to find words adequate to the task of urging every American to read this essay thoroughly and imbibe its lessons as completely as possible. My brain only responded: reading this essay should be the duty, not the option, of every citizen who cares about our Beloved Nation and hopes to help, in some way, no matter how small, reverse its long decline. I hope this review will whet your appetite and prompt you to do just that.

God Bless America!

Author’s Note: Publication of the link to the article and brief quoted passages are provided with the permission of The New Criterion.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 120 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Then watch this. This is the best explanation that they really are going to shove MMT and communism down our throats. 

    I have said over and over that you can’t make conservatism work or sell under a discretionary central bank policy. Well here it is in technicolor.

     

     

    Every single word is important, but pay particular attention around 26:00 when he talks about the Cantilian effect. 

    This is a very ordinary conversation. Not something that is “out there”.

     

    • #31
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I see the whole article, but I right clicked or whatever you call it to force another tab to the side.

    • #32
  3. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Both the New Criterion and the Claremont Review are enormously deserving of support. Donations gratefully accepted.

    • #33
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Both the New Criterion and the Claremont Review are enormously deserving of support. Donations gratefully accepted.

    I just subscribed. I will subscribe to the other one as well.

    • #34
  5. DoubleDare Inactive
    DoubleDare
    @DoubleDare

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Both the New Criterion and the Claremont Review are enormously deserving of support. Donations gratefully accepted.

    I just subscribed. I will subscribe to the other one as well.

    Thank you for setting the example Rufus.  I followed it and just subscribed as well.

    • #35
  6. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    DoubleDare (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Both the New Criterion and the Claremont Review are enormously deserving of support. Donations gratefully accepted.

    I just subscribed. I will subscribe to the other one as well.

    Thank you for setting the example Rufus. I followed it and just subscribed as well.

    I am, to put it very mildly, extremely pleased to see these messages and express special thanks to @paulstinchfield for his post making this suggestion! 

    Many thanks to all, Jim

     

    • #36
  7. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Went to a paywall earlier today. Goes right to all of the article now.

    • #37
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Went to a paywall earlier today. Goes right to all of the article now.

    Yes!

    • #38
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    I finished reading it and a few things are apparent to me.

    Well, this article was pretty much what I’ve been saying for a while: conspiracies do exist, and this is a conspiracy.  “Any one of the above elements would appear to be unprecedented; just a few of them in combination surely are. All of them together?”

    And, there comes a point after which incompetence must be viewed as malice.   “Yet elite enthusiasms extend well beyond mere greed. There is a malice in them atypical to the native despot, one found historically only or largely among the most punitive conquerors.”

    Also, slippery slopes do exist when there is an incremental plan: ‘Our overlords, by contrast, insist on changing everything and … they smirk about the “slippery-slope fallacy” and gleefully lie.’

    And finally, without arguing over terms, “free markets” or unbridled “capitalism” is not defensible.  “Our ruling class is rich and rapacious—rich because rapacious, and eager to be richer still by taking what little you have left.”

    • #39
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Anton:

    Then there are the related issues of technology and our fake economy. These subjects are far too large to explore here and so must be treated cursorily. Let us merely say that modern digital technology is unlike any previous “advance” in human history. It threatens not only to become man’s master and destroyer (other technologies have also threatened that) but also to remake his very soul—or kill it.

     

     

    Once at the forefront of production, human capital is phasing out in the economic machine. Viktor Shvets, global strategist at Macquarie Group and author of “The Great Rupture: Three Empires, Four Turning Points, and the Future of Humanity”, joins Michael Green to discuss the devolving nature of capitalistic societies as the demand for an augmented scope of human rights storms capitalism. Shvets also examines the disruption to factors of production in the Information Age. Filmed on September 21, 2021. Special thanks to Albert Bozsó for reaching out to suggest Mike Green interview Viktor Shvets.

     

    https://www.realvision.com/shows/mike-green-in-conversation/videos/is-the-golden-age-of-liberal-capitalism-over?source_collection=b8bd9d62c77143f7a39513e85d310b11

    And all of this happened way faster than it should have because of bad financial market policy.

     

    • #40
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    This post bothered me all night long.  It is time to lay down a marker.

    My Father is English and his family had been here since before the Revolutionary War.

    My Mother is German and her family was been here since before the Revolutionary War.

    We were here before the Revolutionary War, and were part of the 4 million Americans in 1787.  Were you?

    The thirteen colonies were populated by different groups, Catholics in Maryland.  Dutch in New York, Germans in Pennsylvania and English elsewhere.  Native Americans were here even though up to 90% of them died of diseases like Small Pox that their bodies did not have immunity to.  The French were already here in Louisiana.  The Spanish were already here in California, and New Mexico, stretching up to Colorado.  African Americans were already here, because they were brought here against their will.

    Four million Americans fought a revolution to create a Creedal Nation, the first in the world.  If you believed in freedom and liberty, you were welcome here.  Our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” or “out of many one.”

    We, my English and German forebears welcomed you.  We had only one requirement that you adopt our creed of freedom and liberty.  The Irish came.  Many more Germans came.  The Scandinavians came.  The Jews came, in fact they were welcomed by George Washington.  The Italians came.  The Eastern Europeans came.  The Chinese came and built railroads.  After we lost the Vietnam war, we welcomed the Vietnamese.  (It is a stain on the honor of Joe Biden that he abandoned a third of a million Afghans to the Taliban.)  They all contributed to America.  What did they have in common?  They dropped their old ties to their old countries and became Americans by adopting the American Creed of freedom and liberty.

    If you believe in Michael Anton’s b.s., and your families came here after the Revolutionary War, and no longer wish to adhere to your forebears’ sacred agreement to pledge allegiance to our country, then, with all due respect, you are breaking the compact that your family made to come here, when they became Americans.  If your own ethno-nationalism is so important to you, and your families came here after the Revolutionary War, then perhaps you would be happier to return to your former homes.  Of course, you are welcome to stay if you adhere to the American Creed of freedom and liberty.

    • #41
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now. 

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration. 

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems. 

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons. 

    • #42
  13. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    This post bothered me all night long.  It is time to lay down a marker.

    Sir:

    We used to have a very efficient way to deal with uncivil, rude, discourteous, Rambo-type adversaries; while I know I will be dating myself back to the dark ages but at my age that’s just the way it is. When I would get a letter (the kind on actual paper, put into the US Mail) fitting the description of one or more of those words, and knowing there is probably nothing which drives attention-seekers to distraction more than being ignored, I had a rubber stamp which I used in order to just send their letter back to them,  with this very succinct message:

    This letter was ignored.

    With the utmost of respect, I am, 

    Sincerely,

    Jim

    • #43
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    I don’t have a problem with restricted immigration based upon the talents and abilities of the people seeking to immigrate, and reducing the notion of family reunification.  

    • #44
  15. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    This post bothered me all night long. It is time to lay down a marker.

    Sir:

    We used to have a very efficient way to deal with uncivil, rude, discourteous, Rambo-type adversaries; while I know I will be dating myself back to the dark ages but at my age that’s just the way it is. When I would get a letter (the kind on actual paper, put into the US Mail) fitting the description of one or more of those words, and knowing there is probably nothing which drives attention-seekers to distraction more than being ignored, I had a rubber stamp which I used in order to just send their letter back to them, with this very succinct message:

    This letter was ignored.

    With the utmost of respect, I am,

    Sincerely,

    Jim

    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view.  Okay.  That is your prerogative. 

    But can you afford the arrogance of assuming that there is nothing that you don’t know, the knowing of which would transform your life completely?

    • #45
  16. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view.  Okay.  That is your prerogative.

    There are six comments full of a different point of view in the January 6 discussion awaiting your attention, written in response to your request that I study certain materials you requested I study, which you ignored. “Arrogance”? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder. 

    “Your prerogative.” 

    • #46
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    I don’t have a problem with restricted immigration based upon the talents and abilities of the people seeking to immigrate, and reducing the notion of family reunification.

    Then you can be more specific about what your beef with Anton is. 

    Nobody cares about immigration where there is value added and they are good citizens. 

    Willy-nilly shoving diversity down everybody’s throat is madness and there is research to back that up.

    • #47
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view.  Okay.  That is your prerogative. 

    EH, HEM

    • #48
  19. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view. Okay. That is your prerogative.

    There are six comments full of a different point of view in the January 6 discussion awaiting your attention, written in response to your request that I study certain materials you requested I study, which you ignored. “Arrogance”? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

    “Your prerogative.”

    Jim, I watched the recording that you requested that I watch.  I responded at length.  

    • #49
  20. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view. Okay. That is your prerogative.

    There are six comments full of a different point of view in the January 6 discussion awaiting your attention, written in response to your request that I study certain materials you requested I study, which you ignored. “Arrogance”? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

    “Your prerogative.”

    Jim, I watched the recording that you requested that I watch. I responded at length.

    Please see # 46, above. 

    • #50
  21. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Jim George (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    So you are unwilling to listen to a different point of view. Okay. That is your prerogative.

    There are six comments full of a different point of view in the January 6 discussion awaiting your attention, written in response to your request that I study certain materials you requested I study, which you ignored. “Arrogance”? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

    “Your prerogative.”

    Jim, I watched the recording that you requested that I watch. I responded at length.

    Please see # 46, above.

    Apparently you are afraid or unwilling to address my comment #41.

    • #51
  22. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed.  Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning.  That puts you one up on me.  Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    • #52
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    That’s all what I thought, but I was hoping I was missing something. 

    The longer I get into this, the more I’m sure the people in Gary’s camp are wrong about most things.

    • #53
  24. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    That’s all what I thought, but I was hoping I was missing something.

    The longer I get into this, the more I’m sure the people in Gary’s camp are wrong about most things.

    Didn’t Anton go to some pains to distinguish the immigration “environment” of today from that of the past?  I don’t find that “b.s.”

    • #54
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    We were here before the Revolutionary War, and were part of the 4 million Americans in 1787.  Were you?

    Four million Americans fought a revolution to create a Creedal Nation, the first in the world.  If you believed in freedom and liberty, you were welcome here.  Our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” or “out of many one.”

    @garyrobbins You really need to do some work on your numbers. It is estimated there were 2.5 million people living in the 13 colonies at the time of the War for Independence. They divided into 3 distinct and equal-sized groups with respect to their views and actions related to the fight for independence: Patriots, Loyalists, and neutral or pacifists. I also have several ancestral lines that were here at that time and my direct ancestor Alexander Thompson and his son James Thompson both fought and won a major decisive victory at King’s Mountain against Major Ferguson’s British Provincials and Colonial Loyalists from North Carolina. Ferguson had 1100 hundred fighters of which 1000 were colonial loyalists, not exactly supportive of American unity. There were slightly less than 4 million American citizens in the 1790 census. We probably don’t know how their political beliefs break down. We do know that large numbers of those Colonial Loyalists from a decade earlier left the colonies and returned to their native country, went to Canada, or moved to the western frontier territory and many lived with Native Americans. Some adjusted to no longer living under the British monarchy.

    “The Battle of King’s Mountain opened about 3 p.m.,[31] when the 900 Patriots (including John Crockett, father of Davy Crockett) approached the steep base of the western ridge. They formed eight detachments of 100 to 200 men each. Ferguson was unaware that the Patriots had caught up to him and his 1,100 men. He was the only regular British soldier in the command,[32] composed entirely of Loyalist Carolina militia, except for the 100 or so red-uniformed Provincials (enlisted colonials)[33] from New York. He had not thought it necessary to fortify his camp”

    • #55
  26. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name. 

    • #56
  27. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name.

    All of those principles first types are like this. They have this vague idealism and they don’t really get into details. They don’t really look at the news. They pay lip service to the issues with our institutions. They pay lip service to the complications around trade, today. 

    • #57
  28. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    We were here before the Revolutionary War, and were part of the 4 million Americans in 1787. Were you?

    Four million Americans fought a revolution to create a Creedal Nation, the first in the world. If you believed in freedom and liberty, you were welcome here. Our national motto is “E Pluribus Unum” or “out of many one.”

    @ garyrobbins You really need to do some work on your numbers. It is estimated there were 2.5 million people living in the 13 colonies at the time of the War for Independence. They divided into 3 distinct and equal-sized groups with respect to their views and actions related to the fight for independence: Patriots, Loyalists, and neutral or pacifists. I also have several ancestral lines that were here at that time and my direct ancestor Alexander Thompson and his son James Thompson both fought and won a major decisive victory at King’s Mountain against Major Ferguson’s British Provincials and Colonial Loyalists from North Carolina. Ferguson had 1100 hundred fighters of which 1000 were colonial loyalists, not exactly supportive of American unity. There were slightly less than 4 million American citizens in the 1790 census. We probably don’t know how their political beliefs break down. We do know that large numbers of those Colonial Loyalists from a decade earlier left the colonies and returned to their native country, went to Canada, or moved to the western frontier territory and many lived with Native Americans. Some adjusted to no longer living under the British monarchy.

    “The Battle of King’s Mountain opened about 3 p.m.,[31] when the 900 Patriots (including John Crockett, father of Davy Crockett) approached the steep base of the western ridge. They formed eight detachments of 100 to 200 men each. Ferguson was unaware that the Patriots had caught up to him and his 1,100 men. He was the only regular British soldier in the command,[32] composed entirely of Loyalist Carolina militia, except for the 100 or so red-uniformed Provincials (enlisted colonials)[33] from New York. He had not thought it necessary to fortify his camp”

    I got the figure of 4 million from Wikipedia as of 1787 or so.

    • #58
  29. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name.

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name.

    All of those principles first types are like this. They have this vague idealism and they don’t really get into details. They don’t really look at the news. They pay lip service to the issues with our institutions. They pay lip service to the complications around trade, today.

    I am responding to the vile so-called “Replacement Theory.”  If someone who came here after the Revolution wants to object to folks, then I am suggesting that the English-German stock that I come from could have objected to them. 

    I have far more in common with an emigrant fleeing Hong Kong than some of the folks who are already here, whining about the lack of jobs in their area, but being unwilling to relocate to where there are jobs.  

    • #59
  30. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

    They are letting in 500,000 “got always” annually now.

    There is no reason to not have 100% ordinary immigration.

    This country is totally not set up to immigrate all kinds of cheap labor without having all kinds of social and economic problems.

    “Refugees” are only people under one way political or economic persecution. They don’t get to come here for economic reasons.

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name.

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Michael Anton’s b.s.

     

    Agreed. Since you responded to the “b.s.” quote, I have to assume that you were able to divine its meaning. That puts you one up on me. Other than blowing smoke about pre-Revolution roots, the point of the comment, and the extent to which it concerns Anton, seems obscure.

    I re-read Anton’s article to see if I missed something. I re-read comment #41. I saw no connection other than both mentioned Michael Anton’s name.

    All of those principles first types are like this. They have this vague idealism and they don’t really get into details. They don’t really look at the news. They pay lip service to the issues with our institutions. They pay lip service to the complications around trade, today.

    I am responding to the vile so-called “Replacement Theory.” If someone who came here after the Revolution wants to object to folks, then I am suggesting that the English-German stock that I come from could have objected to them.

    I have far more in common with an emigrant fleeing Hong Kong than some of the folks who are already here, whining about the lack of jobs in their area, but being unwilling to relocate to where there are jobs.

    That is the simplistic BS that I’ve come to expect from you. I relocated and it paid off handsomely. I had the option of relocating, but not all do. Family obligations for one reason stop many. It’s called unable to relocate. Is that hard for you to understand? 

    “Replacement” is not a theory. It is happening as I type. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand, but keep in mind what’s exposed when you do. 

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.