That my friend, is an outdated view in JD Vance's America. Our America is not just an Idea. The Constitution is not at all for everyone, well, maybe basic law and order parts of the first 10 amendments can be used, but certainly not those pesky later amendments and definitely not the Declaration. Nor any of other such failed liberal modes of of organizing a society's world order. Such rule of law are reserved for those in your tribe. And you sir, may not at all be one of us in our tribe, not fit for a place in our tribal nation. An American nation that should now be recognized along the first principals of National Conservatism.

There is no longer workability to the idea of Americanism as granted equally to those who reside here, there is only belonging to the appropriate tribe. Such is the natural ordering of humans into tribes. Not all carry the same weight in this land and only some deserve our familial loyalty. To allow for tolerance of other tribes within our midst, we must have the dominant tribe enact its cultural values as the norm. To have cohesion of the American tribes, we can not be so broad in the Nation's ideas. To even survive another year, American society can not be so dismissive of the chosen tribe's traditions.

It is a shift away from defining being an American as one of "all people being created equal" and the rest of the ideas ascribed in the founding papers.  You can not hold this country of disparate groups together by alone adopting the shared ideals of our founding combined with post war liberal universalism. This isn't old school racialist per se, race mixing is allowed. Rather, it's dominant culture focused, tribal centric.

The modern National Conservatist thinks the Democrats, the multiculturalists, the “woke” left, the neo-Marxists have given up on the bonds that hold countries together, and that the direction they are taking the country in will not leave it with enough cohesion to be a country.


Behind Trump and Vance Is This Man’s Movement

Yoram Hazony -

... Fifteen percent of the American population is foreign born, and in general, NatCons think that is the maximum that is possible for the country to take before it literally starts falling apart. They really do believe in the possibility of factional and tribal violence.

And the impulse to restrict, to deport, or to have a moratorium on immigration — for most, it’s not an “in principle” argument that there should always be a permanent moratorium on immigration. It’s literally a reaction to what is seen as, at this point, 60 years of abusive immigration, which has spun out of control and is threatening the cohesion.

I don’t want people to think it’s a mysterious word. “Cohesion” is just — first of all, it’s a John Stuart Mill word. Lots of liberals have used it in history —

But when we’re talking about cohesion, what we’re talking about is just the mutual loyalty we were talking about. When there’s an external pressure on the polity, on the society — like an attack from the outside, a revolution from the inside, hatred and contempt internally, financial crisis — when there are pressures on the society, do people pull together to rise up to face the challenge because they feel like they’re one and they need to circle the wagon, then come together? Or do they fly apart blaming one another? That’s what the word “cohesion” is referring to.



... Multiculturalism — I don’t know how far it got in the general public, but as an academic theory, it was very popular in the ’80s, ’90s and 2000s. It’s a very optimistic theory, because what it assumes is that there’s going to be lots of internal diversity.

Notice that nationalist conservatives also think there’s going to be lots of internal diversity. The arguments between them is whether there has to be a center in order to hold the thing together, in order for a society to be able to endure over time.

Much more important than the question of how many generations have the people been here is the question: Is there a dominant culture that consists of a group or groups that have a strong loyalty to one another? If there is such a thing, then there can be lots of minority groups that have very different approaches. They can be closer or further. They can feel more a part of it or less.

But it was possible to have a successful relationship with all sorts of small minority groups when you could count on there being a center. That center recognized that America was founded by Anglo-Protestants, recognized that it was also a nation that brought in Catholics and Jews in large numbers and succeeded — I think very well — in bringing them into this Anglo-Protestant country. Not without problems — but it worked.

The fact that it was a Christian country, that up until the 1930s the Supreme Court still referred to Americans as a Christian people, that it was legally a Christian country, that it was culturally run by Protestants — that didn’t prevent it from being, despite its many flaws, something that was really beautiful and superior to many other countries in the world.

The question then — and I think this is really the argument between you and JD, or you and me — is whether you can learn from the success of that enterprise, that the center — the central place of Anglo-Protestantism in America, with a strong Old Testament taste, the English language, the common law — I don’t expect everybody to be common lawyers, but I do expect people to say: Yes, the jury trial is not a universal dictate of reason. It’s an Anglo tradition, and it does what it does because the people here believe in this Anglo tradition — not all of them, but a core. So if you have that, then you can bring in lots of immigrants and you can get them to adopt those ways.

If you don’t have the center, then it becomes possible for immigrant groups — but also other groups, not just immigrants — for secessionist groups of different kinds — religious, sectoral, whatever — to say: Well, actually, we live here, and we have rights here, but we detest the inheritance of this country, and we’re going to do whatever we can to overthrow it and end it.

That’s what JD is reacting to. He’s not reacting to, like, there shouldn’t have been Catholic immigrants. That’s absurd

This is the NatCon project in America. It’s to rebuild a dominant center.

Yes.

People may not like it, but the view is that is what keeps a country strong.

Yes, and that in the end — and I understand, you’ll say: Come on, Yoram, when is the end?

But the argument is that, in the end, the discipline of strengthening the center will be able to make the country confident and tolerant. And that is a characteristic only of countries that have a strong center.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2025-09-21 15:08:22)