The United States has never been a "nation of immigrants"

As always, the goal of leftists is to create and influence public opinion, as opposed to reporting the facts. And there is perhaps no greater illustration of this, than the commonly dispensed lie, that America is a "nation of immigrants."

The men who Founded the United States were all English subjects, and not a single one an "illegal immigrant." Moreover, the vast majority were natives born on American soil. George Washington was born in Virginia, as was Jefferson, Madison, and Henry. John Adams, Sam Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were born in Massachusetts. Benjamin Rush was born in Pennsylvania, etc., etc., etc. Most of them were born here as, at that point, there had been British colonies going back nearly 200 years prior to the Founding. The small minority who were not born here were born in England, Ireland, or other English possessions, etc., and therefore also English citizens.

"In all of them, express provision was made, that all subjects, and their children, inhabiting in the Colonies, should be deemed natural-born subjects, and should enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof. In all of them, the common law of England, as far as it was applicable to their situation, was made the basis of their jurisprudence; and that law was asserted at all times by them to be their birthright and inheritance. [....] It is a well-settled doctrine of that law, that, if an uninhabited country is discovered and planted by British subjects, the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, are there held immediately in force; for, in all such cases, the subjects, wherever they go, carry those laws with them." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Colonial Governments, 1840.

Story's account of this is drawn from well known Founding era material, such as the Continental Congress's Declaration of colonial rights, and he overtly references such nigh verbatim in his own work.

"Our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy. [....] The respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England. [....] His Majesty's colonies are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters." - Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774.

The common law to which the colonists are referring, is expounded upon by British legal scholar William Blackstone, in his treatise "Commentaries on the Laws of England." (Said by United States Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, appointed by George Washington, to be the "manual of almost every student of law in the United States.")

"Natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king's ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehavior. [....] To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. ft. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain." - William Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England, Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives, 1765.

The American Revolution, contrary to modern misconstruction, was not motivated by anarchy or a hatred for law or government. It was motivated by colonists being systematically denied what were considered basic English rights, as delineated in English common law, the English Constitution, their colonial charters, and tracing back to documents like the Magna Carta, the injustice of which they repeatedly articulated in great detail.  

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. [....] Men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever." - Magna Carta, 1215.

They chose violence only when it became undeniable that restoration of their fundamental English liberties could not be restored through any peaceful means. But I digress. 

The fact is the first colonists came here legally with the sanction of their governments, obtaining "charters" granting permission to establish their settlements, and according to English common law carried with them intact and unmolested all the rights of natural-born English citizens. The notion there's an equivalency between the colonists and modern "illegal immigrants" is a product of unadulterated ignorance or artifice, as the colonists were never non-citizens in the first place, and emigrated to a land with no recognizable established form of government or system of naturalization. Within the span of a few generations these colonists were surpassed in number by their native born progeny. Franklin states that in 1751 (169 years after the settlement of Jamestown and 25 years before the establishment of the U.S.), of one million English souls in America less than eighty thousand (8%) were foreign born. (Less than the current total, which according to American Community Survey data, is 13.5%.)

So, as usual with leftists, there is no truth in their assertion the U.S. is a "nation of immigrants." It's a fundamentally flawed, and outright inane notion, being that the United States was nowhere close to being comprised primarily of immigrants when it was established in the late 18th century. And when English settlements were primarily comprised of immigrants, there wasn't yet a "nation," but rather an inchoate pittance of sparsely populated and separate colonies.

We see such examples of conspicuously shared phraseology in other instances; it's not exclusive to emigration. The establishing documentation of the newly formed United States government, conveys its basis in the preceding colonial governance and the English common law from which such was derived, in multiple ways.

• Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, 1774.

"The inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts [....] are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent. [....] They have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal."

• Declaration of Independence, 1776. 

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

• U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, 1791. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In closing, the United States is not a nation of immigrants, and it never has been. It's most certainly never been a nation of illegal immigrants, having conducted the colonization of the North American continent in accordance with established "legal" precedents of the developed world at the time, and transitioning into a predominantly native born populace shortly thereafter and well before the establishment of the United States.

Toxic femininity and sexual deviancy

Most people probably take a lot of satisfaction in being right. I however, being a pragmatist, do not; pessimism being so often its concomitant. So it is with the paradigmatic regret that I say, once again, I was right.

As I've long said in conversation, on my social media, etc., decades of assiduous Marxist brainwashing as resulted in "modern" women hating men.

"The modern 'feminist' movement is the gender equivalent of Black Lives Matter. It's a hate filled rebellion against an illusory tyranny that no longer exists to any meaningful extent, like that of blacks protesting 'white supremacy,' devised purely for the purposes of advancing the Socialist agenda. [....] Feminist women hate men [...] in identical fashion to the manner American blacks have been made to hate whites, [...] having been instilled by the left with an indelible inferiority complex from their earliest years. As I've stated before, being black or female is blatantly a form of disability in the eyes of leftists, for which they contend the government must compensate with preferential treatment. It won't be long before members of one or both are demanding handicapped parking tags, all the while speciously claiming egalitarianism as their motive." - Me, Nov 26, 2017.

"We have every right to hate you," says professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, and flagrant commie cow Suzanna Danuta Walters.

This coming from people in a movement ostensibly predicated upon fighting/abolishing hate. As usual we see that which they denounce, in this instance "hate," is perfectly acceptable in regard to individuals or groups they dislike. The original article featured a prominently placed image of Harvey Weinstein. You know, because he represents the billions of men on the planet, all of which are, we may infer from the image, also sexual predators and serial sexual assailants, or at least aspirants to such. So sexism and stereotypes, just like hate, are likewise perfectly acceptable among leftists.

As stated above you see the same thing in women throughout occidental society that you see in the perpetually aggrieved blacks. Both engage in egregious generalizations that invariably omit anything good the object of their political ire has ever done. Never mind that democracy, to which leftists so incessantly appeal in their specious rhetoric, and which they ostensibly deem to be the highest form of governance on Earth, is a product of white men. Never mind that it was white Christian men that saved the women of France from the "fascism" the Stalinists of the left so love to rebuke. Never mind that it was the white Christian male that gave blacks, and subsequently women, their freedom in America. And what have they done with that freedom? Both now line up to bury knives in the back of the white Christian male, then stand high-fiving each other over his corpse in elation. Because men in the eyes of "feminists," just as whites in the eyes of black leftists, are the cause of all their woes in life and have never provided anything positive to the world.

So it's okay to hate men. Indeed, women have a "right" to hate them. Because women, unlike men, have never been manipulative, deceptive, or maleficent. To hear "feminists" tell it women are incapable of treachery, and there has never, ever, been any documented instance of women engaging in deleterious or pernicious behavior. So, obviously goes the rationale, we'd be much better off with them in charge of everything. But they've illustrated over and over that would not be the case. (Indeed, one need merely look at the current decline of occidental society to see that evinced.)

Again, what do you see in Emily's sentiment? The pursuit of equity and equality, or an abject disregard for justice, motivated by that quintessentially traditional female characteristic, vindictiveness? This is precisely why "feminists," as I've long stated, or any other comparable group would absolutely not be better rulers. They would plainly be unabashed tyrants, because in their minds modern men, just like whites in the eyes of blacks, "deserve" to be oppressed for past circumstances they played no part in creating or perpetuating (and which their antecedents even fought and died to abolish), and to which modern women have never been subjected. Virtually no American woman alive today has ever been unable to hold property, work, or vote, just as no black person alive today has ever been a slave, but both seek to punish white men for such. And it is precisely this utterly irrational penchant for vengeance, on conspicuous display in both Emily's Twitter post and Suzanna's insipid hate screed, which would be interminably justified as mere "payback" for slights real or imagined, that would make them absolutely terrible rulers given to greater abuses of power than those they supplanted.

I feel I can't continue without also observing the absurdity of Emily Lindin, in particular, purporting to be oppressed in a society in which women generally considered on the more attractive end of the spectrum will never have to work a day in their lives. There is no greater spectacle of abject bullshit in the west than an attractive woman claiming to be oppressed. There is no life of greater "privilege."

People often attribute this misconstruction of reality to "ignorance." I wish that were true. I wish this was merely a product of ignorance, and therefore, something that could be remedied by apprisal of the facts. But it's plainly not, as leftists when presented with the facts reject them, often absurdly claim the truth is illegitimate based upon some arbitrary grounds, and merely proffer the same fallacious assertion ad infinitum. Such is not a product of ignorance. It's a product of immorality. It's as much guile as gullibility. And for this reason, women are oft inclined to omit the litany of benefits afforded them, and the copious vexations from which they were exempted, by traditional gender roles. True, they weren't treated equally, but they were also never expected to forfeit their lives at the behest of some capricious/avaricious ruler, to which the vast preponderance of men were for much of human history (much like women to men) completely subject.

No, all that stuff is left out you see, for obvious reasons; it directly contravenes the false narrative upon which their conception of the world is erected. To admit these things, to acknowledge them at all, would be to existentially implode on a psychological/intellectual level.

This hatred for men goes far beyond mere political or personal disagreement, however, and is perpetrating real and perennial harm throughout occidental society. Countless western women have by assiduous Socialist brainwashing, been rendered subversives constantly seeking to undermine their husbands on a regular basis, and even outright termagants whose adopted purpose in life is (often obliviously) destroying traditional values and culture. They regularly exhibit a profound and nigh palpable malice toward men and masculinity, which millions of them unwittingly, and even intentionally, seek to extirpate from everything in their lives. And those most susceptible to, and defenseless and against this abuse, are their children.

Western women have been made to hate men and masculinity so much, many of them hate their own sons, and systematically emasculate them. These women range the gamut from utterly clueless amoral enablers and facilitators, to deviants themselves engaging in the cognizant grooming of their children into depravity; from coddling mothers who rear milquetoasts, to overtly misandrist harridans, seeking to purge every last vestige of traditionally "masculine" attributes from all the males in their lives. 

Their boyfriends and husbands can escape, by leaving them (and often do), but their sons cannot. Their mothers are free, thanks to a deranged hyper-permissive society, to mentally rape them at their leisure. Their fathers, if they're involved at all (more likely not), are by a subverted legal system largely powerless to intercede. Women are essentially given carte blanche to perpetrate the most egregious psychological abuse masquerading as love, while men are proscribed from loving their children according to the Biblical paradigm, by a gyno-centric matriarchy that deems aggression, austerity, and discipline (masculine characteristics) to be "abuse." Basically, to a large degree a woman's own discretion is the only check upon the extent to which she might psychologically warp her child. 

There is a direct, apodictic correlation, between toxic femininity (feminism) and the explosion of sexual deviancy and psychosis surrounding "gender" in our society. And it will only get worse so long as women like Jessica, are allowed to warp the minds and bodies of the future reprobates they will unleash upon our society without meaningful opposition, in pursuit of an androgynous society. A society in which the fantasy of gender "equality" can only be achieved by emasculating men, and in which psychotic misandrist mothers seek to suppress, if not abolish, the natural physiological disparity between boys and girls with radical hormonal treatment and/or surgery to that end.

Anyone who thinks what Jessica's doing to her son "doesn't affect" anyone else, the common argument of proponents and apologists, is unsalvageably stupid. These womens' depraved spawn are tomorrow's voters, mayors, governors, congressmen, etc. They will be making the laws that dictate our behaviors, speech, and thought on a local, state, and national level. They already are to a significant degree. Our country's interminable socio-political cascade is a direct result of men being legally gagged and restrained by women like Jessica, the monsters expelled from their rancid loins, and hyper-tolerant matriarchal culture of emotionalism which placees things like "tolerance," "acceptance," and "inclusiveness" over pragmatism and reason.