By Olivia Pierson

America never was 'a nation of immigrants.'
Neither was New Zealand, nor Australia, nor any other Western nation.

We are nations of citizens - and citizens flourish under laws which are designed to preserve our natural rights as a free people.

Our archaic ancestors began moving around the globe when they first left the savannahs of Africa 1.5 million years ago.  By the time homo sapiens graced the archaeological record some 195,000 years ago, they had just begun their epic migration across the fertile steppes of Europe and Asia.  Dwelling in primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, the concept of ritually burying their own dead was still another 145,000 years into the future; any notions of ‘nationhood,’ let alone ‘citizenship,’ were at least 173,000 years away.

History has gifted us with a written code of law and conduct as early as the ancient Babylonian empire, engraved on a seven and a half foot stone - the Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC). But it was the ancient Greek city state - the polis - especially the polis of ancient Athens, which gave us the first comprehensive idea of what it meant to be a citizen, not a subject. In the polis, the private lives of men were very closely enmeshed with their public lives as citizens. Eligible men were intended to both rule fellow citizens and be ruled by them in their turn -  this was the foundation of democracy and citizen government.  This was the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who set the Western world on its strong-minded course.

The later Roman Republic furthered the concept of citizenship by defining it as a man’s legal relationship to the state - with justice and common interests at its very core. Roman citizenry was made up of Italians, Jews, Persians, Illyrians (modern day Dalmatians), Greeks, Alexandrines, Anatolians (modern day Turks), Carthaginians (modern day Tunisians) and many more ethnicities - even Britons and Gauls.  If they wished to live in Rome, they abode by Roman law, first under a republic then under an empire. Roman  jurisprudence expanded into unifying even distant outposts of the Empire into a vast network of citizens.

In 1216, at the time that Britons authored the Magna Carta  (the great Charter of Freedoms), a charter to define the rights of citizens, the native inhabitants had already absorbed the conquering Romans (A.D 43), the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and then the French Normans (A.D 1066).

…. "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled … except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” [Magna Carta]

When the thirteen colonies which formed America fought for and won their independence from Great Britain to form a citizen government, the constitution defined the nature of what it meant to be a citizen: anyone born in the United States. Yet it excluded all blacks - even freedmen.  The Fourteenth Amendment enacted after the Civil War corrected this to include them.  All blacks and their descendants then became citizens in the fullest sense of the law, even though the hangover of segregation still existed.  But even segregation was eventually overturned by law, as it ought to have been when one considers that blacks were brought to America in chains, against their own will.  America owed it to them to right these wrongs - and it resoundingly did.

Now the sanctimonious narrative parroted, nay - shrieked from every Left and many Right rooftops are words which demand that the whole third-world ought to be given admittance to America on the basis that “America is a nation of immigrants!”

It is not. 

Immigrants did not build America anymore than they built Ancient Rome - loyal, passionately patriotic citizens did. George Washington was not an immigrant, neither was Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or John Hancock.  Abraham Lincoln was not an immigrant, and for that matter, neither was Martin Luther King.

If immigrants found a home and a big American Dream to pursue inside the borders of a free nation, it was because a great nation had already been set in motion by the tenacious veracity of its founders' creed and ensuing constitutional laws - that's how it came to be free.

To say that America, or any other modern Western nation, 'is a nation of immigrants’ is to erroneously define a nation by its least essential element of what an inspiring nation actually is.  What has made first-world Western nations so incredibly attractive to those coming in from second & third-world $h!tholes is the absence of tyranny precisely because they uphold these five hard-won principles of enlightened individualism:

- the separation of religion from state
- the emancipation of women and children
- a commitment to scientific inquiry
- a commitment to the economic system of capitalism
- the law of free speech and a free press

This civilisational oxygen is what animated the passions of those who built our remarkable nations, America being the greatest living example. 

Considering how ubiquitous the movement and migration of people has always been around this great globe for hundreds of millennia, to say, “we are a nation of immigrants” is as hackneyed as saying, “we are a nation of people.”  What else could we possibly be?

Such a banal assertion tells us absolutely nothing about the spirit or character of a nation that so many different people want to be a part of.


If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​

​

​[The following guest post by Edward Cline has been republished with his permission]


​It was educational to watch the audience during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in Congress the night of January 30th. The Democratic side of the House played dead.

The #Resistance is a hate group. It refuses to acknowledge the election of Donald Trump, even to the point of questioning his physical and mental fitness to be President, and includes in that mantra the implied accusation that Dr. Ronny Jackson, who examined Trump, is lying. It is willing to say anything to damage Trump, no matter how irrational outrageous and unproven. The “Resistance” goes further by attacking anyone associated by Trump, such as Nikki Halley, whom they suggested, was having an affair with him.  It was prime meat for the Dems but the rumor went nowhere. You can’t grow rain forest trees in the Gobi Desert.

Overall, the Dems during the SOTUS behaved so predictably anti-Trump that it was a foregone conclusion that they would put on anguished or sour faces when he listed his achievements over the last year:

  Reduced black and Hispanic unemployment figures
  Two-point-four million new jobs
  The Border wall
  Merit –based immigration (and doing away with chain and visa immigration policies)
  The ubiquity of bonuses for American employees (“crumbs” said Nancy Pelosi)
  The decision to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
  Ridding bureaucracies of unnecessary employees (an indirect assault on the Deep State)
  Standing for the National Anthem (an assault on football’s “knee” stunts)

Many Democrats displayed frustration during Trump’s speech, refusing to applaud economic achievements, the dramatic reduction in black and Hispanic  unemployment, veterans and the parents of MS-13 victims. Most of them sat with hangdog expressions. They were sending Trump a message he already had and had expected that night. Nothing new. The Dems, in cooperation with the MSM and a multitude of pundits, have been flinging arrows at him for the last year and even before he won the election in November.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democratic politician, walked out, wearing his African thingee on his shoulder, when the House GOPs chanted “USA! USA! USA!” in response to Trump’s statement that the Capitol Building was a monument to the American people. Few other Dems joined the Republicans. One may suppose they disagreed with Trump. The Capitol is supposed to be seen as a monument to these elected Social Justice Warriors, and the hard work they perform to transform the country to the freest republic in the world into a cesspool of collectivism, not to the hoi poloi.

Dems want the welfare state. Yearn for it. To better run and regulate the lives of millions of Americans. Their unspoken motto, in relation to uncontrolled, unlimited immigration, is that line from Kevin Costner’s fantasy “Field of Dreams”: “If you build one [a baseball field], they will come.” If you build a welfare state, countless parasites will flood across the borders, (not the ghosts of the late baseball legends). They will increase our voting blocs, garner us countless new grateful Democrats to expand our base, but, you the working American, will have no say in this, but have no choice but to pay for their illicit gold mine of freebees in education, incomes, and so on, not us. It’s difficult to get this point across to libertarians who foolishly call for “open borders” in the name of “freedom.”

All in all, Trump’s State of the Union address last night was encouraging if not thrilling. I sat through the whole speech, glued to my chair. Some pundits are now saying that it was better than anything that Ronald Reagan ever said in that it gave the GOP some inspiration to get done what they need to do on all the subjects he discussed. Over the next year, the Democrats are going to get their butts laundered, although not by Trump.

The continuing, psychotic malice of the Dems and the MSM will be spent sending more arrows at Trump. And one day their quiver of hatred will be empty.


​Edward Cline is an American novelist.
You can read more by Edward Cline here at his blogspot.

By Olivia Pierson

If ever there lived a personification of the worst aspects of our post-modern culture, it is genderqueer Professor of Physics, A.W Peet, who left NZ’s shores and now thankfully resides in Toronto.  Apologies O Canada! (Though you probably deserve it.)

I first stumbled across this scrawny little autocrat when viewing an interview with the eminently sensible Professor of Psychology at Toronto University, Jordan Peterson.  Peterson came under fire back in 2016 for his opposition to the Canadian government’s Bill C-16, which sought to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code by adding “gender identity and self expression”  as protected ground from discrimination.  The bill has since been passed. Peterson argued that the bill was an assault on free speech where he as a professor could be prosecuted under human rights laws if he fails to call a transsexual student or faculty member by the individual's pronoun of choice: “zie" and “zir" etc - or in Peet’s case the particularly language-bending “they”  in reference to itself as a singular entity.  

Peterson contended that he doesn’t believe that other people have the right to determine what language he uses, especially when it’s backed by punitive legislation.  He added:

  “It is a dangerous precedent to demand that people use certain words when they are formulating their own ideas.”

Peterson was profoundly correct that controlling speech by means of the law is dangerous. In fact it is the mark of a culture on the path to totalitarianism - a fact that Peterson knows well, and this is why he tenaciously fights it.

Communism under Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong brutally controlled speech - and purposely placed all speech in the realm of the political by encouraging citizens to spy and report on their neighbours for unacceptable phrases and conversations. Transgressors were made examples of by being arrested, denounced, tortured, imprisoned and usually murdered - exactly what is happening in North Korea as I write. This was the nefarious foundation of “politically correct” speech in the 20th Century.  We should all flee a million miles away from anything that slightly smacks of it.

Totalitarian regimes need to pervert language in order to control and restrict freedom of thought, since thoughts are the powerful mental concepts which fuel our actions - but without the words to name concepts the mind literally cannot conceive of them.  Policing the words and phrases of grown human beings is naked population control.

George Orwell gave us an unforgettable example of this thought control in his famous book “1984,” where the only vocal utterances allowed were called “newspeak” - and compliance was compulsory.

The fearless Russian-American author Ayn Rand, who defected from the Soviet Union,  wrote her insightful little book Anthem about a collectivist society that has eradicated the pronouns "I," "you" and "mine" in language and thought - only "we," "they" and "our" were allowed in their stead. It depicts a purely group-oriented social order where the individual was a thoroughly forbidden concept, along with all of its ensuing creations - livelihood, love, joy, family, innovation, art and technology.

In a priceless and very telling moment during the interview with Peterson and Peet, Peet responded to the idea that compelling people to speak “correctly” is dangerous with what has to be one of the most vacuous comebacks one could ever witness.  It piped:

  “One of the things I’d like to really look at in this controversy is to watch out for who’s getting centred in the discussion. Political Correctness is code that powerful people use when they are annoyed that they are not the centre of attention in any given discussion… and Bill C-16 is actually not about cisgender people, it’s about protections for transgender people - and that’s, you know, it’s not about Jordan Peterson.”

Huh? As Peet knew full well because he and Peterson are colleagues,  it was Peterson who was given authoritarian letters of warning from Toronto University for “talking about” not complying with the proposed legislation.  It “centred” him (another example of Peet's perversion of language), whether Peterson damn well wanted it or not!

The clincher was Peet’s resentful use of the term “powerful people.”

Peterson is indeed a powerful man but not because he wields power over others (as Peet now can do).  Peterson is powerful because he's intelligent, thoughtful, rational, articulate and won’t be pushed around by squeaky little leftist bullies who demand that the rest of the world comply with their subjective whims.  It is Peterson’s resolute and competent objectivity which makes him so very powerful - and that is almost the perfect definition of what a real man ought to be.  Peet should've be taking notes since it's trying so hard to be something resembling a man.

I dearly wish Jordan Peterson would come to live in New Zealand.  We need objective intellectuals of his caliber.  The other entity not so much... it should stay in Canada.
​

​If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​