America is Not just an Idea

Vivek Ramaswamy @VivekGRamaswamy tweeted in Sept. 2024:

Two competing views of national identity:
1. Heritage, blood, soil.
2. Ideals, allegiance, duty.
Most nations are built around #1. Ours is built around #2. That’s what makes American exceptionalism possible.

The most liked reply was:

If America is an idea,
Why do people need to physically come here?
You can have an idea anywhere

Apparently most of the world would rather live under White rule, than non-white rule.

Vivek's argument is often used to justify importing non-White foreigners. I wonder where it comes from?

America is about 250 years old. Did anyone express this early on? I asked Grok3.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s tweet suggesting that America was founded on ideals, allegiance, and duty rather than heritage, blood, and soil reflects a particular interpretation of American identity—one that emphasizes a civic rather than an ethnic or ancestral basis for nationhood. This idea aligns with the concept of America as a "creedal nation," defined by shared principles like liberty, equality, and self-governance, rather than a common lineage or territorial origin. Let’s explore whether this perspective traces back to the Founders and their writings.

The Founders didn’t use the exact phrasing of "ideals, allegiance, duty" versus "heritage, blood, soil," but their ideas, as expressed in key documents and personal writings, lean heavily toward a nation built on principles rather than ethnicity or heredity. The Declaration of Independence (1776), penned by Thomas Jefferson, is a prime example. It grounds the American experiment in universal ideals: "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." This isn’t about bloodlines or soil—it’s about a shared belief in rights and governance by consent. Jefferson later wrote in 1813 that America’s strength lay in its ability to attract "the virtuous and industrious" from abroad, suggesting openness to those who’d embrace its principles, not just those born on its land.

James Madison, in The Federalist Papers (No. 14), argued that America’s government was a bold experiment in liberty, distinct from older nations tied to monarchy or tribal roots. He framed it as a union of people choosing a system, not inheriting one. Alexander Hamilton, himself an immigrant, reinforced this in Federalist No. 1, emphasizing a nation built on "reflection and choice" rather than "accident and force"—a rejection of destiny tied to heritage.

That said, the Founders weren’t uniform, and some views complicate the picture. John Jay, in Federalist No. 2, described Americans as "one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion." This nods toward a cultural homogeneity that sounds closer to "blood and soil." Yet, Jay’s point was more about unity as a practical advantage for governance than a defining essence—context matters, as he was arguing for ratification, not codifying an ethnic state.

The Constitution itself avoids ethnic or hereditary language, focusing on "We the People" and their agreed-upon framework. It’s silent on ancestry as a qualification for citizenship, unlike, say, European monarchies rooted in dynastic bloodlines. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did limit citizenship to "free white persons," reflecting racial biases of the time, but this was a legal restriction, not a philosophical statement about the nation’s core identity.

Vivek’s framing echoes later thinkers too, like Abraham Lincoln, who in 1858 called America a nation dedicated to the "proposition" of equality, open to those who’d swear allegiance to it. This civic nationalism contrasts with European models—like Germany’s historical emphasis on Volksgeist (spirit of the people) tied to ethnicity and land.

So, did the Founders express this opinion? Broadly, yes—they prioritized ideals and voluntary commitment over ancestral ties, though they operated in a context where cultural similarities were assumed. Vivek’s tweet distills this into a modern dichotomy, amplifying the creedal aspect. The idea isn’t a direct quote from 1776, but it’s a fair reading of the Founding spirit, filtered through centuries of interpretation.

I replied:

You say that the Constitution itself avoids hereditary language, but it specifically says that its purpose is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That seems like hereditary language to me.

It said:

You’re right to point out the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in the Constitution’s Preamble—it does carry a sense of inheritance, and it’s worth digging into what that means in context. The word "Posterity" literally refers to descendants, those who come after, which can sound like a nod to a familial or hereditary legacy. But let’s unpack whether this implies the kind of "heritage, blood, and soil" foundation Vivek’s tweet contrasts with, or something else.

In the Preamble, "ourselves and our Posterity" follows a list of goals: forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare. These are civic aims, not ethnic or ancestral ones. "Posterity" here seems to mean the future generations of the political community—the "We the People" who’ve signed onto this system—not necessarily a bloodline tied to a specific race or lineage. The Founders were setting up a government to perpetuate a way of life based on liberty, not to preserve a tribal identity.

This reading fits the broader document. The Constitution doesn’t define "the People" by heredity or restrict its benefits to a founding stock. It’s a framework for anyone who joins the compact—citizens by birth or naturalization. Compare this to, say, medieval charters tying rights to noble blood, or later nationalist ideologies like 19th-century German romanticism, where "soil" and "blood" explicitly meant ethnic purity and ancestral land. The U.S. Constitution lacks that flavor. Even the "Posterity" line doesn’t gatekeep who gets to be part of "the People" based on descent alone.

The Founders’ own words elsewhere support this. Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address, welcomed "the stranger" who’d "acknowledge" America’s principles, suggesting the nation’s future wasn’t just for biological heirs but for those who’d adopt its ideals. Madison, in Federalist No. 52, tied representation to "the People" as a living electorate, not a fixed hereditary class. The practical context matters too: they were building a republic amid diverse colonies—English, Dutch, German settlers, and more—where a strict blood-and-soil unity wasn’t feasible.

Now, your point still stands— "Posterity" has a hereditary ring to it, and it’s not wrong to see a literal intent to pass liberty to their kids and grandkids. Some Founders, like Adams, worried about virtue decaying in future generations, implying a hope their literal descendants would carry on. But the Constitution’s lack of mechanisms to enforce this hereditarily—like tying citizenship or rights to specific ancestry — suggests it’s less about "blood" as a defining trait and more about ensuring the system endures for whoever’s part of it down the line.

So, while "Posterity" evokes inheritance, it’s not hereditary in the sense of locking America’s identity to a founding lineage or ethnic core. It’s closer to a temporal promise—liberty for those who come after, under the same civic banner. Vivek’s “ideals, allegiance, duty” angle still holds up: the Founders weren’t handing down a kingdom or a tribe, but a set of principles meant to outlast them. The tension you’ve flagged shows how their language can pull in both directions, though the document’s thrust leans civic over ancestral.

It says diverse colonies meant English, Dutch, and German White Christians. They certainly knew about Negroes and Indians living in the area, but did not include them.

It is fair to say that there is an argument for and against Vivek's tweet. Decide for yourself.

British Schools watch Sick Netflix Drama

Australia news:

Author Douglass Murray discusses the policy by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer allowing the Netflix drama series Adolescence to be shown in secondary schools across the country for free.

"Keir Starmer has been labouring under the misapprehension that the Netflix series Adolescence is, in fact, a documentary," Mr Murray told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

"You would have to be pretty idiotic to think that what that is."

Starmer talked about “the devastating effect of misogyny on our society.”

I commented about this show and I am wondering what he thinks is the lesson.

The show was apparently partly inspired by a knife crime by an older Black teenager. A crime like this from a 13-year-old seemingly-harmless White kid like the one in the show would be very improbable.

The police have video proof that the boy committed the crime, so there is no doubt that he will be found guilty. Nevertheless, he has a right to a defense, and to tell the court how he was provoked by bullies. Much of the show is about steps to accord him that right.

Except that he never gets that right. His own lawyer hires a female psychologist who acts more like a police interrogator than a defense witness. She bullies him, and tries to get him to incriminate himself. She speaks completely inappropriately to a 13-year-old boy. His parents are not there to protect him from this abuse.

I know this is just a fictional movie, and I would not take it seriously, except for all the people who rave about this as if it were making a serious statement about toxic masculinity and violent incels. No, a 13-year-old is not an incel.

If you think a 13-year-old killer should be dealt harshly, then I understand that. But I do not agree with giving him a defense lawyer who hires a woman to abuse and humiliate him.

Update: There is a real teenaged stabbing in the news. A 17yo Black boy stabbed and killed a 16yo White boy in Frisco Texas.

Trump Demands Smithsonian be Corrected

Biology professor Jerry Coyne criticizes a NY Times analysis of a Pres. Trump executive order:

The tenor of this article, which is poorly researched but laden with quotes, is that human races do not exist and are merely a social construct. A few excerpts to that end:

The president’s order noted, among other things, that the show “promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating ‘Race is a human invention.’”

In interviews, several scholars questioned why the executive order appeared to take issue with that view, which is now broadly held. Samuel J. Redman, a history professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst who has written about scientific racism, said that “the executive order is troubling and out of step with the current consensus.” He added that pseudoscientific attempts to create a hierarchy of races with white people at the top were seen “in places like Nazi Germany or within the eugenics movement.”

He cowrote a nice 2023 article:

1. Sex in humans is not a discrete and binary distribution of males and females but a spectrum.
2. All behavioral and psychological differences between human males and females are due to socialization.
3. Evolutionary psychology, the study of the evolutionary roots of human behavior, is a bogus field based on false assumptions.
4. We should avoid studying genetic differences in behavior between individuals.
5. “Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning.”
6. Indigenous “ways of knowing” are equivalent to modern science and should be respected and taught as such.

As he explains, these 6 views have become fashionable in academia, but they are all false.

DNA tests can identify race, and that matches the self-identified race 99% of the time. So obviously race is a real biological classification, and not just a social construct.

They cannot show that Trump is wrong, so they say he "is troubling and out of step with the current consensus". The consensus of the academic race agitators is wrong, and this all the more shows the need for an executive order.

30 years ago biologists tried to take the scientific high ground, and lecture us endlessly on how Darwinism is scientific and creationism is not. Now it is just the opposite. Academic biologists have joined the woke religion, and insist on saying nonsense as if it were scientific. Coyne is an exception, as he is a retired old curmudgeon who can afford to stick to science.

The New Red Scare

The Princeton U president writes in The Atlantic magazine:

The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world.

The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.

The rise of the American research university in the 20th century depended on many factors, including two crucial turning points. The first, at the start of the century, was the development of strong principles of academic freedom that allowed people and ideas to be judged by scholarly standards, not according to the whims or interests of powerful trustees, donors, or political officials.

This is the same college that fired a tenured classics professor because he denounced a student group, the Black Justice League, as “a small local terrorist organization”. Or maybe it was because he married one of his former students, it is hard to tell. At any rate, Princeton has already sold out its academic freedom.

Columbia and Harvard sold out even worse.

So why is he so upset? The Trump administration demands that recipients of federal funds do not racially discriminate, support free speech, and stop harassing Jews.

These colleges get a lot of federal money, with not much accountability to what taxpayers want. I think that they will have to face some cutbacks. Princeton is extremely rich, and does not need any federal money.

The Red Scare of the 1950s primarily affected professors who advocated Communism at a time that Communist countries were doing horrible things and were enemies of the USA. I am in favor of free speech, but the Commies were terrible and did not deserve taxdollar support.

Toddler Expelled for Transphobia

The London Daily Mail reports:

A toddler has been kicked out of nursery after being accused of transphobia, new figures reveal.

The child, aged either three or four, was suspended for 'abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity', data from the Department for Education shows.

The offences took place in the 2022-23 academic year at a state school, according to The Telegraph.

Statistics indicate 94 pupils at similar primary institutions were suspended or permanently excluded for transphobia or homophobia in the same year. ...

Sally and Nigel Rowe, whose sons attended a Church of England school, said they received a letter from the headteacher and chair of governors which declared pupils could be designated the term if they showed 'an inability to believe a transgender person is actually a ''real'' female or male.'

Most Christians do not believe in transgenderism.

French Lawfare Wrecks Election

CNN reports:

French far-right figurehead Marine Le Pen has been banned from running for political office for five years after being found guilty of embezzling European Union funds, in a politically explosive ruling that has shattered her hopes of winning the presidency in 2027. ...

The court’s presiding judge, Bénédicte de Perthuis, said Le Pen’s actions amounted to a “serious and lasting attack on the rules of democratic life in Europe, but especially in France.” She said Le Pen’s immediate ban on standing for office was tied to “democratic public unrest” that would result from the election of a person convicted of embezzlement.

Le Pen slammed the ruling as a purely “political decision” during an appearance on French TV station TF1 on Monday evening.

Those judge comments make it obvious that the decision was political. The purpose was to keep her from winning the next election. The EU could have withdrawn the money, if it did not like how she was spending it.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that Le Pen’s conviction was a “very big deal.”

“She was banned from running for five years and she’s the leading candidate — that sounds like this country,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

Also like Romania and Brazil, where lawfare blocked right-wing candidates.

Nothing in the article justifies calling her "far-right". She is more center-right, and does not advocate anything radical.

Canada Pays for Man to have Vagina and Penis

From Canada news, last year:

K.S. appealed OHIP’s decision to Ontario’s Health Services Appeal and Review Board, arguing that forcing her to have her penis removed would invalidate her identity and be akin to an illegal act of conversion therapy.

He won the appeal. The surgery is not done in Canada, so he will go to Texas for it, and Canada will pay.

When Airline Pilots Suffer Mental Illness

Today's NY Times podcast is about male homosexual airline pilots who cover up mental illnesses because they would be considered dangerous:

When he wasn't crying, he slept.

I've got to find a therapist, he told himself. And he did. Quickly, if that therapist didn't write down depression, Merritt would be okay. He could still fly planes, keep his job, as long as he wasn't diagnosed with a mental illness.

After several sessions, The therapist gently suggested that he might need medication.

Merritt adamantly refused.

The therapist never raised the subject again.

Merritt's husband, also an airline pilot, hoped he would break out of this funk.

It says that the FAA started allowing pilots with diagnosed depression, in some cases.

Covid was Widespread by Early Dec. 2019

There has been some reassessment of the covid-19 pandemic. I thought that it started in Wuhan China in Dec. 2019, and in the USA in Jan-Feb. 2020. Actually, it was earlier.

Some people blame China for not acting more promptly. But they acted much more quickly than the USA. The virus was widespread in California in Dec. 2019, and the health authorities did nothing.

Here is what is known. It appears that the virus was already out of control in California by Dec. 1, 2019.

The first proven case of COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is traced back to November 17, 2019, according to a retrospective analysis of medical records in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. This finding comes from a report by the South China Morning Post on March 13, 2020, which cited unpublished Chinese government data. The case involved a 55-year-old individual who exhibited symptoms consistent with COVID-19, though it wasn’t identified as such at the time due to the novel nature of the virus.

Key Details:

• Initial Identification: The virus wasn’t recognized until a cluster of pneumonia cases of unknown origin emerged in late December 2019. On December 31, 2019, Chinese authorities reported this cluster to the World Health Organization (WHO), linking many cases to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan.
• Confirmation: The earliest confirmed case with a known onset date is often cited as December 1, 2019, from a study published in The Lancet (January 24, 2020), based on a patient who fell ill without direct market exposure. However, the November 17 case predates this, identified later through contact tracing and symptom analysis.
• Genetic Evidence: Subsequent genomic studies (e.g., from Nature, November 2020) suggest the virus may have been circulating in humans as early as mid-November 2019, aligning with the November 17 case as the earliest documented instance.

Why "Proven" Matters:

• Earlier suspected cases exist (e.g., anecdotal reports from October 2019 or claims of imported cases), but they lack definitive lab confirmation (e.g., PCR testing or sequencing) or official documentation. The November 17 case is the earliest with evidence from Chinese health records, though it wasn’t lab-confirmed until later.

Timeline Context:

• November 17, 2019: First symptomatic case (retrospectively identified).
• December 8–31, 2019: Cluster grows; Wuhan doctors like Dr. Li Wenliang raise alarms.
• January 11, 2020: China publicly shares the SARS-CoV-2 genome, confirming the new coronavirus.

So, based on available evidence, November 17, 2019, marks the first proven case of COVID-19. Let me know if you’d like more details on the science or early spread!

Based on retrospective evidence, the first case of COVID-19 in the United States is believed to have occurred as early as December 13–16, 2019, according to a study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This finding comes from analyzing archived blood samples collected from American Red Cross donors.

Key Evidence:

• Study Details: Published in Clinical Infectious Diseases on November 30, 2020, the CDC study examined 7,389 blood samples donated between December 13, 2019, and January 17, 2020, from nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin).
• Findings:
  • 106 samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, indicating prior infection.
  • The earliest positive samples were from December 13–16, 2019, in California, Oregon, and Washington—weeks before the first officially recognized U.S. case.
  • Specifically:
    • California: December 13–16, 2019
    • Oregon: December 15–16, 2019
    • Washington: December 15–16, 2019
• Methodology: The samples were tested for IgG and IgM antibodies, which typically appear 1–3 weeks after infection. This suggests infections could have occurred as early as late November or early December 2019, though the exact onset is uncertain due to antibody development timelines.

Context:

• Official First Case: The first confirmed U.S. case was announced on January 21, 2020, involving a 35-year-old man in Snohomish County, Washington, who had returned from Wuhan, China, on January 15 and tested positive via PCR on January 20 (reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, March 5, 2020).
• Retrospective Insight: The CDC study indicates community transmission was likely occurring in the U.S. before this, undetected due to limited testing and awareness of the virus at the time. These early cases were not diagnosed contemporaneously because COVID-19 wasn’t yet identified as a circulating pathogen in the U.S.

Limitations:

• No Symptom Data: Blood donation records don’t include symptom onset dates, so the exact timing of illness is inferred.
• Possible False Positives: While the antibody tests were specific to SARS-CoV-2, cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses was a concern, though the study used multiple assays to minimize this.
• Travel vs. Local Spread: It’s unclear whether these early cases were imported (e.g., from China) or represented local transmission.

Earlier Claims:

• Some anecdotal reports (e.g., a California death certificate listing COVID-19 from February 6, 2020, later backdated via autopsy to late January) and wastewater studies (e.g., Santa Clara County detecting viral RNA from mid-January 2020) suggest early presence, but the CDC’s December 2019 antibody evidence is the earliest robust retrospective data.

Conclusion:

Based on retrospective serological evidence, the first cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. likely date to December 13–16, 2019, in western states. This predates the officially recognized January 21, 2020, case by over a month, highlighting how the virus was silently spreading before detection systems were in place. Let me know if you’d like more on the study or its implications!