== Marxian predictions ==
In my parents' time, everyone - even the poor and certainly even rich plutocrats - understood the Marxian predictions which - like those of Hari-Seldon - seemed bound to come true, unless something changed. .
Those who wanted a different future than Old Karl forecast backed an alternative that Marxists deemed impossible... Preventing parasitical late-stage capitalism from replacing the fecund, flattish-fairish middle phase that Marx deeply admired. In other words, continuation of the reform-aimed, incremental Bourgeoise Revolution, taking it ever-further down paths of ever-greater prosperous inclusion.
(If you know nothing about Karl Marx's historical stages and predictions, including his admiration for middle-stage capitalism, though also his assumption that it must eventuially fail, then shame on you for ever referring to him!)
What Marxists never predicted - indeed deemed impossible, was how the American 'Greatest Generation' (GG) both adored FDR and enacted his general program of social flattening mixed with continued vigorous market cvompetition, uplifting tens of millions of children of the working class to confidently compete with scions of the rich...
...which gave the world its greatest (if flawed) era of both (flawed-but-general) peace and rising prosperity. Both of which are now being shredded, as we speak.
On my blog's erudite comment community (the smartest anywhere online) some have observed that our present crisis is happening precisely because the GG/FDR generation so thoroughly demolished the Marxian teleology!
Let's put it (as one commenter did) in sci fi terms:
'We see eye to eye about the Seldonian Paradox of Marxism. When the owning class takes seriously Marx's predictions of mass immiseration and political upheaval leading to guillotines for the rich, then they choose to help enact semi-socialist uplifts, cooperating with moderate reformers to to negate Marx's prediction by uplifting the working class into a comfortable middle class. It worked! Until Reagan began the Great Retraction and wealth disparities climbed again. Accelerating till today...
"As Seldon predicts when those reforms WORK, then the owning class ceases to take Marx's predictions seriously, so they defund and repeal the semi-socialist reforms, reverting society back into the feudal pyramid, and Marx's predictions, which had seemed canceled, thus tend to come true. And guillotine blades get sharpened again.
"The result is either a long-lived (rooseveltean) compromise, or a high-amplitude cycle with a period of 2 generations. The former is if there is intelligent life in the owning class, the latter if not.'
In other words, today's would-be feudal lords, aiming reflexively to restore 8000 years of feudal rule by inheritance brats, surround themselves with flatterers telling them how smart they are. I actually have witnessed this happen to FIVE I know personally, watching in dismay as their flexible intelligence rigidifies into self-flattering masturbation. In effect summoning eventual uber rides on tumbrels.
In EXISTENCE I portray the other scenario - trillionaires actually trying to find a way to remain lords in a progressive society that won't get fed up and kill them. Alas, those attending Davos show little sign of such long-view sapience.
Alas, after 70 years when it seemed Marx was in a dustbin, his works are now flying off the shelves all over the globe. And the New Lords will discover, much to their pain, what that means.
THE SELDON PARADOX: A PREDICTION BECOMES INVALID WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS AND ACTS ON IT... TILL EVERYONE BECOMES ACCUSTOMED TO THE NEW SITUATION AND THEY LOSE ALL VIGILANCE... ... AND CONDITIONS DRIFT BACK TOWARD MAKING THE PREDICTION COME TRUE.
== Expanding a bit ==
Riffing back to my post here about the Mad Right's rush to resurrect Karl Marx from the dustbin. (See two earlier, more detailed postings by me here and here.) Let me clarify and expand on what the Greatest Generation all understood and NONE of you - even the smartest - appears ever to have learned. (And to a degree, it's why we are in this mess.)
Marx assumed that every business cycle would result in a narrowing of the owner class until the maximally diverse and creative bourgeoise middle class period would end and be replaced by new-feudalism - with which (as a historiographer) he was familiar.
Bourgeoise society confused him, even though he called it a 'necessary phase', to finish the Formation of Capital. But he foresaw it being finished off by capitalism's contradictions.
What he never imagined and never wrote about or discussed was the possibility that the bourgeoise revolution might be skillfully managed - by a combination of legislation and investments in young new competitors - thus allowing that most-creative phase to evade his fore-ordained collapse scenario. Reformed and skillfully managed by a populace who - warned by Marx of one path - might deliberately choose another.
It's a path that evades KM's narrow New Oligarchy by both limiting the very rich to merely being very rich while continually expanding the middle class to include ever larger clades of skilled, confident young competitors...
... exactly as Adam Smith prescribed. (Indeed, Marx greatly admired Smith! Indeed, so should anyone with a scintilla of sense.)
That is - in fact - what the Roosevelteans achieved (or set in motion). It's what Reagan assumed was already done and could be retracted, sofely. And it's what the Trumpists are absolutely determined to crush... reviving and re-creating exactly Marx's end game scenario, while stoopidly and ignorantly unaware they are old Karl's dream come true.
== So... what about today's stylish 'socialists'? ==
Among the many traps being laid for us across the coming months leading to the November US elections, some are fell and dangerous... like whether the oligarchs and Project 25 traitors will try to stage some kind of National Emergency, like a Reichstag Fire. (Else why the current, frantic purge of FBI and military officers?) Most likely among many scenarios? A convenient martyrdom, turning their rapidly-decaying asset into a tool, one last time.
But why bother, when our own side - the good side in this fraught phase 8 of the US Civil War - might be egged into splitting apart, amid self-destructive internal spats?
Rupert Murdoch's dream salvation?
Predictable spats amid the democratic party's herd of cats.
Do YOU see any sense in the wave of postings, during the last month, from an ill-defined 'left', denouncing 'mainstream-DNC dems' as little better than "republicans-lite"?
RIght. Demolish the broad-front, inclusive coalition that's the only hope of saving the enlightenment and the world. Sure.
Sanctimony is an addictive drug.
(Bernie, Liz, Stacey, Jaime and AOC have to spend HALF of their energies just herding sanctimonious 'cats' back inside the broad tent of our coalition. See more here. Especially ask these passionate, mostly-young people: "Can you name the last three DNC chairs? Come back with this nonsense when you can.")
But worst of all is their chiché misuse of the term 'socialism,' breaking its actual definitions and unnecessarily handing the confederate-right a million or so votes by confirming Foxite narratives.
WTF?? No one has pounded the drum harder than me, to revive interest in the fine works of the post-WWII 'greatest' GI Bill Generation, whose most-adored hero was Franklin Roosevelt. (And a decade later, they adored Jonas Salk!) While they were deeply flawed compared to the more ethically advanced children and grandchildren they raised (e.g. Barry Obama raised by two white WWII veteran grandparents) their accomplishments - from infrastructure and magnificent universities to social security and Medicare to ponderous (and frustratingly slow) incremental actions - year by year - to purge bad habits of 70 centuries, like racism, sexism and feudalism.
Instead of falling for a trap and giving the confederate/putinists a great big target on our chests, how about YOU attack THEM instead, where it hurts?
Cite the GI Billers and the US Labor Movement that was the most ANTI-communist element of American life?
How about hurling an epithet at THEM? Shout "Feudalists!" Bent on restoring 6000 years of cruel rule by inheritance brats! A systemic and perennial human failure mode that was denounced by Adam Smith! (And Smith - if here today - would be a flaming-mad Democrat!)
In fact, ANTIFEU would be more sweeping than ANTIFA!
Upraising children of the working classes to compete (the c-word that the right never uses anymore) ... competing openly with sons and daughters of wealth... is not the same "Socialism" as state ownership of the means of production. FDRism fills vigorously and creatively churning markets with skilled, capable, fearlessly bold and confident competitors from the middle class and even the poor.
THAT is the way to keep Marx at bay. End rule over humanity by lordly cheaters and their spoiled sons. Become again a scientific, joyfully-competitive (while compassionate) people who can end poverty and injustice and make the solar system our own.
--------------------
Finally… If you feel a need - amid fraught times - for an inspiring tale about a modern hero, intellect and deeply-wise public figure, try Judge David Tatel’s VISION: A memoir and Blindness and Justice.
I’ll vouch personally. That -- "Vision is charming, wise, and completely engaging. This memoir of a judge of the country’s second highest court, who has been without sight for decades, goes down like a cool drink on a hot day." —Scott Turow.
77 comments:
How about this one? If you have read Earth you will see its relevance!
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/xd97-c6d7
When people argue against communism, why it is so bad, they usually cite two reasons: Lack of economic liberty and political suppression.
I would point out that currently, the Trump regime has interfered with those liberties in multiple ways - tarrifs, threats, building of monopolies, the Intel shares.The difference, of course, is that they use the state to enrich themselves instead of creating a wealthy society.
Also, it weaponizes the surveillance apparatus (one that would make the Stasi and KGB proud) against political enemies - and starts silencing the population with criminally charging protesters and political opponents.
Re:
"If you know nothing about Karl Marx's historical stages and predictions, including his admiration for middle-stage capitalism, though also his assumption that it must eventuially fail, then shame on you for ever referring to him!"
I'm SO ignorant that on the 18th Brumaire, an 225,
I posted:
"This time, the farce"
on Social Media
and subsequently remigrated from Trumpistan to Germany.
As for:
"Sanctimony is an addictive drug."
David Brin has succumbed to the oxymoronic:
"The Wager Challenge updated: why it works… and why no one tries it."
Brin keeps insisting on casino games with an officer corps that is as much part of the problem as the Democratic establishment.
Where are MajGen Smedley Butler and FDR when you desperately need them in the Long Disaster?
True to form for a Senior Academic,
Brin is immune to advice how to think out of one's own box, even at the risk of falling off it.
I tried, by making David Brin aware of the real life Postman:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018111634/https://www.nickfarr.org/2014/08/ambulances-hospitals-no-more-burns/
tatzelbrumm
There is nothing to grapple with in "Unknown's" spew of chaotic drivel. It's GIGO from a disabled mind.
Der Oger's exaggeration of our present situation (dangerous as it is) dishonors the hundreds of millions of humans who were murdered or imprisoned under Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism.
It's not just economic liberty. It's liberty in general. You can't really lose part of it anymore than you can be partially pregnant. The difference between many of us is where we draw the boundary, but once our boundary is breached, liberty is lost.
If you are making the case that our 'glorious' leader is doing this... I agree. Communism is just one way to deprive us of liberty.
Note to David, I found your Democratic party splitters:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/29/centrist-democrats-democratic-socialists-backlash
TL;DR
James Carville (3rd Way guru) and Jamie Harrison (former DNC head) calling to split the Democratic Party after months of primary wins by DSA-endorsed candidates.
Bah, matthew. STEP UP with wager stakes over the sheer number of slurs hurled by number on both 'sides.' There's no comparison. And Carville for all his brusque edginess is NOT deriding leftist sincerity at sharing legislative goals, but their abysmal TACTICS!
The leftist preeners OTOH are relentlessly attacking the moderates' sincerity, values and decency and ignoring the profound overlap of actual goals.
THAT IS DIFFERENT. One is "Can we please fight AFTER we win? And over specific articles in shared reform legislation?" The other is "Die, die DIE you evil right wing so called moderate Dee Ennn Ceee non-Democrats DIE!!!!"
Moreover I just slightly exaggerated YOU. Exactly you.
I left out CORPORATISTS! Ooh evil corporatist DINOS!
Apropos nothing, yesterday was Chicago's annual Pride Parade, and my wife's company had a float, so we were both part of the festivities on the inside.
If I had only known before I was married how easy it would be to pick up chicks there, I would have attended a long time ago.
No.
I invite you to see that both extremes are/have been driven by authoritarianism and imperialism.
I do not distinguish between fascists and real tankies, they are both monsters.
The correct label of a person in the middle between a small-d-democrat and authoritarians not "centrist", it's "useful fool, "quisling" and maybe "Fetterman" in the future.
I attended ours two weekends ago, and it was mentioned by the speakers that dedicated clubs in our area do not exist anymore, because the rest have become a safe space. They are noch longer necessary. The pride march was kind of a victory parade.
David Brin the (bona fide) intellectual heavyweight once again chooses polemical sumo over polemical judo.
Typical response to applied contrarianism. Contrary Brin is no exception.
Respond with indignation?
Naaah.
Just as Gedankenexperiment:
Sitting on the fence of this year's Telluride Neuromorphic Workshop from an ocean and half a continent away,
how could one creatively combine
https://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/addiction.html,
"difficulties
I won't pretend there are no obstacles to pursuing this line of inquiry. Having discussed it with neuroscientists such as William Calvin, Robert Malenka, Joseph Miller, Read Montague, Stanley Glick, Gregory S. Berns and Ernest Noble, I am familiar with reasons why researchers have shied away from studying internal stimulation in favor of external stimulations like gambling and drugs."
[…]
"Well, in fact, this is exactly the sort of idea pondering and brain-storming that I've sought to get started. (In fact, Dr. Miller and others at USC have recently begun exploring avenues of research inspired by this letter.)
Putting aside specific politics, one could offer a dozen suggestions for how blind — or double blind — experiments might be performed. (Subjects might name their own emblems of outrage, for example, choosing in advance the symbols and people most likely to trigger their own indignation.) Experiments could at least narrow down the range and subjectivity of studying self-induced mental states. After all, we would not (at first) be seeking to "cure" anybody. Only to get a better handle on how these cycles work."
with
https://sites.google.com/view/telluride-2026/topic-areas/nbi26-neural-basis-of-intention
in a way no one in the self-reinforcing Telluride
"Denkkollektiv" [Ludvik Fleck, Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache]
has connected before,
and due to in-group dynamics and performance metrics, can't and won't connect?
Shrek,
why do you want to massacre Fetterman?
Show up in such a place with the original Rainbow Flag
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Rainbow_Flag
[Thomas Müntzer, 1525 Peasants' War against feudal overlords]
and you will find out how these speakers will make the space VERY unsafe and cancel you..
Larry,
I first attended a gay pride parade by being stuck on a multilevel parking lot exit offramp with my family in downtown Spokane, a few feet from the proceedings, quite by accident. Midway through, a marcher/parader in a frilly dress and flowery headband smiled at me and offered me a plastic flower.
As I put it on the dashboard, my wife said drily, "You know that was a guy, right?"
I thought about it and said, "Cool."
Pappenheimer
You get what I mean. I put it into a single Weltanschauung: Power must be chained, or people will be.
Apples/Oranges.
A fun moment was that lone counterprotest stand of evangicals, being actively ignored by the general population.
And that dude cursing the hot weather in Russian, having to wear a sign around his neck.
"Show up in such a place with the original Rainbow Flag...
...these speakers will make the space VERY unsafe and cancel you."
I'm not aware of the significance of that flag relative to a contemporary pride parade, but my sense is that you were being deliberately provocative, metaphorically "raining on their parade", and they were having none of it.
I don't discount the possibility that leftists with a megaphone can be forcefully exclusionary of perceived heretics. I just haven't encountered such at the several pride parades I've been at. If there were speakers at this last one, I wouldn't know because our float was number 125 in the line, and we didn't get onto the parade route until at least an our after the start.
What I can say from first-hand experience is that despite my being a heterosexual male, and obviously so when flirting with the girls on the sidewalk, I was never made to feel unsafe or unwelcome. Quite the contrary, the viewing crowd expressed gratitude--sometimes deliriously so--for the participation of the marchers. I'm happy to use my white privilege--or in this case, hetero privilege --for good rather than for evil.
"my wife said drily, "You know that was a guy, right?"
I'm sure that many of the attractive girls whose hands I shook or kissed while handing out flags were lesbians. I can live with that. :)
"A fun moment was that lone counterprotest stand of evangicals, being actively ignored by the general population."
Yep, we're there to be celebratory, not to have some jerk "rain on the parade". Last year, I attended a suburban pride parade as a watcher on the sidewalk, and I actually challenged an evangelical with a loudspeaker as to why he was so focused on decrying one particular "sin" instead of protesting the plethora of sins committed regularly by the president who I was sure he supported. He could only give the lame excuse that he was here in Illinois, not in Washington. I took that to mean, "I make a big deal about my Christianity, but by that, I only mean demanding of sexual conformity. Nothing else."
"And that dude cursing the hot weather in Russian, having to wear a sign around his neck."
The summer heat is part of the point. It was worth it because of all of the girls in summer clothing.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/Jun30-1.html
...
Meanwhile, according to SCOTUS, there is one independent agency that is still independent, and that is the Federal Reserve. The second decision of the day, and Trump's first setback, came in Trump v. Cook. By a vote of 5-4, with Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberals, and Roberts writing for the majority, the Court said that Fed governor Lisa Cook, who Trump tried to fire, can remain on the job while her case plays out.
The basis of Cook's case is that fed governors can only be fired for cause, and Trump failed to demonstrate any cause before terminating her. That would seem to be a dead argument, given the Court's ruling in Slaughter, but Roberts stands on his head to explain why the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies. His argument boils down to two things. First, that in the legislation creating the Fed, Congress very clearly intended that agency to be independent from politics. How Roberts can tell that the legislature really meant it in this case, and not with the other agencies explicitly described as "independent" in their enabling legislation, he did not explain.
...
Emphasis mine. That's why we need the equivalent of "instant replay review" for ussc decisions which are in conflict with each other or with logic.
Taking the wins where we can. Stephanie Miller's radio show just announced that the supreme court upheld birthright citizenship.
The vote was apparently 5-4, and they haven't said who the Republicans on the 5 side are yet. So, 5 voted that words mean what they actually say, and four voted against that proposition. Coulda been worse, I guess.
Clarification. 5-4 that DJT's executive order was un-Constitutional, but 6-3 that the order was unlawful. Kavanaugh was the one who said it was Constitutional, but still unlawful.
Roberts and Barrett were the other Republicans on the 5.
Four SCOTUS willing to ignore the plain text of the 14th Amendment is a mockery of the legal profession.
Also, Nina Totenberg had to retract her reporting that Alito will retire after he did not show up on the bench this morning to announce it as she had been led to believe he would. Reporters, do not pre-write your scoop. LOL.
But, it does look like Alito will step down to allow Trump to pick another SCOTUS. Let the grand guessing on who it will be begin. (My money is on Rao, BTW).
By focusing in on Karl Marx’s historical admiration for the inventiveness, adaptability & sheer industriousness of the landless money-lending middle merchant classes that he called the Bourgeoisie, our fine host ignores the antisemitic Elephant-in-the-Room:
Overwhelmingly, these early ‘bourgeoisie’ capitalists were actually ethnocultural Jews who were allowed to engage in usury, the charging of interest, money lending & capitalization which was otherwise forbidden to most christians by canon.
It was this Jewish identity group that Marx credited with the destruction of feudalism, the creation of the Industrial Age & the exploitation of the proletariat working class, and it is for this very specific reason that his manifesto also requires their eventual ‘removal’, a vague term that was re-interpreted as ‘elimination’ by Lenin & as ‘extermination’ by Hitler’s National Socialists.
This is why Marxism, Communism, Socialism & all types of Harrison Bergeron Equality always end very very badly for the Jews. There are literally no exceptions, but I'll give you all the chance to 'Trotsky' one out. I tell joke because Trotsky proves rule in tragicomic manner.
Finally, let’s put to rest the absurd allegation that Adam Smith (b 1723, d 1790) was in any way a ’socialist’ in the contemporary sense, as the term ‘socialist’ was not even defined prior to 1830.
Best
_________
Enjoy the recent SCOTUS rulings while you can, but note that there's literally no part of the 14th amendment that allows anchor babies to confer citizenship back upon their non-citizen parents, while there are many many laws that you voted for that restrict the rights & privileges of minor children who are citizens. The other shoes will drop shortly.
I just realized that many of you are unfamiliar with US law:
Specifically, minor children (individuals under 18) who are US citizens are legally restricted from activities requiring adult capacity. They cannot sign binding contracts, rental agreements, vote, marry, agree to sexual activity, consent to most medical treatments, join the military, work in hazardous jobs, cosign legally binding agreements, opt out of education mandates, purchase restricted goods, travel without adult supervision, apply for county, state or federal assistance, accept responsibility for other adults & minor children, sit on a jury or sponsor other immigrants.
Also, minor children who are US citizens cannot choose, select, prefer or specify a legal guardian or parent if & when a dispute arises in this regard, as this is a matter relegated to a non-constitutional family court system.
Additionally, legal adults citizens who are younger than 21 years of age cannot drink alcohol, purchase tobacco, rent a vehicle or hotel room and purchase most firearms.
It therefore follows that minor children who are legal US citizens have very few constitutionally protected rights & privileges.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Best
I have the distinct impression that antisemitsm, anti-black racism, and transphobia have the same root: an Obsession with other people's penisses.
Cutthroat Banking/Moneylending was already present in Athens and Rome.
During the middle ages, various groups found a was to circumvent ursury charges: the Templars, Fuggers, and of course Italian merchants of Florence and Venice all lent money to various rulership, with various effects. One thing to keep in mind is that Princes in that era had no concept of long-term responsible budgeting, much Like many right-wingers of today. Invariably, they all went broke except for those who found cheap sources of income abroad - the early colonies, and what followed of it.
(previous comment deleted for editing purposes)
Let's not forget that the classic medieval end-run around the usury laws was to borrow from Jews. Both parties were allowed to, due to a religion loophole, and when the debt got too big, the kings were able to cancel the debt by siccing the priests on the Jews, who were thereafter smeared with a usury libel. Lending money to kings was a high-reward/high-risk move.
In that spirit, I warn our Native American cousins about running casinos. Preying on the "New Buffalo" is sweet indeed, but sooner or later those buffalos will unleash their own clerics. Then Native Americans will be smeared with a gambling libel.
Dr. Brin:
There's a big grin on my face because you quoted me. Awww. 60% of the italicized passage was me, 40% was you. I don't mind; it means that my brainchild adapted to its new environment; your brain. May it spread far and wide.
You added guillotines, uplift, and "Rooseveltean". I'll definitely adopt the third word, and I will consider the first two.
Let me re-emphasize the Epimenidian nature of the Paradox of Marxism: namely that to the owning class, Marx's predictions become false when they believe them, and become true when they don't believe them. Therefore to the owning class, Marx is as true a prophet as he is false; so to them Marxism is formally equivalent to the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is false". If enough owners have minds wise enough to comprehend tertium datur, then we get a long-lived Rooseveltean compromise; but if too many are as stoopidly binary-minded as robots, then we get a high-amplitude two-generation oscillation.
The same goes for Seldon's Paradox in general.
No... since most of what you say applies to all the children here.
There is a way out, but a kid has to convince a judge to let it happen. Not easy to do.
Maybe you are hinting at "Who will be the appointed parents?"
Heh. Who gets to apply the chains... and to whom?
I agree in general. My biggest difference with Libertarians is they won't limit themselves out of respect for the fears others experience. I saw it first hand during the COVID lockdown when they tried to object which scared the piss out of a lot of their neighbors. I might object to my government having unchecked quarantine powers, but I object more to my neighbors not respecting the fact that they are scaring each other. So... I didn't need a government telling me to stay home when I wasn't scared myself. I was willing to self-limit.
Is matthew now proclaiming himself a textualist??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Of course, matthew is also stupid when it comes to making right-wing arguments. The best rw jurisprudence supporting SCOTUS's decision on birthright citizenship is originalism.
One could argue that the courts hold limited jurisdiction over undocumented immigrants. Yes, US courts can hold them culpabfor criminal acts committed inside the US, but have limited authority in civil matter. Also, the US cannot draft undocumented immigrants. So there's a textual argument against birthright citizenship
However, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the US for over 120 years. Consequently, the strongest support comes from ORIGINALISM. (Original interpretation of the text).
Dr. Brin:
One area where I currently see (from afar) Democrats starting to do what Republicans have been doing for decades now is primarying from the extreme, especially in safe seats. The assumption has been that the Republicans closer to the centre in their views will still vote for the party candidate (helped by a plurality of the media telling them that any Republican is preferable to any Democrat).
The net effect has been to drag Republican policy to the right.
So the burning issue for this year's mid-terms is not whether left-wingers (by US standards) will vote for a centrist Democrat candidate? They will, and always have. It's whether centrist Democrats will vote for a left-wing candidate who has just knocked out a centrist incumbent in the primaries.
"Is matthew now proclaiming himself a textualist???
One need not be a rigid textualist to argue that specific passages are so clear as to need no interpretation.
"One could argue that the courts hold limited jurisdiction over undocumented immigrants. "
You're arguing as if the 14th Amendment covers the parents. The text of the amendment says nothing about parentage.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"Yes, US courts can hold them culpabfor criminal acts committed inside the US, but have limited authority in civil matter. Also, the US cannot draft undocumented immigrants. "
Except for "hold them culpable for criminal acts", the same applies to diplomats and Indians. Also, since the US can detain and deport undocumented immigrants, that's a pretty strong use of "subject to jurisdiction."
"However, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the US for over 120 years. Consequently, the strongest support comes from ORIGINALISM. (Original interpretation of the text)."
Well, the original intent of the text was to specifically exclude children of diplomats and children of American Indians. And the supreme court has upheld that interpretation since the nineteenth century, including this latest ruling, and (as far as I know) never ruled any other way.
So you're saying that the strongest support for the other side is JUDICIAL ACTIVISIM?
Yuval Harari's talk at Oxford was a deep dive into AI agency.
The overture about symbolic AI, especially chess, is pure scidata.
The pieces on cooperation are pure OGH.
The pieces on markets and Centaurs are pure Alfred Differ.
I makes me think that maybe he read "ailien minds" or at least visited CB.
The insights are brilliant.
The excessive conflation not so much.
The smear against reservation casinos is already in play in a lot of places. They don't get built everwhere. Wider roads to them don't get funded. All sorts of things already happen when their non-reservation neighbors object too much.
The gaming industry gets involved to help get these places funded. They have deeper pockets for dealing with local politics. My brother worked in the industry, taught me some of this, and pointed out that the politics is VERY regional. One reservation casino can spill commercial benefits into a nearby non-reservation town in the form of jobs and knock-on business, so these projects are complicated and planned that way.
Forgot to add the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBtVGwuJzpk
Paradoc, when you are "on" you are very on. That paragraph about a paradox by paradoc paralleled wisdom prodigiously.
Ozajh you underrate how much centrist dems hate Trump. Jewish moderate dems in NYC voted in Mamdami. Moderates won't betray the coalition... the way hispanic and black males did in 24 and that lefties did when they flocked to Kremlin agents Nader and Stein.
Watch. The Foxites will trot out another version of that treason. Most lefties won't fall for it. But some will. Maybe enough.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/Jul01-1.html
...
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. Its purpose was to convey citizenship to Black Americans, nearly all of who had been born in the United States, and nearly none of who had been born to citizen parents, since enslaved people could not be citizens. The fellows who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment chose their words very carefully, beginning the text thusly: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
That qualifying clause, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was crafted to exclude three types of people. The first was Native Americans (who were later folded into the mix, by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924). The second was children of diplomats, who are citizens of the country their diplomat-parent represents. The third was the children of invading armies (something that has never actually been an issue, though in 1868 they just couldn't be sure).
It is worth noting that the two latter groups, whose legal status has not changed since 1868, are very clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, up to and including that they are not subject to American law. If John Diplomat Jr. assaults an American, then he is going to be tried under the laws of his country, by the courts of his country. If John General Jr. assaults someone, then he is going to be tried under the laws of his country, by the courts of his country (assuming he is tried at all). By contrast, if John Immigrant Jr. assaults an American, he is going to be tried by a U.S. court under U.S. law, because he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Beyond the basic logic laid out here, we know exactly what the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended because we have records of their discussions in the halls of Congress, not to mention drafts of the earlier versions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, back in the late 19th century, xenophobes tried to latch on that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit to argue that if someone is born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, that person is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country, and so is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This interpretation was put to the test in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). In their decision, the Fuller Court—the exact same court that had ruled 18 months earlier that segregation was fine and dandy—said that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only Natives and the children of diplomats and soldiers, and that everyone else born in the U.S. is, and always been, a citizen.
...
A more knowledgeable rebuttal than I could do myself.
When I'm on I'm very on? How binary of me.
Don't forget the Googlites, Muskrats and Zuckerbergians.
They are dampening reach and let accounts disappear. And Not since yesterday.
John V, they must teach some kinda wacky law at your junior college in Missouri, because your textural argument regarding unlawful immigrants not being subject to conscription and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction is pretty damn weak sauce. Try harder next time.
"Don't forget the Googlites, Muskrats and Zuckerbergians."
I prefer the term, "Muskovites".
Is it pathological empathy or psychopathology that makes "Jewish moderate dems in NYC" vote for a Marxist socioeconomic system that specifically requires the removal, elimination or extermination of bourgeois middle class Jewish moderates ??
Does this sound rational to you??
I also wonder why the same "moderate dems" choose to celebrate SCOTUS's recent reaffirmation of the 14th Amendment when all the other clauses associated with the 14th Amendment specify STATE SUBSERVIENCE to all related federally-mandated policies & procedures, especially as this directly contradicts the 5th Amendment.
It's a puzzle wrapped in an enigma.
Best
Is mitch McConnell dead?
And does Democratic governor Beshear get to appoint his successor?
Nobody has heard from him since his medical emergency last week.
Does this ensure democratic control of the Senate as well as the House?
And if Alito really does retire can we do to Trump what McConnell did to Obama and not act on a new scotus appointment?
How much fun will it be to fuck over the Republicans the same way fucked us over?
Lots of fun.
Larry,
Textualism is defined by Library of Congress study guide:
is a method of legal interpretation directing judges to rely on the objective, "plain meaning" of the statutory or constitutional text, rather than attempting to divine the subjective intent of the enacting legislature or broader statutory purposes.
Originalism is a legal theory holding that the U.S. Constitution (or any legal text) should be interpreted based on its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Originalists believe this meaning is fixed, meaning the Constitution's principles do not evolve with modern societal values.
Consequently, interpreting legislative intent, which is the crux of the argument you cite, is explicitly forbidden under a textualist approach. However, Larry, the argument you cite is more of an originalist You're not a lawyer, so I don't expect you to understand the distinction. i
I don't expect matthew to get the distinction either, but it's amusing in his case b/c his pathetic little ego requires that he is intellectually and morally superior to all rw'ers. So, him making a basic mistake like that is funny.
Hence we see matthew trying to pull the "you're a hayseed from Missouri" regional bullshit, which shows his "opposition" to concepts like racism or sexism are rooted in tribalism rather than any true objection to "check the box" hierarchies.
Born in the deep south in 1930, matthew would happily join the KKK and shout white supremacist slogans b/c it would fill his aching need for categorial superiority. Without those check-the-box signals of hierarchy, he immediately falls to rock bottom. Consequently, doesn't actually want to address arguments, b/c he knows he'll lose.
Dr Brin @ 11:15,
I hope you're correct.
"And if Alito really does retire can we do to Trump what McConnell did to Obama and not act on a new scotus appointment?"
I'd be gleeful to McConnell them.
At this point, Trump is running himself out of office. The real stupidity starts with trying to annex Greenland, followed by blowing up boats in international waters, then deciding to bomb Iran.
Talk about stupid. Iran's regime was teetering. Terrible economy, lots of protests, and most Iranians identified as secular. Trump decides to bomb Iran, which ends up propping up an unpopular regime, b/c HELLO, the public tends to despise the people bombing them and support the regime opposing the people bombing them.
Perhaps the only example of an air campaign causing a regime to collapse due to or under threat of a popular revolt might be Japan during WW2, but notice the US had A LOT of boots on the ground poised to demolish Japan's land army.
Iran's primary geopolitical objective is to ensure it has an external enemy sufficient to the task of unifying its many fragments behind one that can wield power. Most other nations have border integrity as their primary objective, but Iran has mountains that make invasion a stupid prospect.
Only one empire managed to keep Iran fractured enough to rule and it wasn't us. If we had the courage to "wait and see" it would probably splinter into a hot mess... or appoint Israel to the role again.
Until I see a viable third party pick up disgusted former-GOP voters, I'm not inclined to think anything permanent is on the horizon.
"a Marxist socioeconomic system that specifically requires the removal, elimination or extermination of bourgeois middle class Jewish moderates"
So when exactly did Mamdani propose doing this?
And what makes you think he is a Marxist instead of just a new New Dealer?
"At this point, Trump is running himself out of office. The real stupidity starts with trying to annex Greenland, followed by blowing up boats in international waters, then deciding to bomb Iran."
While I agree that all of the examples you cite are ridiculously stupid policy, I don't see him "running himself out" of anything. His supporters, including those who want a third term, are still blindly loyal, and even his detractors in the party don't have the balls to risk him lifting so much as an eyebrow of displeasure in their direction.
"Is mitch McConnell dead?:"
If this a Schrodinger's Cat situation? If there's no official observer, then his seat is occupied and vacant at the same time?
"And does Democratic governor Beshear get to appoint his successor?"
In theory, yes. In practice, they can probably keep him "on ice" until the election, at which point it will be moot as far as who occupies the seat..
"I'd be gleeful to McConnell them."
I would too, but it ain't gonna happen. The supreme court isn't concerned in the least with consistency. They'll rule that Democrats can't do what Republicans are allowed, and not even bother to explain why it makes sense.
"'a Marxist socioeconomic system that specifically requires the removal, elimination or extermination of bourgeois middle class Jewish moderates'
So when exactly did Mamdani propose doing this?"
Y'know, after a full 1000 days of sobriety, I am no longer forbidden by sacred vow from reading loc's posts. Doesn't mean I want to do it, though.
But I'm guessing the part you quote refers to socialists in general wanting to eliminate the middle class (and upper class), not to anything any specific officeholder or candidate advocates.
Part of the answer is that Jewish moderates tend to be compassionate, and to sympathize with other beleaguered groups, not just our own selves. A concept alien to loc's thought process.
And I suppose it's supposed to make more sense for Jewish moderates to blindly support the ultra-orthodox government in Israel who also would prefer the removal, elimination, or extermination of Jewish moderates.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/07/01/trump-speech-july-4-fireworks-celebration-america-250/90775356007/
President Donald Trump announced he will deliver a lengthy speech on July 4 in Washington despite forecast triple‑digit heat, ...
Could my dream really be about to come true?
Naw, I'm just pointing out that you are a hack lawyer, JV.
It's entirely personal, not regional.
I think you are a blovating idiot.
The fact that you went to a piss-poor law school just explains a little bit extra about you.
Yes, it *is* all fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/02/trump-hijacked-250-anniversary
And, please, Sir, give a two hour speech standing in 107F weather with insane humidity on July 4th.
Please.
That our progressive contingent (which fancies itself to be empathy-based & ultra-civilised) would take such glee from the death of its political opponents, this comes as no surprise to me.
What does surprise me, however, is how the same contingent imbues Trump's promises & pledges with such incredible honesty, if only to allow themselves the luxury of condemning him as a failure, even as they condemn him for being a huge liar which (in turn) would make him a hugely successful liar rather than a failed one.
Read some Sun Tzu & reconsider your perceptions because I suspect that most of you are not as honest as you claim to be.
Best
"That our progressive contingent (which fancies itself to be empathy-based & ultra-civilised) would take such glee from the death of its political opponents, ..."
It's not "the death of political opponents". It's the death of the wielder of the boot on our upturned face that gives us hope, mainly because there's nothing else available.
The whole point of American style democracy is to give the people a way of having their concerns addressed and their grievances redressed within the workings of government, without the need to resort to violence or revolution.
When the government itself forecloses all options for demanding change, then the only thing we can hope for is the one not subject to legislation or the supreme court--the death of the tyrant.
It's not where we choose to be. It's what you have made us.
Marxism requires the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a viable socioeconomic class, rather than the physical elimination of the people within said class, but most other offshoots of Marxism, including Leninism, Maoism, Agrarian Communism & National Socialism require the complete elimination of the merchant, professional & middle classes, branch and root.
These are the FACTS, people, and this is exactly what the progressive left is voting for.
Get it straight, folks. Nothing the "progressives" demand is actually progressive, it are policies called Roosveltism and Social Democracy elsewhere. These concepts are at least sixty years old and you can find precursors in Catholicism and European Realpolitik.of the 19th century.
Everything else is red-scare, culitish propaganda and brainwashing.
The bourgeoisie IS the merchant/professional/middle class.
The petite bourgeoisie aren’t peasants.
"These are the FACTS, people, and this is exactly what the progressive left is voting for."
You're making the same argument my buddy on the "Cerebus" list used to--the transitive property of descriptive terms.
President Obama wants universal health care; Universal health care was introduced in Germany by Bismarck; Bismarck was a dictator like Hitler was; Hitler created death camps; Therefore President Obama wants death camps.
The progressive left is voting for things like universal health care and voting rights and fairer taxation. You can make a chain of "logic" linking that to the most brutal acts of Stalinist or Maoist or Xi-ist communism, but in the end, it's pure sophistry. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
You really haven't changed in 1000 days. More's the pity.
Well, matthew, school snobbery is for pathetic losers who need artificial hierarchy markers. So, why bring it up? Oh, yeah, because that describes you to a T.
I understand you're parroting the arguments you're getting from LW podcasts such as "Strict Scrutiny." Of course, you fail to recognize that these commenters have a bias: they WANT to conclude rw justices are hypocrites, which leads them to make a screwy plain text assertion.
Boy, it's REALLY hard to not notice they're missing the beams in their own eyes. Since when have they cared about the "plain text" of the 14th Amendment? You know, the people who think anyone who doesn't read the right to privacy into the 14th is a sexist oppressor.
So, matthew, according to your "side," we need use a plain text approach to the citizenship part of the 14th, while also reading the right to privacy into the amendment. Yeah. Makes so much sense. Your a genious!!!(misspelling and ungrammatical construction intentional).
Let's go over this slowly, so even you can understand. The 14th amendment citizenship clause states: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Thus, US citizenship has 2 requirements:
1) born or naturalized in the United States
2) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
When you have to say the crafters of the 14th amendment meant "native americans and children of diplomats" for the 2nd requirement, you've right there relied upon "legislative intent" to interpret the phrase. This means it's NOT a textualist argument, b/c the "plain text" requires interpretation beyond the common meaning of the phrase.
Justice Thomas' dissent points out that US v. Wong Kim Ark argued for birthright citizenship in DICTA (which is an extraneous opinion about the law which isn't necessary to the holding in the case). And, after Wong Kim Ark, legal scholars were still debating birthright citizenship. Kinda hard to argue that the plain text meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included temporary visitors when legal scholars were debating it 30 years later.
Here's what one of the co-authors of the 14th said:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/dmitri-bolt/2026/07/01/the-man-who-drafted-the-14th-amendment-never-meant-it-to-apply-to-foreigners-n2678640
WILL NOT INCLUDE FOREIGNERS and ALIENS.
"...you've right there relied upon "legislative intent" to interpret the phrase. This means it's NOT a textualist argument, b/c the "plain text" requires interpretation beyond the common meaning of the phrase."
First of all, so what? I'm ok with textualism in cases where the words are unambiguous and the sense of them hasn't changed such that the meaning is recognizable 250 years later*. But when the words are ambiguous or contradictory or archaic, then there has to be some other method of divining what the law does and does not mean. "Legislative intent" seems as good a method as any--certainly superior to "originalism", which implies that we can never grow beyond the assumptions and mores at the time the words were written.
* And while I myself might be fine with textualism, Thomas and Alito certainly are not. They argue that for legislative districting, "whole number of persons" means only a subset who can vote, or who do vote. Even though that number included women and children at the time of the writing, and so most definitely did not restrict itself to voters.
"Kinda hard to argue that the plain text meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included temporary visitors when legal scholars were debating it 30 years later."
Whether the earth is round or flat is still being debated, as is whether the use of fossil fuels is affecting the climate. How long was it still being argued that cigarettes are carcinogens?
Legal "scholars" are "debating" it only because they don't want birthright citizenship to be a thing. Instead of capitulating, they simply keep the "debate" alive by continuing it.
Aliens who can be detained and deported by functionaries of the US government are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If a legal scholar says otherwise, then the legal scholar is a ass!
Iran
The Iranian leadership are just a bit pissed off with the USA (killing a person's dad will do that)
And you have the mid-terms in November
Just what would be the Iranian's "best policy" with regard to the Strait and oil prices??
Would it be to push oil prices up a month before the elections?
Or do they hate the whole of the USA enough to try and get the GOP re-elected?
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. "
Those commas around "aliens" are doing a lot of heavy lifting.
I first read that as "foreigners--i.e., aliens--who belong to the families of ambassadors...", which is different from considering "foreigners" and "aliens" as stand alone categories. The fact that the clause following "aliens" is subordinate argues in my favor. What does that clause mean without "aliens" being a part of it?
But a better argument is that the quoted paragraph does not refer to parentage except in the very clear and specific case of children born to diplomats. Regardless of the parents' status, the question of whether the child born on US soil is a foreigner or not can only be reasoned circularly.
Hey, not sure if I missed an "onward", but there is a new post.
onward
onward
So you're saying that the strongest support for the other side is JUDICIAL ACTIVISIM?
Larry,
This isn't the "gotcha" you seem to consider it, for the simple reason that I'm not a rw ideologue nor am I a rw "loyalist."
Sometimes, judicial activism has been beneficial. I'll cite decisions like Shelley v. Kraemer (which said racially restrictive covenants for property sales are unenforceable), or the Supreme court striking miscegnetion laws in Loving v. Virginia as beneficial examples of judicial activism.
Also, I'm not really annoyed at the court upholding birthright citizenship. We've interpreted it that way for a LONG time. I don't really have a problem with effectively requiring a constitutional amendment to change it. Changing it now by saying it's banned by the jurisdiction clause could create all kinds of legal absurdities.
My only point was that the 14th amendment's plain text isn't really clear. It could be interpreted multiple ways. Thus, originalism is the applicable rw philosophy. LWers want to call it "plain text" then say "everyone knew it meant native americans and diplomat kids." HELLO, that's a legal interpretation.
Carry this onward...
onward
Marx not only considered that social democracy/democratic socialism (i.e., managed redistributive capitalism) would arrest any workers' revolution, he wrote about it explicitly in his Critique of the Gotha Programme and elsewhere. FDR didn't invent social democracy -- it was prominent in 19th Century German throughout Marx's lifetime. Why would you say Marx never could have predicted it? He predicted it would fail, and he seems to have been correct about that.
Post a Comment