you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

The american people created a contract with the government. People submitted themselves VOLUNTARILY to be governed by a legal entity called the US government. That contract can be torn up at anytime if the people observe that the contract is not being held up. The constitution is really not being followed by the current elected officials.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

You're aware of Texas vs White (1869)?

The Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Technically it wasn't legal for them to secede in 1860 either by that logic. Secession isn't a legal right. It's a human right. If I can't voluntarily walk away then you are enslaving me and I have the right to resist that. May the strong win and the weak perish.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I can't voluntarily walk away then you are enslaving me and I have the right to resist that.

No, slavery is different from having to obey laws.

Slavery is being owned by another person and being forced to work for them under threat of violence.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Slavery is being owned by another person and being forced to work for them under threat of violence.

That's chatel slavery. There are other types of slavery like debt slavery, wage slavery, sexual slavery, indentured slavery, serfdom, etc. That being said I do think we are leaving the debt slavery phase of the empire and moving towards something closer to chatel slavery.

The average person is in violation of 3 or more federal laws every day. That's by design. That means at any time if the authorities don't like how a pleb is acting they can use lawfare. The cost to defend yourself in court today is outside of the means of the average person. Oligarchs know these two facts very well. Therefore when one of their slaves gets out of line they do impose violence (in the form of lawfare) against them. Once you're in prison you're totally fucked so a prison sentence is a VERY real threat of violence. Another way to look at what has happened to modern white people is a term called 'anarcho tyranny' which means the legal system that was meant to protect and grow the European people is being warped and turned on them and not used against people that exploit and attack them.

Here's an example

https://i.postimg.cc/3JqVM02y/1626554172192.jpg

No, slavery is different from having to obey laws.

I would just ask you if you believe in the mainstream narrative of the holocaust. If you do you'd probably recognize the right of European Jews to kill or do whatever is necessary to escape genocide. Is that a legal right for Jews or a right given to them by a larger power? I assert that whites have the same rights as Jews. Whites are not a sub caste of Jews despite their doctrines and propaganda and if we recognize as a group that our rights have been subverted, our people enslaved and genocided the 'law' of our enemy is no longer justified in any way. Not legally, morally or divinely.

Furthermore, within my catholic faith there are two traditions on violence. The first, some war is justified. You might know that as the 'just war' doctrine. But there is another less talked about Catholic tradition. According to Robert the Monk in 1095 at the council of Clermont Pope Urban the 2nd declared

Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey," was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens. She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven.

This was the birth of a new doctrine of Christianity. Not only are some wars just but at times God impels you to wage them and guides your hand.

Bottom Line. There are higher laws than man's laws. Not only is it just to oppose laws of evil men but we will all die with the stain of sin if we do NOT engage the enemies of our people. Never forget that Europeans (both as Pagans and Christians) are warriors, conquerors, and have turned violence towards our enemies into a high art. We will not be extinguished easily. There's a reason whites are still here.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You need to start having some original thought. If you are forced to follow laws under threat of violence, and these laws threaten your well being or those of others, then it's slavery. If you are coerced into using products and working with companies due to how the government chooses to interact with the populace (insurance, land agencies, banks, etc) then you are a slave.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you are forced to follow laws under threat of violence, and these laws threaten your well being or those of others, then it's slavery.

1) You get a say in the laws by exercising your democratic rights. Slaves don't have democratic rights.

2) I agree that violence is a crap way to enforce laws. I think that the removal of freedoms is the only appropriate punishment.

[–]insta 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Who cares about the constitution?

The 13th amendment has been twisted to mean "illegals can do whatever they want". Literally who cares what some document says. It's all power politics.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who cares about the constitution?

People who are predicting the break up of the USA in the 15 year time period.

Because they would have an idea of how, if the prediction is supposed to be taken seriously.

The 13th amendment has been twisted to mean "illegals can do whatever they want"

I'm not aware of that. Can you cite some of the cases that have done that?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People who are predicting the break up of the USA in the 15 year time period.

No, I don't care about the constitution at all. It's just a piece of paper.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you think it will break up?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know. There are many scenarios that are possible.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What are a few of the most likely?

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Anyone who thinks there's gonna be a breakup in 15 years are gun-owning retards who think they're gonna survive the purge but everyone else won't. They're morons who think their closet full of guns is gonna save them. I am so tired of those people. No, it's just going to be a slow decay. The only thing that might spark some sort of clash is honest to god full blown reparations, and I'm talking something some serious white-only income tax reparations or something. Other than that no, it'll just be the slow decay.

I'm not aware of that. Can you cite some of the cases that have done that?

Start with Plyler v. Doe and go from there

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So they can "do whatever they want", so long as they are children and what they want is to attend school to K-12?

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes, illegally brought over children has nothing to do with the emancipation of slaves.

You can agree that illegals children should go to school without bastardizing the 13th. Hence my first opinion, nobody gives a shit about the constitution; they just have their goals in mind and find post hoc rationalizations for it.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The ruling in Plyer vs Doe was based on the 14th amendment.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Because of the equal protection bit, and because children aren't guilty of their parent's illegal status.

That part of the 14th was written to stop states discriminating against Black Americans, but it's not the 13th.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, sorry 14th amendment I misspoke.

Again, I don't know what illegal children has to do with the emancipation of slaves and birthright citizenship. They basically said "Although this amendment applies to citizens, we'll make it apply to non-citizens because this is a political objective we'd like to achieve".

If you want illegal immigrant children to go to school, then write some legislation about it, don't fucking twist some amendment trying to address slavery to do that. Again, you have to separate what you might think about illegal immigrant children going to school and what the document actually says. Again, going back to my original point, this is why the constitution means fuck all.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The equal protection of the laws bit applies to "to any person within [the state's] jurisdiction."

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well without a compelling moral justification to stop them like slavery provided the North during the civil war who honestly would try to stop them? I'm not even advocating for secession and honestly don't really know a lot about the Texan issue but just saying it isn't legal isn't really that compelling and given the high levels of polarisation in America and the complete disconnect culturally between Texans and their rulers in Washington I think if the time comes issues of legality might be utterly meaningless.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Please explain how slavery was a morally compelling justification for succession.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Listen you illiterate faggot I was saying that slavery was a moral justification for the North during the civil war. Also it's 'secession' you utter retard.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You completely misread his comment. He meant the exact opposite; that the fact that the South wanted to preserve slavery was a morally compelling justification for the North/US to prevent the South from seceding. Nowadays, the US doesn't have this justification for preventing parts of the US from seceding anymore. Are you myopic or something?

[–]Republican58America First! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh fuck, I screwed up there sorry.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No problem, we all make mistakes sometimes.

[–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The other commentator has a major attitude and hostile stance towards me though, read his reply to my mistake.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, We the People can permit it, you damned office jockey.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You really can't.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fuck the constitution. Its just ink on paper. What really matters is if the men with guns can secrue a territory.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck the constitution. Its just ink on paper. What really matters is if the men with guns can secrue a territory.

Are they allowed to get guns?