you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

North America was settled and founded by christian religious extremists (quakers, etc) who valued "religious freedom" compared to Anglican and other predominant christian denominations in Europe. Which, at that time, mostly had state-sanctioned religious sects and morals. And this "religious freedom" is reflected in the Constitution for that reason, in the context of the time

However, they didn't enshrine other important things like "whites only" or "christians only" - but probably because they simply could never conceive of the idea that such "tolerances" could ever be allowed. Even Charles Pinckney, the last surviving member of of the signing of the Constitution at the time, said on black citizenship

I was the only member of that body that ever submitted the plan of a constitution completely drawn in articles and sections; and this having been done at a very early state of their proceedings, the article on which now so much stress is laid, and on the meaning of which the whole of this question is made to turn, and which is in these words: "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in every State," having been made by me, it is supposed I must know, or perfectly recollect, what I meant by it. In answer, I say, that, at the time I drew that constitution, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it; nor, notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject, do I now believe one does exist in it.

Given the comparatively "extreme" nature of this statement in modern times, we can reasonably infer that the founders very clearly envisioned the US to be an exclusively white, christian nation. As to why they did not say this explicitly in the constitution, no one can say for sure - but we know they would find this extremely regrettable now

Also - "Conceived in White Nationalism" - AltHype

I also don't personally identify as christian, FTR

[–]la_cues[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Good reply. Absolutely ridiculous to say it's not conceivable that these people could be considered or treated as people.

A side note, as someone who feels very much in line with Quaker values it's funny to see them described as extreme, although I get what you mean.

From what I recall, Quakers were early to publicly decry slavery and restrictions on women, and lift discrimination in their communities.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Absolutely ridiculous to say it's not conceivable that these people could be considered or treated as people

Maybe. Yet, they weren't for centuries up until 150 years ago or so, at best. Long after the signing.

as someone who feels very much in line with Quaker values

I meant to say "puritans" not "quakers" - but I don't think it makes much of a difference, and I don't know much about the particulars of different sects of christians who left Europe at the time. But, the fact remains - "America" was founded mostly by what we could call religious extremists (at the time), who were often discriminated against in their home countries, and left for "religious freedom" (win-win for the crown, too - get rid religious dissidents, maybe get a profitable colony) but this idea of "religious freedom" should not be trivialized. It's not just about what you "believe." They were extremely strict about their observances, and it dictated every aspect of their life. For instance - you may think you have values in common with them, but I doubt you dress in black with buckles every day

From what I recall, Quakers were early to publicly decry slavery and restrictions on women

"Maybe" I don't know. But in any case, the main point is this:

If you are a "constitutionalist" or "libertarian" who endorses modern globohomo multiracialism or immigration, but claim to to represent the founders intent based on the Constitution, then you are lying to yourself and others. For example, leftists say we need to restrict firearms, because "the founders never anticipated automatic weapons" or something like that. This is obviously true - but not a good reason to ban guns. Constitutionalists will decry leftists attempts at this (rightfully, based on the 2nd) - but yet, at the same time, defend multiracialism/multiculturism because it isn't literally written down in the Constitution as being forbidden, despite the fact "the founders" very clearly would have never endorsed this. Just because they didn't anticipate the ideas of "multiculturalism" or "multiracialism" or even "black citizenship" (because they were incredulous) doesn't mean they wouldn't have, had they ever known these could be things (and the historical record decisively proves this).

A nation founded by white, protestant christians that owned slaves, that clearly never endorsed black citizenship, in 1780, clearly did not intend for their nation to become a multiracial/multicultural/multireligious hellhole. Constitutionalists might be able to honestly represent the Constitution itself - but they cannot honestly represent the "founders intent." They are hiding behind a sacred piece of paper, pretending that this document alone is actually what they intended - despite all contemporary evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we much more closely represent the intent of "the founders" - not Constitutionalists - and they will have to live with that hypocrisy (and the consequences) forever. Unfortunately, so will we

[–]la_cues[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't think that the Constitution was drafted in order to be even higher above their own moral standards?

It actually isn't an ideal, all equal and free, amazing thing to strive for?

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

You don't think that the Constitution was drafted in order to be even higher above their own moral standards?

What do you mean? Objectively, the people who founded the Constitution did not believe in "racial equality," whatever that is supposed to be. Their own statements - such as Pinckney's - prove this

It actually isn't an ideal, all equal and free, amazing thing to strive for?

Yeah that sounds great and all - but the reality is, right now, you have to pay for black welfare qweenz and wars for Israel. You don't live in a lolbert wonderland. So, WTF are you gonna do now?

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

you have to pay for black welfare qweenz and wars for Israel.

Bummer for la_cues, but that's a taxpayer problem.

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

It's questionable whether they're legitimate human beings.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Quakers also played a big and regrettable role in basically tricking whites in major cities into renting to blacks in the 50's and 60's. The places where they did this are now wastelands where black crime is the rule and social dysfunction reigns. Thanks Quakers! (I actually like quakers mostly but they are basically SJW's with bibles.)

E. Michael Jones has some good articles on quaker blockbusting if you're interested.

You mention their opposition to restrictions on women though and I wanted to ask you whether you think lifting those restrictions has been a benefit or a loss to society in general.

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

Undoubtedly.

All people equal, all people have the light of God/spirit within them. Enlightenment is possible for all.

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

OK so explain to me how it's undoubtedly been a benefit to society.