Nazis and alt-right fedoralords

Nazis and alt-right fedoralords,

Why do you hate the Constitution, liberty, individualism and freedom?

Also, why do you never get any pussy?

Do you think there is a correlation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/gQNf97GZjuA?t=824
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/48324/?client=safari
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I got too much pussy and now my dick is itchy all the time. Stay virginal Sup Forums do not be fooled by the Lubricated Jew

Because I love my people, I just want a future for white children.

>"alt-right"
>fedoralords
Pick One.

All these CTR schills who stuck around on Sup Forums after their invasion attempt ended.

That's how my journey began.

Because they've turned the constitution into toilet paper and liberty is on life support. The republic has become an abstract utopian fantasy. I'll take fascism over communism.

>the founding fathers would ever have accepted these foreign hordes
lel, even lincoln wanted to deport the slaves

The constitution was written with only the white man in mind.

If you founding father dipshits didn't import 3rd world savages to pick your tobacco we could have lived in a white libertarian paradise, but you ruined it.

turns out the system it created could easily be subverted by communists, satanists, sexual perverts and (((global))) influence.

All the great empires utilize slavery. The problems arise when lefties start to think animals are equal to people.

Animals, really? Besides the extent to which we are all animals. A black man is objectively a human being, homo sapiens. They have demonstrated that they are capable of sentient thought, the ability to learn, the ability to communicate through language, and perhaps most importantly, an innate desire to be free.

In the entire history of domesticated animals, there has never been a single revolt. By contrast, every slave civilization has endured countless revolts. In the case of Haiti, they even succeeded in forcefully expelling their White masters from the island and founding an independent nation. They won not out of sympathy from their overlords; they won it by the use of overwhelming united force. No lower animal is even remotely capable of that.

So really, give this whole "animal" thing a rest already. That should have died in the 1700s.

The founding fathers established this nation under the premise that it would stay predominantly white. If they were alive today to see the (((Federal Reserve))) and its (((usury))) as well as the 60% white demographic, they'd be advocating for fierce authoritarianism to set things straight as well.

Nazis aren't totally against individualism, though.

The founding fathers would have been considered alt-right

Hell, a good amount of the founding fathers didn't even like Germans. They had a clear sense of who would be good for society. i.e. Nearly all of them were racialist

Koko the gorilla was capable of sentient thought.

The founders were white nationalists, retard.

no they wouldnt

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

delusional

They created a nation where only white people could be citizens. That's white nationalism.

That quote was stated under the assumption of a 100% white nation.

I also fail to see how whites rising up and ousting shitskins is compromising their own liberty? If anything, it's the exact opposite.

'hwite' isn't a nation, a nation means common descent, history, culture, or language.

You could say they were english or anglo nationalists.

Actually that's probably false. Koko never demonstrated any deeper understanding of what she was communicating with ASL. Elaborate operant conditioning is markedly different than sentience. Her capabilities are, even at their most charitably described, are those of a small child. She certainly could not start caching arms and unite with the other gorillas to start a revolt. Therefore, she does not have her own /force of history/ that humans possess.

Are you fucking retarded? If they were anglo nationalists, then they only would have allowed in anglos.

Daily reminder that the founding fathers only allowed rich white men to vote. Our nation started as a aristocratic, elitist pseudo-republic.

the right to liberty is not a collective one of all whites

it is an individual right of all men

What part of the Constitution prevented non-whites from becoming citizens?

Wrong, it's not that they only "allowed" rich white men to vote. It was that these were the only people deemed "capable" of voting.

The difference is stark and matters.

First of all, all the liberty and freedom goodies in the Constitution were only supposed to be granted to White men. The Founders deemed that so axiomatic that they didn't even bother to explicitly say it.

Second, I don't hate individualism and freedom. But it is foolish to think that they are not luxuries of a virtuous society based on honor. You can't afford to be individualistic in a fight against a pack of niggers. Honor is a concept foreign to shitskins, which is why civic nationalism is a joke of an ideology. If you want nice social attributes like liberty, individualism, intellectualism, and prosperity, then we must retain a White majority in both population and political influence.

Third, I'm chatting up a girl on Tinder right now. Looks like it'll be a white Christmas

I apologize. "Animal" is unkind. I ammend my previous statement to "sub-human"

And actually, if I recall, the Northern states allowed sufficently wealthy freedmen to vote. Not that there were very many of them, but there were some.

Of course, it was ultimately the White supremacist in chief, Andrew Jackson, who helped knock down the property qualification to voting so he could amass the support of poor Whites for his election campaign.

>First of all, all the liberty and freedom goodies in the Constitution were only supposed to be granted to White men. The Founders deemed that so axiomatic that they didn't even bother to explicitly say it.

You lot have yet to prove this. Evidence?

>Second, I don't hate individualism and freedom. But it is foolish to think that they are not luxuries of a virtuous society based on honor.

They are constant, unalienable natural rights.
The ends do not justify the means. I believe in these eternal principles so deeply that I am willing to lose to maintain them. I will not stoop to the level of any nigger to win.

youtu.be/gQNf97GZjuA?t=824

>constitution
Piece of toliet paper

>liberty
LOL

>individualism
You mean autism? ALWAYS UNIQUE TOTALLY AWESOME SOMETIMES MYSTERIOUS

>freedom
More like freedumb?

>why do you never get pussy
Because feminism

youtu.be/gQNf97GZjuA?t=824

13:44

>alt-right
>something that isn't controlled opposition spoon-fed propaganda

Nice b8. Also, James Madison would be fucking pissed. Quit being a cunt.

...

Only whites are human.

You're forgetting that basic presumption our founding fathers established the constitution upon.

>You lot have yet to prove this. Evidence?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

>Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."

- Benjamin Franklin

>"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [African-American slaves] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers.”

-Thomas Jefferson

I have more if you want

>actually respecting the founding fathers
Oh you're trolling nvm

You keep making this claim without evidence.

Show me the passages in which Jefferson, John Jay, Hamilton and Madison proclaimed all non-whites are not human persons.

Which treatises, essays, books or speeches are those quotes from?

Franklin quote is from an essay called "Observations Concerning the Increase of mankind".

Jefferson quote is from his autobiography.

lrn 2 google

Shitposting aside. The founding fathers didn't explicitly say "white" in the constitution because such racial distinction wasn't popularized back then. Identification based on ethnicity was more common than the notion of "race" which in of itself is a 19th/20th century abstraction.

I would argue that the founding fathers intended liberties were to be granted to all men paying taxes to government, and that the biggest mistake (alternation) modern America has made was expanding the right to vote to non-property owning citizens. A republic needs an electorate of exceptional caliber in education to elect exceptional people, however if the electorate is uninformed/uneducated then the representatives will easily abuse their power.

They don't. Remember you're on Sup Forums, these fucking morons can barely wipe their own asses much less comprehend history.

>I would argue that the founding fathers intended liberties were to be granted to all men paying taxes to government

You'd argue wrong because various laws and works written by the founders shows that they only wanted whites as citizens. See:

Yes, I certainly have noticed a number of women are turned off when I interrupt them mid-treatise on Constitutional liberty and assert that Hitler was the Savior of Humaity.

kek

The founding fathers intended for natural unalienable rights to be protected for all men against infringement by a government. Rights are not granted or taken, they are protected or infringed upon.

because your values have led to what we have now. degeneration and social chaos in the name of muh liberties and individualism. it was a nice experiment, but one that was ultimately misguided and wrong

>i dont like the outcome
>thus it was wrong

consequentialists need to die t b h

It's hilarious if you seriously consider the quote for Benjamin Franklin a valid argument to your point. If anything he was advocating Anglo-Saxon supremacy, not white supremacy. I can understand your confusion though because he did use the term white, but if you read closely the definition of white in context here is far different from the modern term. For example he calls Italians, French, Russian, Swedes, and Germans of "swarthy complexion" and says Saxons are the exception. He then goes on and says, Saxons, are the superior beings and should have more in numbers.

That Thomas Jefferson quote however is valid, and I can't argue against it without mental gymnastics. I'll have to save that for later.

The founding fathers were smart to ingrain the concept of rights with God in order to preserve them, and I agree that is what they intended. However, the materialist in me can't help but say rights aren't natural nor are they unalienable. I want nothing more to say that, but I feel saying so is logically inconsistent from the truth of real life.

The sole cause of the social chaos we have is the industrial revolution. Women wouldn't have rights/their modern social standing as they have today if they weren't capable of sustaining themselves financially and physically.

In all honesty I believe a Bureau of Culture should be created to create cultural propaganda aka instilling positive societal values at a young age. Values such as patriotism, context of history, social expectations, and cultural traditions.

>Why do you hate the Constitution, liberty, individualism and freedom?

What's good about it?

You know you shouldn't ignore the benefits of individual rights because of the rampant degeneracy in modern times. You can have one without the other if you can setup a proper government.

Perhaps a synthesis of cultural tradition with individualism is needed?

the truth of real life is deontological ethics and natural law

materialism is autism

>these "civic nationalists" think the founding fathers would support a fascist
They were classical liberals m8s.

Or just restore the republic instead of going full retard in either of those directions.

I kinda agree, I dont know why so many people here hate our constitution. They all seems to want to spread their anus for some fucktard dictator.

Interesting how you pick and chose which quotes of a Franklin you want to listen too...

google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/48324/?client=safari

>will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

>Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Benjamin Franklin was an White nationalist and even more curiosity he equated being white with being Anglo or Saxon. He would abhors the swarthy hordes currently residing in our country, he didn't even believe swedes and most Germans were white enough.

But go on, pick and chose your quotes from the founding fathers if it doesn't fit in with your modern paradigm.

because gas the kikes race war now

>You know you shouldn't ignore the benefits of individual rights because of the rampant degeneracy in modern times.
Why not? That seems like the best reason to ignore democracy, individual rights and other such spooks.

In support of OP:

The Constitution is "America", it why we are the way we are, it is the dream, it is what differentiates us and other western nations. It is the operating system of America. Once the Constitution is ignored we are no longer America, we are another cucked nation that changed government form.

Many of you want to protect the white race. If the government needs to step in to protect then maybe they do not deserve to continue. With freedom and the Constitution we can let race superiority run its course; to its own ways. If white are truly superior they will make it through this; in the long run other races will fade away a la social darwinism. You got to work for your gene continuation. Fascists are a bunch of cry babies that want the government to do the work for them. If you want it, do it, take it.

Flag should be America, but things.

I understand why you would prefer to believe absolute truths over empirical observations as absolute truths is a reactionary belief that is completely at odds with Cultural Marxism.

The problem I have with deontological ethics is that, from my observations, rules and ethics are abstract concepts enforced by a superior authority (both physical and spiritual aka abstractly) that are designed to align the self interest of the individual with the collective. That is their sole purpose and the reason they exist in our world. The notion that there are absolute ethics and rules that transcend the relative self-interest of the individual in varying particularly moments is not only ignorant of the varying situations humans find themselves in, but is a notion that goes against human nature. Human nature, in observation, is not based upon individual duties but rather self-interest/survival. It is based upon the individual picking the most beneficial choice at all times for themselves.

What is the most beneficial choice? Well that's another argument entirely. I can ensure you though I don't mean buying 10 sports cars instead of paying money for your Uncle's cancer treatment.

It's hard to argue against this because there are multiple forms of deontological ethics. So I'll go through it one by one.

>Kantianism
Regardless of intent and duty, the consequences of every action are what matters in a society. Besides the intent of most humans the majority of the time is a form of self-interest or fulfilling a psychological need. Imposing a bestowed upon duty is just an abstract concept enforced by a collective to make an individuals self-interest conform to the self-interest of the collective via fear of punishment. I hope this makes sense.

>moral absolutism
Does an individual have the same ethical duties in the wild as in an Athenian democracy?

>Divine command theory
I'm not arguing with this to save characters for this post.

*Drops trou and farts into a microphone because it's muh constitootinul right*
Dog bless.

>Also, why do you never get any pussy?

nice veil

Normie get out

>Why do you hate the Constitution, liberty, individualism and freedom?

Thems for landed white men. Not all these other miscreants.

>Sup Forums is one person

You do realize that there are over 50 million Americans that are not white? Realistically, how are you going to get "rid" of them without A) killing them, B) deporting them, or C) implementing direct racial population control? All of these things are illogical and not pragmatic.

If your theory is correct and whites are the only people with enough intellectual prowess to be considered human, why would a system of constitutionalism and liberty be wrong? Wouldn't they all be crushed by market forces?

If whites are superior minorities would have no luck succeeding in an individualist nation and they'd leave.

Not him, but one word: Miscegenation.

Also they wouldn't leave if they didn't make it in America. They would probably stay and soak up resources.

However, I do think most minorities have the intellectual capacity to operate in society. Just pointing out the holes in your argument.

We don't hate it. Its just "muh constitution" and "mi founding fathers" are so directly tied to cuckservatives who made it gay and uncool. In about 6 years we will return to it.