If you are disliked because of your race...

[Montrovant]

What term do you use when talking about individuals who consider themselves and their race superior to members of another race?

EVERYBODY thinks they are a part of a group that is superior in one way or another. Race is no different than those who think their gang or their football team is better.

And don't patronize the left with what you're about to say. One of the worst wars of our lifetimes came between Honduras and Nicaragua over a disputed score... in a soccer game.

If people all over the world thought that all groups were equal, Zimbabwe would not be 99.7 percent African; China would not be 98.5 percent Han Chinese; North Korea would not be 98 percent Koreans; Japan would not be one of the most racially segregated countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is 90 percent Arabs and only 10 percent blacks (when talking about citizens.)

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

You cannot point to any logical reason why Americans cannot have their own communities and remain homogeneous. Your utopia is no more relevant that any other guy's.

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

 

[Humorme]

EVERYBODY thinks they are a part of a group that is superior in one way or another. Race is no different than those who think their gang or their football team is better.

And don't patronize the left with what you're about to say. One of the worst wars of our lifetimes came between Honduras and Nicaragua over a disputed score... in a soccer game.

If people all over the world thought that all groups were equal, Zimbabwe would not be 99.7 percent African; China would not be 98.5 percent Han Chinese; North Korea would not be 98 percent Koreans; Japan would not be one of the most racially segregated countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is 90 percent Arabs and only 10 percent blacks (when talking about citizens.)

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

You cannot point to any logical reason why Americans cannot have their own communities and remain homogeneous. Your utopia is no more relevant that any other guy's.

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

 

[Montrovant]

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

You cannot point to any logical reason why Americans cannot have their own communities and remain homogeneous. Your utopia is no more relevant that any other guy's.

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

 

[Humorme]

You cannot point to any logical reason why Americans cannot have their own communities and remain homogeneous. Your utopia is no more relevant that any other guy's.

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

 

[Montrovant]

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

 

[Humorme]

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

That is irrelevant. Race is but one factor - as I stated in the roots of our Anglo Saxon system of jurisprudence. Remember what I said in my earlier post. Now from another mainstream source:

"Anglo-Saxon law was indirect and exerted primarily through the church."

Anglo-Saxon law

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

 

[Montrovant]

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

That is irrelevant. Race is but one factor - as I stated in the roots of our Anglo Saxon system of jurisprudence. Remember what I said in my earlier post. Now from another mainstream source:

"Anglo-Saxon law was indirect and exerted primarily through the church."

Anglo-Saxon law

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

Irrelevant? You have the one who has tried to connect race to family, and pointed out that you "find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments" if they are of the same race. I pointed out that having the same race as another person is not actually something that gives you much in common with that person.

I'm not actually sure what your point is with these posts. Are you calling for some sort of forced segregation by race? The removal of non-whites from the country?

 

[Unkotare]

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

You cannot point to any logical reason why Americans cannot have their own communities and remain homogeneous. Your utopia is no more relevant that any other guy's.

Those communities can be racially homogeneous. America as a whole, on the other hand, simply is not, based on the definition of the word.

I didn't say anything about a utopia. You keep bringing things up I have not mentioned.

But you do realize that our Constitution was specifically designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

Every claim in that post is false.

 

[Unkotare]

What is your point? I didn't realize were were talking about the founding of the country.

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

 

[Humorme]

In post # 31 you wrote:

"Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be."

RESPONSE: Let's not beat around the bush. We disagree. Throughout history when nations begin mixing cultures, religions, races, political viewpoints, economic viewpoints, etc. then the nation collapses. It's part of the cycles of history.

Every time we turn around, someone is trying to end the culture that was established in this country. People have a problem with the religion that was at the forefront of our culture; virtually everybody is now rejecting the constitutional Republic; for anyone to even suggest that they want to promote, defend or otherwise preserve their cultural / racial heritage when it is white, it becomes problematic for the left.

The multiculturalists put those little emotion laden buzz terms out there so they sound all academic ("systemic racism" was one I saw used here.) In reality, they are opposed to ANY group of people who concern themselves with the protection of the white race.

So, having bullied, buffaloed and successfully transformed the bulk of the whites into self loathing robots, the only people credited with working on behalf of the whites are the white nationalists, alt-right, etc. From what I see, those groups are not Christian, not constitutionalists, and not concerned with the First Principles of our nation. But, since the left controls the news and entertainment media, those people are the only ones who get air time to promote their agenda.

The left has waged one war after another against the whites from the war on the Confederate flag to removing statues, monuments and memorials that depict whites. Plans are to take the white faces off our currency and replace it with black faces. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are now pressuring employers to fire any white that is not on board with the multicultural bandwagon. Web hosts are being pressured not to do business with whites. YouTube put the ADL in charge of getting rid of pro-white videos while Facebook took the verified status away from white activists.

Of course, when whites refused to provide services to blacks, they held sit ins and complained about the racism. Today, the only people willing to stand up to the black racists are extremists who worship their race, losing sight of the bigger picture. And that is where we are.

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

 

[Unkotare]

First, I thought we were talking about race, not culture. There is a big difference between racial homogeneity and cultural homogeneity.

I find the concept of racial pride, or concern over racial heritage, to be baffling. Pride has long seemed like a misused term, as a person has no say in the race they are born as (this applies to other things like ethnicity). Similarly, why does racial heritage matter? Again, a person has no say in their race, and whatever may have been done by members of one's race, each person still has to make their own choices in life. I find it equally baffling whether the person has pride in being black, or white, or Asian, etc.

I don't mind cultural norms, so long as they are not enforced by the government. There are exceptions to this, of course, but speaking generally, I believe that conforming to a culture should be based on societal pressure, but not the law. By the same token, I don't believe in government forcing anyone to be multicultural. Again, there are exceptions (such as allowing a college student to wear the religious jewelry of their choice, for example), but in general I prefer the government stay out of deciding what sort of culture an individual chooses to be part of.

I don't know about the examples you gave. I would need more specifics to be able to really comment about them.

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

 

[Humorme]

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

I asked how many state constitutions you wanted me to quote from. You said one. Which one?

As you admitted, the U.S. Constitution only counted non-whites as three fifths of a person.

Then you get all mixed up. The Declaration of Independence lists unalienable Rights and these belong to ALL people - legal, illegal, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. they are all covered.

Citizenship is not an unalienable Right.

BEFORE the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled. Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here is the opening paragraphs from that decision:

"The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." Dred Scott v. Stanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

While everyone is entitled to unalienable Rights, this country was founded for whites and for their benefit.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone who can distinguish their ass from their elbow knows that Dred Scott is most well-known as the worst decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court.

Googling doesn't mean you understand anything. Most of my students learn this pretty quickly.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Every generation or so we try to play semantics and change the meaning of words. America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.

On page 9 of THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM* by GEORGE JARVIS THOMPSON:

"...this article presents in brief compass the story of the origin and development of the English courts from approximately the year iooo A. D. to their complete reorganization under the Judicature Acts of 1873-75."
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr

Bottom line here: the foundation of our legal system lies in Anglo Saxon (white people) principles.

In most of the earliest state constitutions in the United States one had to be a Protestant of the white race in order to be able to vote, hold public office or run for office.

Just as in any of the countries I cited in previous posts, our DNA, just like theirs was the constant in the founding of our nation.

You have your opinion: others have theirs. I find it easier to applaud people for accomplishments when I have things in common with them... like family and then race (since we share more commonalities than others.) I can't get into football just because someone from my area is wearing the right jersey. He might be a pagan communist from a hate filled terrorist enclave. But, if all the players were from the area they played in and had some connection to it, it might interest me then.

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

Haha, so what was the Naturalization Act of 1790 about when it specifically stated that only free Whites of good character were to become U.S citizens?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

I asked how many state constitutions you wanted me to quote from. You said one. Which one?

As you admitted, the U.S. Constitution only counted non-whites as three fifths of a person.

Then you get all mixed up. The Declaration of Independence lists unalienable Rights and these belong to ALL people - legal, illegal, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. they are all covered.

Citizenship is not an unalienable Right.

BEFORE the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled. Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here is the opening paragraphs from that decision:

"The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." Dred Scott v. Stanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

While everyone is entitled to unalienable Rights, this country was founded for whites and for their benefit.

Well, Blacks weren't citizens until after the Civil War, and Native Americans weren't citizens until the early 20th century.

 

[Humorme]

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

I asked how many state constitutions you wanted me to quote from. You said one. Which one?

As you admitted, the U.S. Constitution only counted non-whites as three fifths of a person.

Then you get all mixed up. The Declaration of Independence lists unalienable Rights and these belong to ALL people - legal, illegal, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. they are all covered.

Citizenship is not an unalienable Right.

BEFORE the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled. Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here is the opening paragraphs from that decision:

"The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." Dred Scott v. Stanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

While everyone is entitled to unalienable Rights, this country was founded for whites and for their benefit.

Well, Blacks weren't citizens until after the Civil War, and Native Americans weren't citizens until the early 20th century.

It cannot disputed by any honest person researching our country's history: America was intended to be for the preservation, defense, and advancement of the whites.

Only in America, of every nation in the world, is that presented as a bad / evil thing. Consequently, the response is going to be to disenfranchise the whites at every level and punish the posterity of the founding fathers while destroying the Republic our forefathers established here.

 

[Montrovant]

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

I asked how many state constitutions you wanted me to quote from. You said one. Which one?

As you admitted, the U.S. Constitution only counted non-whites as three fifths of a person.

Then you get all mixed up. The Declaration of Independence lists unalienable Rights and these belong to ALL people - legal, illegal, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. they are all covered.

Citizenship is not an unalienable Right.

BEFORE the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled. Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here is the opening paragraphs from that decision:

"The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." Dred Scott v. Stanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

While everyone is entitled to unalienable Rights, this country was founded for whites and for their benefit.

Well, Blacks weren't citizens until after the Civil War, and Native Americans weren't citizens until the early 20th century.

It cannot disputed by any honest person researching our country's history: America was intended to be for the preservation, defense, and advancement of the whites.

Only in America, of every nation in the world, is that presented as a bad / evil thing. Consequently, the response is going to be to disenfranchise the whites at every level and punish the posterity of the founding fathers while destroying the Republic our forefathers established here.

By your reasoning, the republic established here was destroyed many years ago.

What you seem unwilling to accept is that nations change over time. In the US, that includes moving away from a nation in which power is almost exclusively in the hands of white men. Are you saying you think the nation should go back to that dynamic?

As Unkotare pointed out, Dred Scott is widely considered one of the worst decisions ever made by the USSC, so quoting from it is unlikely to sway anyone's thinking.

Oh, and I wonder, do you feel qualified to speak about how every nation in the world feels about the US being for the preservation, defense, and advancement of whites?

 

[Unkotare]

If you think sharing a race with someone automatically gives you much in common, I don't think you've truly considered the issue very deeply. Race gives some minor physical traits in common, nothing more. For example, do you think you have much in common with a Chechnyan Muslim woman if she happens to be caucasian (I assume you are white based on your posts, and apologize if I am mistaken). What about a Icelandic pagan man who is a member of their Left-Green party?

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

Haha, so what was the Naturalization Act of 1790 about when it specifically stated that only free Whites of good character were to become U.S citizens?

Haha, do you understand what “principles” are?

 

[Unkotare]

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

Just one. Try the Amendments if you need help understanding why we don't still practice slavery or count some people as only 3/5ths of a person. Peruse the Declaration of Independence if you need further clarity.

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

I asked how many state constitutions you wanted me to quote from. You said one. Which one?

As you admitted, the U.S. Constitution only counted non-whites as three fifths of a person.

Then you get all mixed up. The Declaration of Independence lists unalienable Rights and these belong to ALL people - legal, illegal, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. they are all covered.

Citizenship is not an unalienable Right.

BEFORE the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court ruled. Roger Taney delivered the opinion of the Court. Here is the opening paragraphs from that decision:

"The question is simply this: Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied(sic) by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." Dred Scott v. Stanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

https://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/dredscott_v_sandford.pdf

While everyone is entitled to unalienable Rights, this country was founded for whites and for their benefit.

Well, Blacks weren't citizens until after the Civil War, and Native Americans weren't citizens until the early 20th century.

It cannot disputed by any honest person researching our country's history: America was intended to be for the preservation, defense, and advancement of the whites.

Only in America, of every nation in the world, is that presented as a bad / evil thing. Consequently, the response is going to be to disenfranchise the whites at every level and punish the posterity of the founding fathers while destroying the Republic our forefathers established here.

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

America's roots are based on race and religion, among other factors... the race being a part of our culture

That is 100% false, and demonstrates a deep ignorance of my great nation.

If anyone is ignorant about race being a part of our culture, it would be you.

I couldn't find out what state you live in, but let's take California as an example. Mexico ceded California in 1848. The first Constitution of California (1849) reads:

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law."

How many state constitutions would you like me to quote from?

"America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way."

- Ronald Reagan

Haha, so what was the Naturalization Act of 1790 about when it specifically stated that only free Whites of good character were to become U.S citizens?

Haha, do you understand what “principles” are?

You don't grasp that a country that only accepts free Whites of good character as citizens is White supremacist?