However, the USA is not one of those states, it is explicitly an ideological state. And if anyone tries to turn the USA into an ethnostate, I'm joining the resistance and going 2nd Amendment on their ass.
Yeah those naturalization acts passed by the founding fathers were totally ideological and all-inclusive. When people say America was racist in its founding, they weren't wrong. Frankly, naturalization in this country was set up to basically ensure a white majority until 1965. Even then, the act was passed on the promise that it would not change the demographics of the country. The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce. Some founders seemed to have believed in it, like Washington, but the majority of people won out and the restrictive acts were passed. Even then it's tough to say if the people who did believe in the whole proposition nation thing ever wanted anyone but well to do white men to be citizens with the ability to vote rather than just workers. You can like how it is now better if you want, but don't pretend it was set up to be this way because that's just historical revisionism.
There's also a lot of spergery about what "...to ourselves and our posterity..." means in the preamble to the constitution, but that's a bit more murky.
I think we need to specify if we are a Nazi according to Tumblr, or a Nazi according to /pol/. The meaning of this shit keeps changing, like the word faggot. One day it means bundle of sticks and the next day it means you want to have anal intercourse with your fellow man.
I'm fairly certain /pol/ would call me a commie and Tumblr would call me a nazi.
For example, if I was walking in the inner city and had me some delicious KFC in a to go cup in hand while coming upon a homeless black man begging for food or money, what should I do? Some people might say offering a black man some fried chicken and a side of watermelon is racist, while others might say that it's very kind to feed the homeless.
Why can't it be both? People can have disdain for others who are not like them, stereotype these individuals, and judge them -- as I believe is completely natural to do. But they don't have to want to put them into camps. At the same time I believe it is completely possible that these people can show genuine kindness toward people of other races.
If our subject were to give a black man some KFC you could rationalize they don't really care about him since they are indeed racist. But perhaps care about their city? Perhaps they care about the appearance of my streets or another aspect? Maybe the man reminded them of someone? Or they wished to commit their good deed for the day? One has to remember that Germany wasn't 100% full of sadistic killers in the 1930s and 40s. I see no difference now in the way people may be swept up by more extreme ideals.
That being said, if anyone has any info about an ethnostate, feel free to dm me.
Literally the point of Community Watch, and any lolcow thread really, is to laugh at the subjects of the threads. So, for example, TDS thread is for laughing at anti-Trump cringe and The_Donald, while more specifically focused on that subreddit, is for laughing at pro-Trump cringe. If you white knight for the thread subject you're doing it wrong (god knows I look like a retard when I do it)
Now of course where things get hairy is when we can acknowledge that a topic deserves a thread but can't agree on if a certain post is an example (there's no consensus on when simple disagreement with/support for Trump crosses the line into TDS/reverse TDS). So that can lead to arguments in the thread without the thread getting plagued.
Oh, wait, this has nothing to do with this thread topic. Er, uh, Nazis are dumb and I would not sex with them.*
Yeah those naturalization acts passed by the founding fathers were totally ideological and all-inclusive. When people say America was racist in its founding, they weren't wrong. Frankly, naturalization in this country was set up to basically ensure a white majority until 1965. Even then, the act was passed on the promise that it would not change the demographics of the country. The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce. Some founders seemed to have believed in it, like Washington, but the majority of people won out and the restrictive acts were passed. Even then it's tough to say if the people who did believe in the whole proposition nation thing ever wanted anyone but well to do white men to be citizens with the ability to vote rather than just workers. You can like how it is now better if you want, but don't pretend it was set up to be this way because that's just historical revisionism.
There's also a lot of spergery about what "...to ourselves and our posterity..." means in the preamble to the constitution, but that's a bit more murky.
This is something both sides of the political aisle get wrong when talking about immigration. TL;DR naturalization and immigration laws tend to be more about speed than about race.
Leaving aside the differences in racial attitudes between 1789 and today, there's a couple of unarguable facts:
The 13 colonies were British colonies, with some French/German/Dutch colonists absorbed into them. Gaining independence left the makeup of the people unchanged, only the political system changed.
The racial differences in 1789 were literal national differences. Indians had their own nationality and political systems. Blacks were "imported" as slaves/indentured servants, who are generally never citizens in any political system going back to the ancient Greeks, regardless of race.
The US Constitution, the foundation of nationhood, citizenship, and naturalization laws, does not bar any race from inclusion in citizenship. The only time race was mentioned was "Indians not taxed", which was a technical term for Indians who were already part of their own nation (and thus were exempt from US taxes/laws).
The People in 1776 were not "white"; they were British. The Founders broke off that association because they felt more "American", by being estranged from the home country. So the laws passed in 1790 reflected a first stab at redefining that identity, without trying to radically change the underlying society with top-down laws. (This is an important point for later.)
The naturalization acts over the centuries responded to the practical need to draw distinctions as the country grew. But even the most restrictive naturalization laws did not disenfranchise natural born citizens of other races. Restrictive and racist though they were, these laws never attempted to define down the liberal, ideological definition of the underlying People.
Long analysis short, the history of the US is not one of unrestricted immigration. It is one of accepted immigration at the presumed rate of assimilation. Anti-immigration sentiment flares up whenever the populace feels some group isn't assimilating before more come: Irish, then Asians, then Mexicans, then "brown Muslims", now South Americans, etc.
The famous "melting pot" simmers, as it breaks down the components over time. You don't dump a distinct chunk into it, then another before the first one melts into homogeneity.
The American approach to race, nationality, immigration, slavery, and citizenship is one integrated throughout the entirety of the American system: incremental change that reflects how society develops, not one that tries to direct society.
It's why the Constitutional system in 1789 incorporated the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, colony charters, English common law, colonial slavery laws, etc. All of these were included from the start then slowly replaced over time, sometimes with huge effects at some turning point.
If you look at the history of US citizenship/immigration laws, they tell a similar story: a slowly evolving society that lashes out with restrictions any time something happens too fast. Such as the Chinese Exclusion Act after the number of Chinese immigrants doubled over 10 years. The biggest "shock" in there is the 14th Amendment, and that was only possible after 4 years of bloody civil war.
And that's the story of the nation: an ideological basis for The People, while the society that People organizes tries to evolve slowly, carefully, in a republican fashion instead of a democratic one. Pointing out racist restrictions is fair, but those restrictions never changed the ideological basis.
I'm a nationalist but I don't really give a fuck about race.
If you love your country (not the government because they only use us) and will strive to make it better then I accept you.
The answer is zero. Do you hear that mainstream media? ZERO! None. Nada. SPLC, ADL, NAACP, and all other silly abbreviation groups, please move along. Nothing to see here.
This is something both sides of the political aisle get wrong when talking about immigration. TL;DR naturalization and immigration laws tend to be more about speed than about race.
Leaving aside the differences in racial attitudes between 1789 and today, there's a couple of unarguable facts:
The 13 colonies were British colonies, with some French/German/Dutch colonists absorbed into them. Gaining independence left the makeup of the people unchanged, only the political system changed.
The racial differences in 1789 were literal national differences. Indians had their own nationality and political systems. Blacks were "imported" as slaves/indentured servants, who are generally never citizens in any political system going back to the ancient Greeks, regardless of race.
The US Constitution, the foundation of nationhood, citizenship, and naturalization laws, does not bar any race from inclusion in citizenship. The only time race was mentioned was "Indians not taxed", which was a technical term for Indians who were already part of their own nation (and thus were exempt from US taxes/laws).
The People in 1776 were not "white"; they were British. The Founders broke off that association because they felt more "American", by being estranged from the home country. So the laws passed in 1790 reflected a first stab at redefining that identity, without trying to radically change the underlying society with top-down laws. (This is an important point for later.)
The naturalization acts over the centuries responded to the practical need to draw distinctions as the country grew. But even the most restrictive naturalization laws did not disenfranchise natural born citizens of other races. Restrictive and racist though they were, these laws never attempted to define down the liberal, ideological definition of the underlying People.
Long analysis short, the history of the US is not one of unrestricted immigration. It is one of accepted immigration at the presumed rate of assimilation. Anti-immigration sentiment flares up whenever the populace feels some group isn't assimilating before more come: Irish, then Asians, then Mexicans, then "brown Muslims", now South Americans, etc.
The famous "melting pot" simmers, as it breaks down the components over time. You don't dump a distinct chunk into it, then another before the first one melts into homogeneity.
The American approach to race, nationality, immigration, slavery, and citizenship is one integrated throughout the entirety of the American system: incremental change that reflects how society develops, not one that tries to direct society.
It's why the Constitutional system in 1789 incorporated the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, colony charters, English common law, colonial slavery laws, etc. All of these were included from the start then slowly replaced over time, sometimes with huge effects at some turning point.
If you look at the history of US citizenship/immigration laws, they tell a similar story: a slowly evolving society that lashes out with restrictions any time something happens too fast. Such as the Chinese Exclusion Act after the number of Chinese immigrants doubled over 10 years. The biggest "shock" in there is the 14th Amendment, and that was only possible after 4 years of bloody civil war.
And that's the story of the nation: an ideological basis for The People, while the society that People organizes tries to evolve slowly, carefully, in a republican fashion instead of a democratic one. Pointing out racist restrictions is fair, but those restrictions never changed the ideological basis.
My dude. You are pretending the founding fathers didn't immediately vote for a nationalization act that limited citizenship to free white men of good character. It doesn't say British, German, or Dutch. I don't see how you're gonna get around that. I don't care how "good" the march of progress has been
You were correct up until here. Even whites who openly expressed sympathy for blacks and demanded emancipation were slaughtered. The total absence of mercy for even white "allies" was a good part of why the U.S. south openly opposed emancipating their own slaves, figuring they'd do the same because blacks are apparently no better than hyenas.
It wasn't? I thought even the kind non-slave owners got slaughtered.
How do you think a state becomes communist/fascist/libertarian/nazbol? It first takes people that want to march under the banner of any of those and then somehow achieve dominant influence.
People that want to bring about a communist state are communists and people who want to bring about a fascist state are facists.
Tbf to the slaves, I don't think it makes much difference from their perspective if you own the them outright or merely profit off their being indirectly. A collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator and when push came to shove one has to ask who's side those kind and caring non-slave owners were on when the chips were down.
Ultimately its the same problem with the totally-kind-and-caring liberal who's heart bleeds for the children of the world while they walk around in jeans from a Bangladeshi child-labor factory. Ignorance is not always a valid defense in our enlightened modern justice system. Do you think it makes for a good defense when violently-angry people are pointing weapons at you?
Tbf to the slaves, I don't think it makes much difference from their perspective if you own the them outright or merely profit off their being indirectly. A collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator and when push came to shove one has to ask who's side those kind and caring non-slave owners were on when the chips were down.
Ultimately its the same problem with the totally-kind-and-caring liberal who's heart bleeds for the children of the world while they walk around in jeans from a Bangladeshi child-labor factory. Ignorance is not always a valid defense in our enlightened modern justice system. Do you think it makes for a good defense when violently-angry people are pointing weapons at you?
The clearest sign that a poorly founded defense of something indefensible is coming is when somebody says "to be fair". The resulting words never are something just or evenhanded.
Like what even motivates you to defend a massacre? Even the women and children?
As soon as indirect benefiting from immoral actions becomes moral recourse for punishment, there isn't a single person who wouldn't deserve death under what you just described.
Born in a western country? Guilty. Born in a village with a well that was conquered by a warlord? Guilty. Genetically descended from a warlord? Guilty. Everybody would be guilty under that moral precept. The result would be that it's morally justified to murder anyone.
The clearest sign that a poorly founded defense of something indefensible is coming is when somebody says "to be fair". The resulting words never are something just or evenhanded.
Like what even motivates you to defend a massacre? Even the women and children?
As soon as indirect benefiting from immoral actions becomes moral recourse for punishment, there isn't a single person who wouldn't deserve death under what you just described.
Born in a western country? Guilty. Born in a village with a well that was conquered by a warlord? Guilty. Genetically descended from a warlord? Guilty. Everybody would be guilty under that moral precept. The result would be that it's morally justified to murder anyone.
Slaves aren't obligated to the moral well being of a society that put them in bondage. In fact, to be a slave in revolt requires this frame of mind in the first place. Societies aren't judged molecule by molecule as you'd probably like, they're judged as a collective whole. Each person killed stood by and abided the society that enslaved and dehumanized a whole group of people living there. So why should those people in turn feel any obligation to the safety and well being of people who would not risk their own lives and property for them? Really stop and think about that.
They had to pick a side, and they chose poorly. Such is the nature of violent revolt, rebellion, and civil war. Just ask the pro-US Vietnamese!
Slaves aren't obligated to the moral well being of a society that put them in bondage. In fact, to be a slave in revolt requires this frame of mind in the first place. Societies aren't judged molecule by molecule as you'd probably like, they're judged as a collecive whole. Facts are each person killed stood by and abided the society that enslaved and dehumanized a whole group of people living there. So why should those people in turn feel any obligation to the safety and well being of people who would not risk their own lives and property for them? Really stop and think about that.
They had to pick a side, and they chose poorly. Such is the nature of violent revolt, rebellion, and civil war. Just ask the pro-US Vietnamese!
I'm sorry. I can see the thought of people with white skin being butchered means a great deal to you. You have to be willing to look beyond the things you hold close to you though if you want to talk about morality in an objective way.
Oh and for the record, nothing is "Indefensible". You can justify anything you please.
If things were indefensible as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have happened to begin with, no?
I'm sorry. I can see the thought of people with white skin being butchered means a great deal to you. You have to be willing to look beyond the things you hold close to you though if you want to talk about morality in an objective way.
Oh and for the record, nothing is "Indefensible". You can justify anything you please.
If things were indefensible as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have happened to begin with, no?
I'm generally against the butchering of children, yes. Yes, that includes the butchering of white children. How will I ever recover now that you have found out my terrible secret?!
When people say "indefensible" they mean "morally indefensible". It's true that it requires a moral fundament in the first place. Otherwise everything is justifiable. But then, if everything is equally justifiable, why talk about what is morally right and wrong in the first place? At that point you've abandoned all group moral effort and are just in yolo world until someone fucks your shit up and you realize nobody is there to help you protect it, because that requires moral duty and a shared moral understanding.
