Study of United States Constitution and its dissolution by immigration not of the WASP founders

[Bob69Joe]

I sure hope there are some eager posters out there. Right now I'm on mobile which limits my contextual awareness and writing but this topic can be greatly fruitful soon enough.

I will attempt to outline a simple thesis for now which will be the focus of discussion that can lead to other areas of necessity in matters of America's wars, the civil most importantly, and several acts passed by congress after various wars that had ensures the dissolution of America from its founders.

So, in keeping this simple so it isn't impossible to understand after I'm done poking my phone, here I go.

The Constitution of America, as it's unofficially known as, was created by people of an English and highly intelligent culture. Simple. Several wars have demanded changes to governing the nation to intervene globally. Simple. Several changes put into law allowed public suits by anyone but especially the newly immigrated to end at the last any semblance of the nation from its founders.

Now, a meta-political statement. The Constitution abides in nobody any longer, as its original character is now not of an English stock of people but the fuzzy-diverse kind that is only meant to serve individuals while empowering the government and politicians.

See, I'm terrible at all this. So, please do, anybody, feel free to wail about slavery, human rights, and all the rest.

[conon394]

First:

The Constitution of America, as it's unofficially known as

"unofficially" ? It a an official document. So what other unofficial one are you referring to?

I will attempt to outline a simple thesis for now which will be the focus of discussion that can lead to other areas of necessity in matters of America's wars, the civil most importantly, and several acts passed by congress after various wars that had ensures the dissolution of America from its founders.

Are you being a circumlocutions and the framer here? Because as I read that you seem to be suggesting the only good Constitution is the pre civil war one - the one where only white WASP property owners ran the country, but you don't want to essay that. But if the Framers wanted a document set in stone they could have omitted the amendment process and supporting SCOTUS review of laws (seeing as that doctrine emerged when the Framers were alive).

was created by people of an English and highly intelligent culture

Well I think the revolution kinda rejected the first Ideal on culture and seeing as the Constitution was specifically designed to not be a English system of governance you emphasis might be over done. 'Highly Intelligent - Umm I guess but lots people have devised lots of governments, how do you quantify a culture as highly intelligent?

Several changes put into law allowed public suits by anyone but especially the newly immigrated to end at the last any semblance of the nation from its founders.

Umm you do realize just how fantastically different the world is than the one of the founders/framers? You also realize just how different and diverse their views were. They did not walk into a Socratic dialogue in Philadelphia and emerge with some unified consensus, but produced the least common denominator they could agree on to get a functional government that would not provoke somebody to sit out or go back to England.

The reality is the USA of the Constitution fantastically lucky. It got to sit around in more less isolation with only tottering weak Spain to be a problem and disorganized first nations that nobody really really cared about being steam rolled so it could grow more less unmolested - even when it made huge blunders or suffered internal crises.. Neither Athens nor the Dutch Republic were so lucky. In reality the US state crated by the Constitution should by historical standards have ended in the war of 1812 (and would have were the UK not just tired of war) even the Civil war could have turned if Nappy III have any testicular fortitude and was not terrified to act w/o the British.

I can appreciate being access constrained. But are you really arguing for a a return to a narrow oligarchy of white male ((w)ASP) property owners?

See, I'm terrible at all this. So, please do, anybody, feel free to wail about slavery, human rights, and all the rest.

Your point with this? Is wailing to discuss them. Is wailing to note the cognitive dissonance of holding both the Declaration of Independence dear and the Constitution of of 1789 and thus ignore how the the latter rejects the former?

[Prodromos]

Anglo-Saxon is a state of mind. Just because someone has German or Italian ancestry doesn't mean they're not English. All those immigrant populations were assimilated into English culture, so America today is still an English nation, just as it was in the 1700s.

[Bob69Joe]

conon, you always will be first to sniff out ulterior motives, won't you? :p


I realize that my post looks like a satire of the direction this entire thread may end up at, now. Just be patient.
_____
Prodromos,

Anglo-Saxon is a state of mind. Just because someone has German or Italian ancestry doesn't mean they're not English. All those immigrant populations were assimilated into English culture, so America today is still an English nation, just as it was in the 1700s.

So, hmm, quite. There must be a value inherent in being English that extends beyond social and political, otherwise, conservatives will never succeed against LEFTism using their stances, because LEFTism already offers an arbitrary culture plus so much more that conservatives do not. "People being honest will want to be with others like them."


Prodromos, your mind seems to be biased toward reason, of the European Enlightenment persuasion. That being all people are basically equal in ability to attain skills and knowledge and that nations only need to be made up of laws that guide people toward a general success in their lives. The best of conservatism retains tradition, methods which proved successful among a certain people, any people, any methods, which produced the people/nation, themselves, from a point in the past into the present. It required a specific people, genetics, and their specific methods, all the values and faiths which culminated in a culture, that spurred their nations into the present. Conservatism and LEFTism do, and must, diverge on this valuable point, that people are not only what their laws are("social" reality) but that they are their genetic lineage and the day-to-day customs and values of their culture that existed for generations(reality). Do you see the distinction? I assume you want to define what "tribalism" is, as I've seen you post it several times without distinction. Their are two qualities of culture in America that want to separate, the realists and the ideologues. Genetic lineage, faith and metaphysics, customs, social hierarchy(social order), local values, all these things are not "primitivist," or "tribalist," but simple reality. A people must cultivate these things over hundreds of generations and their present successes exist for that fact, not for equality by the law or whatever civilization we assume to be living among right now.
_____
OK, I said something about civil rights acts, or legislation, well, I found some nice articles that are full-steam ahead on civil rights, but here is the nasty bit, folks, it's government doing it to you, i.e., we are not the ones choosing, we only vote, and then the government hires thousands of staff and mandates thousands of taxes.

Civil Rights Act of 1957
http://www.african-american-civil-ri...s-act-of-1957/

How the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 & 1964 Impacted Real Estate
https://study.com/academy/lesson/how...al-estate.html

These are useful at a glance. The civil rights acts go much further than government providing equality to the masses. It tears the nation apart, because if any of us are seen as offenders by anyone deemed to be the protected class, they can sue. Use some godly intuition, please, and understand how that will destroy America, but bring it up, discuss it.

As I said earlier, the nation is divided into two fields that wish to continue advancing the power of the nation, being at the helm of it, though being incompatible together, ideologues and realists. Hey, did anyone know Abraham Lincoln was a fan of Marx and had grand ideas about the direction of America to shape international(today called globalist) politics? Please, let's get creative here, but no, and I mean absolutely NO gnashing-of-teeth! :p
_____
I believe that history is no mere accident, ideally rather. What are Kingdoms after all, but extended families? By the succession of hundreds, and indeed, if we are to transcend the human condition, thousands and millions of generations of families, are the scant past 5000 years brought to us now. Imagine, boldly, how with only so few, 5000 years, has that tradition guided the greatest civilization yet(!) known.

Following on that, please read this awesome article by Stephen Clay McGehee of The Civil Right, Radical Freedom of Association. Truth, beauty, and goodness are available to all people, the only prescience necessary is the knowledge that eternity IS and shall forever BE.

http://thecivilright.org/radical-fre...f-association/
_____
I am content with this content. :p I hold no prejudices, I only ask fairness. Monarchy, nationalism, tradition, all of these things are available to all people at any time they can humiliate themselves before reality/God. Humility is the god's laughter.

[mongrel]

Tsk Tsk, Neo-Confederate bollocks. They lost the war, live with it.

[athanaric]

See, I'm terrible at all this. So, please do, anybody, feel free to wail about slavery, human rights, and all the rest.

I'm a bit confused. Do you have an ideal concept of what the USA should be (e.g. in terms of territory) and who should be included? What about the indigenous population of these territories? What about Dutch, Spanish, and French colonists, who arrived at the same time as the English and their British underlings?

Anglo-Saxon is a state of mind. Just because someone has German or Italian ancestry doesn't mean they're not English.All those immigrant populations were assimilated into English culture, so America today is still an English nation, just as it was in the 1700s.

Since there is already a country called England (part of the UK, as you may know) with its own distinct culture and native ethnicity, "Anglo-American" seems to be a far more appropriate term than "English" or "Anglo-Saxon". Otherwise you'd have to exclude Scots, Irish, and Welsh (because those people are not English), and explain away the local peculiarities that British colonists and their descendants picked up in America. Such various loan words and practices from local cultures, as well as the wildly divergent names for plants and animals (and occasionally other items), including the ones that are native to both North America and Europe.

Arguably, people are also influenced by their genes, and it's only logical to attribute human cultural differences to genes, at least to some extent. The real question is a) how much of it is nature and how much is nurture and b) how to account for individuals who diverge from their native culture in terms of values, beliefs etc., because there are always individual exceptions. IMO the real danger is to listen to extremists, i.e. on the one side those who insist that people are slaves to their genetic tendencies (or a distorted interpretation thereof), and on the other those who propagate the "blank slate" concept. And of course those who propagate both at the same time, but are too retarded to notice the inherent contradiction.

[Love Mountain]

The gene stuff is nonsense, as literally anyone who ever lived in American can attest to.

[sumskilz]

The gene stuff is nonsense, as literally anyone who ever lived in American can attest to.

Dual inheritance theory is mainstream science.

For example: The Dopamine D4 Receptor Gene (DRD4) Moderates Cultural Difference in Independent Versus Interdependent Social Orientation

Pulled from a previous post:

DRD4-4R

- ancestral variant
- common in most populations

DRD4-7R

- common in Europeans
- rare in East Asians
- associated with novelty seeking
- associated with independent social orientation

DRD4-2R

- common in East Asians
- rare in Europeans
- associated with lower boredom susceptibility
- associated with interdependent social orientation

On the independent versus interdependent social orientation, you can see how carriers of the respective variants differ much more significantly than those with the ancestral variant:



That's gene-culture co-evolution. The difference which is limited to culture alone can be inferred from the distributions of the non-carriers.

More support on this single example claim:

Genetic polymorphisms predict national differences in life history strategy and time orientation

Population Migration and the Variation of Dopamine D4 Receptor (DRD4) Allele Frequencies Around the Globe

The Genetic Architecture of Selection at the Human Dopamine Receptor D4 (DRD4) Gene Locus

Culture and state boredom: A comparison between European Canadians and Chinese

Analysis of DRD4 and DAT polymorphisms and behavioral inhibition in healthy adults: Implications for impulsivity

Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking

Dopamine D4 receptor exon III polymorphism, adverse life events and personality traits in a nonclinical German adult sample

The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated with financial risk taking in men

Dopamine and risk choices in different domains: Findings among serious tournament bridge players

Genetic determinants of financial risk-taking

Increased brain activity to unpleasant stimuli in individuals with the 7R allele of the DRD4 gene

Dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism predicts the effect of l-DOPA on gambling behavior

Gender-specific expression of the DRD4 gene on adolescent delinquency, anger and thrill seeking

Associations between dopamine D4 receptor gene variation with both infidelity and sexual promiscuity

Polymorphisms in the dopamine D4 and D2 receptor genes and reproductive and sexual behaviors

The world-wide distribution of allele frequencies at the human dopamine D4 receptor locus

Large-Scale Psychological Differences Within China Explained by Rice Versus Wheat Agriculture

In our genes

Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus

Genetic and gene–environment interaction effects on preschoolers' social behaviors

Dopamine D4 receptor gene variation impacts self-reported altruism

Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene

Beyond the one example, this is to be expected, due to the following:



Scientists who work in the relevant fields just aren't very keen on discussing the phenomenon in the broader public sphere due to the various types of extremists referenced by athanaric:

IMO the real danger is to listen to extremists, i.e. on the one side those who insist that people are slaves to their genetic tendencies (or a distorted interpretation thereof), and on the other those who propagate the "blank slate" concept. And of course those who propagate both at the same time, but are too retarded to notice the inherent contradiction.

[Love Mountain]

Scientists who work in the relevant fields just aren't very keen on discussing the phenomenon in the broader public sphere due to the various types of extremists referenced by athanaric:

Or perhaps because they realize just how little utility their research is in political discourse. The major flaw here is that the environment (i.e. the country they live in) will inevitably lead to its own biological evolution. And for the larger context of immigration, the biological differences hold almost no relevance at all. Theoretically, if you traded a Moroccan and a White American baby and raised them in opposite countries, their "biological fit" for their respective society will be utterly irrelevant to their cultural. I'm also skeptical of "blank slate" extremists being morally equivalent to their polar opposite. Let alone the effect they have on public discourse.

Genes matter, just look at the NFL. On the other hand, genes matter very little in virtually all human interaction.

[sumskilz]

Or perhaps because they realize just how little utility their research is in political discourse. The major flaw here is that the environment (i.e. the country they live in) will inevitably lead to its own biological evolution. And for the larger context of immigration, the biological differences hold almost no relevance at all. Theoretically, if you traded a Moroccan and a White American baby and raised them in opposite countries, their "biological fit" for their respective society will be utterly irrelevant to their cultural. I'm also skeptical of "blank slate" extremists being morally equivalent to their polar opposite. Let alone the effect they have on public discourse.

I disagree with some of what you said, or perhaps only with how you've articulated it, but to be clear, I'm absolutely opposed to genetic background being a criteria for US immigration eligibility, beyond close family relationship. For example, if a person's grandfather was an American citizen, I believe it's fair to see that as a bonus point or whatever. Beyond that, ethnicity/race should be irrelevant. The best approach is simply treating people as individuals.

[Lord Thesaurian]

To be clear, I'm absolutely opposed to genetic background being a criteria for US immigration eligibility, beyond close family relationship. For example, if a person's grandfather was an American citizen, I believe it's fair to see that as a bonus point or whatever. Beyond that, ethnicity/race should be irrelevant. The best approach is simply treating people as individuals.

Is this a contestable position, though? Even if one were to believe the US should have remained a Switzerland-esque haven exclusively for WASP political and religious dissidents, that window was closed by the 1840s if not before, not to mention the fatal flaw black slavery presented to that proposition.

[Cyclops]

....
The Constitution of America, as it's unofficially known as,

Or the Constitution of the United States as it says on the box.

was created by people of an English

They were mostly British by ethnicity (with a number of Scots and so called Scots Irish) and European by culture. For example James Madison (an important contributor) received a standard European education in mathematics French and Latin.

and highly intelligent culture.

As I say they were men of European education. They studied the classics, as well as subjects typical of an Enlightenment education. We could be crude and say they were intellectual colonists of France but its kinder to say they had a European culture.

Simple.

The writing of the Constitution of the United States was an arduous process involving many revisions. the original Articles of Confederation were discarded once the desperate war of independence (won only bey decisive French intervention) was concluded.

Several wars have demanded changes to governing the nation to intervene globally. Simple.

Once again the process by which the US Constitution has evolved by the addition of Amendments is hardly simple. While a handful of ammendments are the result of the Civil War, that war was the result of barbarous and inhuman backwardness on the part of a few effete and hypocritical slave owners: those amendments were coming no matter.

Several changes put into law allowed public suits by anyone but especially the newly immigrated to end at the last any semblance of the nation from its founders.

This is a bizarre and incoherent mess and makes no sense at all.

Now, a meta-political statement. The Constitution abides in nobody any longer, as its original character is now not of an English stock of people but the fuzzy-diverse kind that is only meant to serve individuals while empowering the government and politicians.

"We, the People" were never exclusively English. BTW are you trolling by saying "fuzzy-diverse"? If you're a racist troll then stop posting.

See, I'm terrible at all this.

Agreed.

So, please do, anybody, feel free to wail about slavery, human rights, and all the rest.

I'll leave the wailing to you.

[Heathen Hammer]

"We, the People" were never exclusively English.

Technically the people who wrote that were English, and most likely were referring to well, themselves.

[Vanoi]

Technically the people who wrote that were English, and most likely were referring to well, themselves.

Considering the large number of non-English colonists present in that time including those in the various state governments i highly doubt they were solely referring to just those of English descent.

[Cyclops]

Technically the people who wrote that were English, and most likely were referring to well, themselves.

Have you not heard of the Scots Irish and their over representation in US Federal politics in the founding period?

https://www.nyhistory.org/sites/defa...ns12_20_16.pdf

"We the People" were defined at the time as free white men of property. No test of pure Englishness was applied, if it had been then Washington would not have become President.

There's an arbitrary list of "seven founding fathers" lets look at them shall we?

John Adams: English descent
Benjamin Franklin: English descent
Alexander Hamilton: French Scots and probably English.
John Jay: French descent.
Thomas Jefferson: English and Welsh descent
James Madison: Probably English descent
George Washington: English, French and Dutch.

All were British subjects until their revolt, and all shared European culture. Not sure if they all spoke and read French but definitely Franklin did and I would be surprised if any did not.

Their vile racism was directed at anti-African and mixed African-European, not specifically for "English people".

[Gromovnik]

So, why is the "diverse kind" fuzzy?

[Bob69Joe]

After the Civil War of America, there would not be further questions until the turn of our century, about what government would have power and that it would have power over all inhabitants from coast to coast. That government would be required to include plurality of ideas and politics, and plurality of beliefs/faiths and cultures.

The smart discussion is being made in secessionism and repatriation, and inquisition of the current government establishment. Anyone else is out for personal gain and should be distrusted if their arguments consistently fall into the context of government distribution and reparations without the parties' own representation.

Few have the voice to proclaim a desire to adhere to reality and God, by demanding for their people as a whole - not individuals and not every single warm body - a place to exist in near-perpetuity. There are zero UNIVERSALS and when people begin the discussion of belonging to a group, it does not include the bare numbers of people who are vaguely represented on government forms filed for race/sex/beliefs and the rest of utilitarian function, but the discussion is directly about God-Given Rights. Osiris Akkebala is one representative. Osiris Akkebala - youtube/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK6...3ETJH56C13FOow Osiris Akkebala - blog/ https://osiris-akkebala.blogspot.com

[Cohors_Evocata]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dise...nstruction_Era

You sure about that?

[Bob69Joe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dise...nstruction_Era

You sure about that?

I have made an edit. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15843508

[Cohors_Evocata]

I have made an edit. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15843508

Well then.

After the Civil War of America, there would not be further questions until the turn of our century, about what government would have power and that it would have power over all inhabitants from coast to coast. That government would be required to include plurality of ideas and politics, and plurality of beliefs/faiths and cultures.

The smart discussion is being made in secessionism and repatriation, and inquisition of the current government establishment. Anyone else is out for personal gain and should be distrusted if their arguments consistently fall into the context of government distribution and reparations without the parties' own representation.

Few have the voice to proclaim a desire to adhere to reality and God, by demanding for their people as a whole - not individuals and not every single warm body - a place to exist in near-perpetuity. There are zero UNIVERSALS and when people begin the discussion of belonging to a group, it does not include the bare numbers of people who are vaguely represented on government forms filed for race/sex/beliefs and the rest of utilitarian function, but the discussion is directly about God-Given Rights. Osiris Akkebala is one representative. Osiris Akkebala - youtube/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK6...3ETJH56C13FOow Osiris Akkebala - blog/ https://osiris-akkebala.blogspot.com

I assume that by secessionism you mean racial segregation, given that that is what the guy you give as an example advocates for. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/08...9849744782400/ His idea about setting black Americans up with their own state in Africa is rather bizarre, given that Americans have actually tried that before... and failed rather miserably. Enter Liberia, a country founded because some white Americans felt there could not be a future with free blacks in their midst. Turns out that there were some severe issues with trying to create a new nation out of scratch when the prospective settlers had nothing in common with the native groups still living there except a degree of skin pigmentation. In what can only be considered an ironic twist given their own history, the former slaves and their descendants set up a system of minority rule over the natives that disenfranchised the latter, whom they considered savage heathens, and held onto power well into the twentieth century until their rule was ended by force. The country's still not a particularly well-developed one as far as I know: civil wars tend not to help with that.

Really, that case is indicative for why Akkebala's idea is fanciful at best and insane at worst. Hopeful migrants would find themselves stuck between people whom they have no connection with, whose language they do not speak and whose customs they don't share. They could assimilate/integrate into local culture of course, but there's no way that would be as easy or welcoming as Akkebala seems to imagine. The alternative is carving out their own homeland by force; I don't think I need to explain why that's another Israel-Palestine conflict waiting to happen. That leaves enforced segregation within the US itself. Good luck convincing anybody that they need to get up and move because a new homeland for <insert whatever racial/ethnic group here> is to be established on their property, not to mention deciding who is supposed to go where. If India-Pakistan is anything to go by, that's another bloodbath waiting to happen.

Of course, I may be horribly wrong and your reference to "their people" is not about race at all, in which case I would invite you to clarify what you mean by that. Also, out of sheer curiosity, is there a reason you capitalize the word "left"? Are you referring to an acronym I'm unaware of?