Are you a 1965 American... or a 1790 American?
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Real bushcraft is not a glamorous life. We forfeit many luxuries.
Masonic liberalism, the ideology of the founders, has always been a centrist ideology
It is not feudalism, monarchy, or theocracy, but it is not socialism either, ergo centrism.
>Masonic liberalism
Masonry in the US was corrupted by jews after they had all already died.
>feudalism
Never existed in the colonies and it was a bloated corpse of an economic system. Who the fuck in their right mind would advocate for it in the late 1700s?
>socialism
Did not exist. Economic liberalism was the economic left wing of those times, the economic right wing was mercantalism, or feudalism in some countries. The Tories had some mercantilist tendencies, but the whole of the UK was pretty much switching to free markets.
The Tories and the whigs (the rebels) believed in essentially the exact same systems. What made the whigs left wing of the Tories was the rejection of the British gentry and monarchy, and the British banking system. And the Tories themselves were economically left wing of, say, France, which was still largely mercantalist/feudalist and not liberalized.
In the 18th Century, English politics was dominated by whigs. Whiggism came about because of John Locke's writings after the English Civil War. Whigs valued freedom and saw government's sole purpose as protecting freedom. God gave his power to men, who create governments to secure those powers.
They were completely OK with monarchy or any form of government as long as it respected the rights that God gave men. See the Declaration for instance.
The whigs didn't reject the royals, the gentry or monarchy or anything like that. They were perfectly OK with anything as long as it respected individual rights
Oddly enough, the Tories were the rebels and revolutionaries. They formed as a reaction against the Whigs and saw the king as a way to pull down their government and rebuild it. If anyone was a leftist in the early 18th Century, it would be the Tories as they were against the status quo.
The Tories of the time, were absolute monarchists who were deposed by William and went into the underground. They became the "rebels", but don't be fooled, they were reactionary and to the far right of the whigs. The Tories never became armed and dangerous revolutionaries though. That title would go to people further to the right than they were, the jacobites, who they flirted with a bit but never fully associated with. The difference between the Jacobites and the Tories was that the Tories were willing to make concessions to the deposition of James II, and did not believe in catholicism in government but believed that the Stuarts had the right to the throne due to the line of succession. The jacobites actually *were* catholic royalists who wanted a catholic absolute monarch and would not make any concessions over the issue.
But none of this has much to do with the whigs and Tories in colonial America, who didn't have anything to do with the actual whig and Torie parties. These were more arbitrary labels given to loyalists and rebels. Which is ironic, because in the UK it was mostly the opposite, though George III let the Tories back into government for the first time since William. But the *american* whigs rejected the royals and landed British gentry, which made them veer left of the American Tories. But the American whigs and Tories were closer to each other on most matters than the British whigs and Tories.
However "liberal" the founding fathers were, they were absolutely White nationalists. Jefferson was very clear about freed slaves not being citizens. He said ship them back to Africa and send us Whites of good moral character.
The US had multiple revolutions. The tyranny the founders fought against was not the King of England, but parliament. The founders were violently opposed to democracy. That's why the president is the head of the executive branch. That's why instead of amending the articles of confederation they created an entirely new government. The US is supposed to be more aristocratic than a pure democracy. The democratic processes like a simple majority overruling precedent is subverted when you let every shitskin in and call them citizens.
If the founders were so "liberal" then why didn't they give women and niggers the right to vote until, what, 80 years ago? Saying "they would have but they couldn't because nobody would accept it" doesn't make any damn sense unless viewed through marxian "systematic" lense. Where White genocide is encouraged but pointing it out as White genocide is the worst thing a person could do because "systemicism".
All the foux intellectualism needs to stop. Shifting definitions needs to stop. Using big words of latin etymology to appear smart needs to stop. The words derived from Germanic languages are far superior because there is no jewing it into another definition.
“However "liberal" the founding fathers were, they were absolutely White nationalists. Jefferson was very clear about freed slaves not being citizens. He said ship them back to Africa and send us Whites of good moral character.”
You can’t even begin to experiment with being more liberal here and there on anything if you aren’t first starting from a foundation of white nationalist homogeneity where everyone has established that they’re “experimenting” in good faith, and for the good of their peoples existence. Even then, it can still be a dangerous exercise in hubris, arrogance, naivety and/or even gullibleness IMHO.
“All the foux intellectualism needs to stop. Shifting definitions needs to stop. Using big words of latin etymology to appear smart needs to stop. The words derived from Germanic languages are far superior because there is no jewing it into another definition.”
All Jewish “values”. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻