flamethrower82

Top Contributor
Bill Of Rights Guru
+4
More actions

Forum Posts

flamethrower82
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Sep 17, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
We know both sides of the aisle are trying to point fingers at the other, and now race, gender, and sexuality has entered the debate again. I’m going to focus on race. What is “race”? Let’s first let National Geographic give us an explanation on the origin of the term “race”. It would be better coming from an archaeological/historical perspective. Race and ethnicity are two concepts related to human ancestry. Race is defined as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.” The term ethnicities is more broadly defined as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.” (Blakemore Race and ethnicity, explained) Apologetics Press does a very good article explaining the connection to Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” (Lyons and Butt Darwin, evolution, and racism). The theory of evolution can be considered the main culprit for convincing people that we are nothing more than evolved monkeys, and some aren’t as evolved as others. This is what Darwin had to say about civilized vs savage races in “On the affinities and genealogy of man”: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (Lyons and Butt Darwin, evolution, and racism) Who is “civilized”? This is how the Oxford dictionary defines “Civilized”: 1. well organized socially with a very developed culture and way of life 2. having laws and customs that are fair and morally acceptable (Civilized) This is how the Oxford dictionary defines “Savage”: 1. aggressive and violent; causing great harm 2. involving very strong criticism 3. [only before noun] (old-fashioned, taboo, offensive) an offensive way of referring to groups of people or customs that are considered to be simple and not highly developed (Savage) Who defines what is “civilized”? In order to properly analyze this question, we have to consider the structure of society. In the United States, we have a President that is the Commander-in-Chief (all military and law enforcement answer to him at the top); Congress that writes, changes, and repeals laws; and a Supreme Court that determines whether those laws being enforced are within the bounds of the Constitution. We also have a theoretical 4th branch of government: the media. I can go through numerous scandals since the 2010s where the government has been caught interfering with the press. Also, media networks make their money off of viewership, so they have an incentive to write the most gas-lighting headlines possible in order to get people to read them. Many times, after reading down a couple paragraphs or so, you’ll find the headline doesn’t even match the article. The most important piece is the education sector. Children are the most impressionable, so of course it’s easier to indoctrinate the youth! Dictators throughout the centuries have acknowledged that, whether we’re talking about the Ottomans using “Janissaries” (slave children taken from the conquered Christians) (Children of the Ottoman empire), Adolf Hitler’s “Hitler Youth” (Hitler youth), or Stalin’s forced indoctrination on the youth (von Geldern Childhood under Stalin). They knew this, and exploited it. Are you a “savage”? Over the years, there have been attempts to link race and IQ to each other. It’s still a hot debate, but I think the Manhattan Institute summarizes it quite well: Flynn was skeptical of Jensen’s findings, and rightly so. If racial differences in average IQs were innate, why were there white groups in the U.S. and elsewhere with test scores similar to those of blacks? Why were there black schools with test scores that exceeded the national average? Why were black women significantly overrepresented among people with high IQs? Why did studies show that black orphans raised by white families had average IQs of 106 at a time when the average score of blacks nationally was 85 and the average score of whites was 100? (VerBruggen et al. An intelligent discussion about race and IQ is possible) Personally, I would argue that this is a purely nurture argument in terms of nature vs nurture. If you raise someone properly in a stable, traditional household, the likelihood of that child turning out to make good decisions is much higher. Harold “Bud” Boughton summarizes it quite nicely about the fatherless home crisis we have going on in America: 90%of all homeless and runaway youths are from fatherless homes, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes, 75% of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers are from fatherless homes, 71% of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes, 70% of youths in State institutions are from fatherless homes, and yes, 65% of YOUTH SUICIDES are from fatherless homes. (Boughton The fatherless home - a national crisis) The heart of the issue I’m sure you didn’t sign up to read a thesis paper, so I’ll get to the heart of the issue. I wanted to lay out some facts with sources to make my argument. So far, there has been no scientific link to race and IQ. As someone who believes in freedom of association, you should have the ability to choose whom you associate with in your personal time. You have that right as a human being; however you don’t have the right to call someone else an animal species. Now that we got that aside, let’s talk about addressing grievances towards each other. I think there’s a few principles we need to follow here: We MUST understand that each person is an individual person. We can only hold people accountable for the actions that they are personally responsible for. Unless you manage to invent a time machine, the past cannot be undone, so therefore it’s pointless to fight about it. Acknowledge the past and be done with it. We all have to agree on one definition for a word if we’re going to discuss it intelligently. We can’t have 20 different definitions based on how each of us feel to have a logical, rational discussion. Feelings do not change the truth; it’s just how we interpret and react to it. Addressing the systemic issues I do understand that systemic issues can date back decades to centuries. We’re still as a country reeling from the side effects of world war 1 and 2. Our leaders act more like our parents than our governors by the day. However, it’s not just to blame the current generation for what our generation has inherited. If you were born in the 1980s, you were born in the middle of the Cold War. You didn’t have memories of World War 1 and 2, Vietnam, Korea, etc. The government policies that screwed our country over were already in place. This is why I’m against reparations – throwing money at a community never fixes the problem. Look at Haiti after the Clinton foundation took advantage of them – the Haitians have a very negative opinion of Hillary. If we want to lift communities up, then we need to provide them opportunities to improve their lives; not demonize entire groups for things that they probably didn’t even have a hand in building. Uplifting a community I think two values we long forgot were mercy and forgiveness. When you decide to fight over race, think about how many generations have been fighting over it – you’re taking up a battle that’s not even yours. Do we really want to continue dividing each other? Here’s my proposal on how we fix the country in light of all this division: Black people rightfully talk about the history of “redlining” and being discriminated against when it comes to ownership, jobs, etc. Let’s just be honest and admit it happened, and it was utterly wrong. There are already laws such as the “Fair Housing Act” on the books that addresses that issue White people rightfully talk about how we weren’t alive for the Civil War. The common understanding before 2016 was that we need to preserve history. We can’t reverse history, but we can change tomorrow. White people rightfully point out that blacks are not the only people affected by slavery. While that is true, indentured servants (Indentured servants) were treated better than the black slaves. They were eventually granted freedom, whereas the slave never had that option. White slavery did happen throughout the world, just not in America. There are countries that still practice slavery to this day. Black people point out how poverty and slavery aren’t far apart from each other. I agree. This is why we need to create economic opportunities for people. I’ll go into poverty shortly. White people point out how many black youth tend to be extremely violent towards each other and other people. While there is much anecdotal evidence of this, it’s not a justification to reduce black people to apes and chimpanzees. We need to get to the cultural roots of the problem to solve it. Black people point out how majority of the people who go into schools and churches to kill people are white men. That’s not a disputed fact; though it doesn’t quite create the “mic drop” moment people think it does. Black people point out that whites don’t come to the aid of black people who are mistreated by police. I can say anecdotally (since there’s not really any good studies), there are a lot of “Blue Lives Matter” types in the white community. They saw the riots of 2020, and were rightfully upset that BLM (Black Lives Matter) was burning down neighborhoods and attacking white people, and the cops were just sitting back doing nothing about it. That put a damper on a lot of sympathy that could be given, and I personally blame the government policies for creating that scenario. I still remember when Mayor Bowser of DC said “we gave them space to destroy” (Baltimore mayor: 'gave those who wished to destroy space to do that'). Whites point out that a lot of the BLM heroes were criminals who deserved what came their way. Michael Brown, for example, charged at a cop and tried to take his gun. That’s not a disputed fact. (No charges for ex-cop Darren Wilson in Michael Brown's death, prosecutor says) That means two things: you should never defend someone automatically just because a movement tells you to, but you also shouldn’t assume that everyone a movement props up is guilty. Eric Garner was killed by a cop in an illegal chokehold over selling an individual cigarette to someone. (Dianis Eric Garner was killed by more than just a chokehold) He was also pushed to prominence by BLM. Poverty: the ultimate soul crusher The biggest criticism I hear from whites is “poverty is no excuse for crime”. Well, tell that to the single parent that has to feed his/her child while still paying rent, utilities, cable, etc. Here’s a good summary on why poverty is a disease: But a mental illness isn’t the only link that there is between poverty and crime. Being in poverty often leads to high levels of stress. An overwhelming desire to meet certain basic needs becomes the highest priority. Over time, if those needs cannot be met, then some individuals will commit robberies, burglaries, and other forms of them. It can also lead to violent acts, though in the mind of the perpetrator, the actions are seen as a method of self-defense. Poverty also creates fewer opportunities, some of which co-exist with mental illness and a lack of being able to meet basic needs. If an individual is struggling with an untreated mental illness, then it is difficult for them to hold down an employment opportunity. Without a job, it is difficult to find money to meet basic needs. A lack of resources also creates inferior educational opportunities for households in poverty, some actual and some admittedly perceived. Yet the perception of a lack of education is enough for individuals in poverty to create self-fulfilling prophecies regarding their future. Because they believe there aren’t good quality schools out there, then there aren’t good quality jobs out there. People feel the need to fight for themselves. This leads to the creation of gangs and gang affiliation. Then the cycle continues to perpetuate itself again and again. Crime is simply a means to an end. It’s a way to obtain what is needed without a legitimate means to do so because it seems like there isn’t a legitimate opportunity to avoid crime. (Gaille How poverty influences crime rates) When you start out life with no growth opportunities, and are told that you aren’t going to go anywhere in life, you already are off to a bad start. Speaking specifically about the “ghetto”, or inner city neighborhoods mostly populated by poor black people, it doesn’t help that the social culture is equally depressing. If you live all your life being told that guns, drugs, and prostitution is the only way out; then you’re probably not going to care if you end up in jail or dead over your decisions until it’s too late. If you’re being taught education is for the white man, then you’re going to assume your existence is a zero-sum game. Even worse, if you have celebrities glorifying the gang lifestyle, then you’re going to probably think to yourself “this celebrity made it with guns, drugs, and [garden tools], so why can’t I?” White people aren’t immune to poverty. Let’s switch over to poor white America. It’s common knowledge that the white community is also becoming quite impoverished. Here’s a good summary I found from Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College: The invisibility, if that is the correct term, of white poverty is not a benign situation. The denial of white poverty has led to the social construction of the poor as being solely a person or family of color. The connotations are negative and problematic with political implications. The belief that poverty is solely a black or brown issue fragments the society along racial lines. This fragmentation dilutes the possibility for class solidarity that is needed to push for health, housing, education, and employment reforms. The racialization of poverty, as our research and other recent studies, indicate is an invalid perspective; the brush stroke needs to be broaden. Given its significance, white poverty must become a part of the discussion about poverty and the search for solutions to resolve this social dilemma. (Op-ed: White poverty must be good poverty) Why are we really fighting? That’s the million dollar question. We shouldn’t be each other’s enemy. If you think about the talk of the DC “Uniparty” (GOP and DNC working on the same agenda), it makes perfect sense why they would want us at each other’s throats. For every Constitutional amendment from 1-15, I can name you at least one bill that went by the Supreme Court unscathed that was a blatant violation and nobody in Washington cared! The source of our troubles with law enforcement, poverty, and all the other issues we face is right in WASHINGTON DC! We can also consider options such as teaching police de-escalation (works in Europe) rather than instigating a fight-or-flight response, and then having another tragedy like what happened to Jaylen Walker. If you want to talk about economic solutions, we need to investigate the big banks, the federal reserve, and demand that our government operate on a budget rather than take out foreign debt to fund their pet projects. Works Cited
0
0
25
flamethrower82
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Jul 03, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
So I was browsing Twitter out of boredom, and I'm already completely stressed out from today's circus. Little did I know I'd come across this gem. If you don't know who Yuval Noah Harari is, he's the advisor of Klaus Schwab, the "Great Reset" guy. Apparently there's a new cult called "dataism", which I'll quote from the article: If you're still confused, I'll break it down like this. Dataists look at humans as a biochemical machine. They reduce us to data sets (ie demographics, thoughts, feelings, etc) that they believe should be incorporated in a much bigger machine that makes decisions on our behalf rather than us making our own decisions because the machines apparently know better than us what's good for us. Nevermind that computers crash all the time (I should know from 20yrs in the IT field!!). The core idea presented in the article is that Christianity is dead, and big data will replace the need for God. It also makes clear that as people see that computers can make decisions faster and more effectively, they will eventually surrender their entire decision-making ability to the AI. The problem with that is the same predicament presented in the Tower of Babel: God created humans in HIS IMAGE; and by extension we have the ability to create things. You could say that we have the ability to create artificial life as well (think AI and robotics). This is taking the idea of creating things, and then deciding to worship that same creation. Big Data is a creation of humanity intended to help us process things faster and more efficiently. I'm grateful that big data centers like Amazon Web Services exist, because many of the sites we rely on daily couldn't run efficiently without them. What I despise is that their creators think of themselves as gods. God told us not to worship the things we create for one good reason: we are fallible human beings from birth to death. I'm a firm believer, by the way, in reading books written by your opponent and/or enemy. Books are the window into the person's soul. - The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life shows you how Charles Darwin looked at humanity as a hierarchy of intelligence based on skin color, as well as reduces humans to evolved monkeys - Mein Kampf shows you Adolf Hitler really was, and explains his grievances with the Jewish community and western-style governments. - 99 Theses tells you the story of why Martin Luther protested the Catholic (Latin term for "universal") church's doctrines. - The Communist Manifesto shows you the mind of the two men who inspired Communism, Fascism, and by extension Nazism (really Fascism Lite - Hitler borrowed ideas from eastern Europe and from America, though never truly embraced either 100%). https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B01BBQ33VE/ This book lays out the plans that Yuval has for humanity. This guy reminds me of a wannabe Bob Page (from the "Deus Ex" game). His end goal is to become humanity's singular god that integrates with their minds. However, because he wasn't "augmented" and genetically altered early enough, so his body is not capable of such a feat. JC Denton, on the other hand, was genetically altered at or around birth. The final mission of the first "Deus Ex" gives you three options: A) completely disconnect humanity from the global network ("Dark Ages" ending) B) Join the Illuminati and run the world from the shadows, because humanity's not ready for an AI government (Illuminati ending) C) Fulfill your purpose of "augmentation" and integrate with the Helix AI to rule the world as man blended with machine (Transhumanist government ending) Here's a perfect commentary, by the way, on why we shouldn't trust AI to rule the world. This is based on the events preceding the Helix AI ending: "This ending is the most aligned with the game's thematics, but is every bit as horribly depressing as the other two.Helios' credentials for running the affairs of humanity are being able to observe the obvious fact that the Illuminati/MJ12 are a threat to the wellbeing of human affairs, only through the fact it was granted direct access to the information of their dealings, opening roads and trade in Hong Kong, and completely unspecified human attributes it would prioritize in preserving when merging with JC Denton. All the rationale is based on speculation, assumption, and limited information. Helios never directly asserts how it plans to address and fix the current systemic problems, or what problems will come with this change, only that it is the destined successor to the system itself. If JC commits to this ending, he too, winds up believing the same of himself as well. Two minds concluding it's their manifest destiny to reign, neither truly encompassing all aspects of what it is they seek to rule, separate or united. It's transhumanist, it's cyberpunk, and true to both it's a complete non-solution.What's even more terrifying is the idea that, assuming Daedalus existed before JC did, the AI had been using its direct access to all information in order to manipulate events so JC, the MJ12 conflict, Icarus, and everything else it needed to ascend to a ruling machine-god would exist and transpire.I love all the endings. They're bleak, they don't fix anything, they're all wild speculation built on assumptions. I feel like this one is the most deceptively relentless in that category, because you can almost feel like it's okay to be hopeful until you really start thinking about it. Once you do, just how screwed the world is feels a lot deeper and more complicated than the others." I'll let you know when I have the stomach to read Yuval's horrible plans for us, but I think "Deus Ex" already covered it.
Humans should not be worshiping technology content media
2
1
35
flamethrower82
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Jun 29, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
I know exactly what some of you are thinking - "has he sold out to the Illuminati?" "are we being infiltrated by the Freemasons?" NO, and NO. Hear me out. So let's go through a little world history. All the way up to the 1980s-1990s, the world has been at each other's throats over land. Every one of today's countries exists because somebody conquered somebody else. For example, the United States used to belong to the Native Americans. Today's Germany is a result of the conflicts between the time of establishing the Prussian Empire, the Franco-Prussian War (https://www.military-history.org/cover-feature/the-franco-prussian-war.htm), and WW1/WW2 changing their borders yet again. Iraq, Britain, France, Italy, Greece, etc. used to have their own empires. Even ancient Israel had their own kingdom at one point. Today's "Israel" is an agreement between the British and Palestinians to split up the land in an attempt to settle the ancestral land claim vs the people that moved into the Israeli land plot once the Ottomans took over. Israelis and Palestinians both want that entire land plot, and that's not feasible at this point. (image: artist rendering of Prussian 1871 flag) You're probably asking "but what about this NWO you're talking about?" Well, our current "elites" (aka ultra-rich men who control 1% of the world's wealth) have hatched a plan where they own everything and we own nothing. Well, I propose the opposite. I think Americans and Europeans alike can agree that we're tired of "alliances" and "partnerships" that are disguised land grabs. The reason for today's conflict between Russia and Ukraine is because NATO decided since 1994 to rope Ukraine into a treaty without promising its future. Furthermore, Russia warned us to stop expanding NATO influence to their border. Here's MY proposed version of the New World Order for the people: Sovereign borders will be respected. Each country will be allowed to decide what its own government will look like. Any invasion into another country's territory will be treated as an act of war. It's up to YOU to defend YOUR territory. A country is also free to surrender their territory if they can't defend it. By default, they will be absorbed into the country they surrender to. Sovereign governments will be recognized. We declare an end to puppet governments and diplomatic immunity. If you break the law in someone else's country, you pay the price regardless of who you are. If the people of the nation agree to a form of government that another deems as "oppressive", that doesn't change their sovereign rights. - Muslim theocracies where majority of people believe in Shari'a Law - Communist countries where people support the regime proudly Declare an end to puppet alliances. If you look at the chatter between Americans and Europeans, both sides have major policy disagreements and are tired of each influencing the other. We declare an end to the practice of forming "alliances" that simply masquerade as a means to control other nations besides your own. Examples: UN, EU, NATO, BRICS, League of Nations, Allied Powers, Axis of Powers, Soviet influence outside of Russia. Declare and end to proxy wars. If you're going to go to war with a nation, declare war on them and cite an honest reason. If you're trying to dupe people into supporting a war that you know isn't good for them, then your people and other nations have a right to be angry. That's how we ended up participating in World War 1. ( https://www.history.com/news/world-war-1-propaganda-woodrow-wilson-fake-news ). Many people around the world know that the USA and western Europe fighting in/for Ukraine and/or giving them supplies is really just an excuse to declare war on Russia. The west hasn't gotten over the stalemate that ended the Cold War. Citizens will be responsible for changing their government. If the citizens of the country decide that the current system no longer works, it will be their responsibility to fix their nation. No more "political refugee" statuses. If you're young and energetic enough to run away, you're also young and energetic enough to fight for your freedom. The 13 colonies in America were poor, but we STILL beat the British back. Pakistan exists because the Indian Muslims were willing to fight against the British East India Company who didn't want to see India split into two countries. (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-pakistan-become-a-country.html) Portions of countries have the right to secede. If a portion of a country does not want to be ruled by the current regime, they have the right to secede from the country. When we talk about respecting sovereign governments, we also have to consider the rights of the dissidents. This world order concept recognizes the right of people to reject their government(s) as well. For the sake of peace, governments should recognize the rights of people who don't accept their rule. We declare an end to money influencing foreign governments. We know that USAID sends money all over the world. If you talk to people from Africa or Haiti, they'll tell you that the money rarely ends up in the hands of the people that need it. Most of the time, the money ends up in the hands of whatever faction is in power; and the money gets hoarded by that faction. A tiny portion ends up in the hands of the people it's actually meant to help. Sometimes the best thing you can do is let someone fend for themselves. On the flip side of the issue, countries like China and Russia hand out money like candy because it creates a debt that they can later call on immediate repayment or declare a default. Whenever a country takes a loan from another country, it uses the people as collateral. We demand complete forgiveness of all international loans and a fresh start for the world. This is the only acceptable form of a "Great Reset" that would be acceptable to humanity. The reality is that many countries are in debt to the point where they'll never be able to pay it all back without some serious budget cuts. (https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/debt-statistics/ids/topic ) No more "printer go brrrrrr" either. We reset the value of money to a level playing field. I get what you're going to ask me next - "but what about all the oppressed people of the world?" Well, sorry to bust your bubble, but the world isn't a happy paradise. There's always going to be oppressed people in the world. The USA has been playing Team America: World Police for almost 100 years now, and we haven't ended anyone's suffering to the point where the world is at peace. We have even stoked the anger of other nations on many occasions. Our "nation building" experiment in Iraq was an abysmal failure. You can't burn something down, and expect the people of that nation to trust YOU to build it back up. Sometimes, in your desire to fix other people's problems, you create WORSE problems. Let's just agree to respect each other's borders and politics. You don't have to like another country's politics, and they're not entitled to cater to you when you visit their country no matter who you are. The bottom line here is to keep your own governments within your own borders, and stop trying to control other people's governments.
New World Order? Ok, but with some major revisions content media
2
0
34
flamethrower82
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Jun 28, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
We have had a number of people ask why our "The Constitutionalist" movement is not filing: - Trademarks / Copyright - 501 (c) 3 non-profit - LLC / S Corp / C Corp We are not asking the government for permission. If we apply for any licenses, then it would defeat the purpose of our movement. We believe the party system (run as a corporation) is the problem of the country. The First Amendment guarantees our right to assemble and address the grievances towards our government. If we put the legal paperwork in to start a business, then we are also agreeing to the regulations that come with running a business. Therefore, it would create unnecessary complications that would make our movement more difficult than it is. Also, we're not going to ask the government for permission to fight the government. Keep in mind that by "fight", we mean peacefully. We disavow any use of violence outside of self-defense. We simply want to bring the country back to the rule of law via the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
We are not asking the government for permission content media
2
1
33
flamethrower82
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Jun 22, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
Full disclosure: I