The US constitution was not an attempt to restrain the power of government. But to clarify again, you don't actually believe it was "admirable", you believe it was illegitimate and had no moral authority.
a communist who had grown impatient
Impatient with what?
He said
We may have been fighting the wrong enemy all along.
He also said
We have destroyed what could have been a good race and are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. Now the horrors of peace, pacifism and unions will have unlimited sway.
There's no need to lie about history.
To clarify for people, you're not comparing just the current US government to Islam, you're referring to the constitutional government of the Founders as well.
But that's what he's saying anyway
Use it to corrupt their own culture I guess
They'd need to go all the way, with full-on social activism, real life protesting and screaming in people's faces and everything
Some people are immune to any kind of reason. Just tell them "No" and watch them wallow, it's pretty fun.
No, I'm not misunderstanding it. You're describing federalism, by the way. The third stakeholder is not the citizens (plural) but the People (singular).
The relativity of morality doesn't mean anything. The people have the right to institute government according to THEIR morals. That is what the Founders did. They considered the maintenance of that morality to be essential to the maintenance of the government and, by extension, the people's freedom. Which is why only the FEDERAL government was limited in the scope you're talking about, whereas all other powers were blanket-reserved for the states (first) and the people (secondly).
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
—John Adams
And the overwhelming majority of people back then were able to meet acceptable moral standards....because moral behavior was enforced, and immoral behavior punished. Socially, most importantly, but in some cases legally too.
What system? The system where that terrible brutal leader of yours is committing human rights violations and needs to be deposed by an international task force? Or where those rebellious, treasonous states of yours are trying to illegally secede and must be crushed to preserve the union? Or where- oops, the economy suddenly turned itself off, we're now in a second Great Depression.
Did someone say something about central banking?
They did. And they weren't made for free there either.
"Every single person who calls themselves Jewish is going along with the policies of Judaism, whether they believe in them or not." Just as easy, see?
The implication wouldn't be that minorities are too dumb, it'd be that you're maintaining your "unfair advantage" over them because they were oppressed for generations and you weren't. You should be "countering your privilege" and "leveling the field", etc. etc.
There is always more personal profit internationally than just domestically. But target them with what? You have nothing to target them with. You won't be able to understand him without breaking out of this libertarian conditioning that "the people in government" are by default a separate entity from the people themselves.
The government is supposed to determine what's best for everyone in the country. That is literally the entire point of it. The problems are when the government's not run by the people and no longer reflects their interests.
They don't talk about Israel/AIPAC, Sidney Rittenburg, Henry Kissenger?
If people really stopped doing that stuff for a few months, it might solve a fair few problems
Right so the difference isn't that you don't generalize the entire group, it's that you think your generalization's based in fact and the others aren't.
You can also point to the enormously disproportionate amount of Jews participating in pushing anti-American, anti-white, and/or Marxist bullshit, more or less the same policies you're probably referring to. Or better yet, ironically, you can point to one of the results of it: the "systemic racism" against whites, which does exist.
The implicit racism stuff is a different thing from the systemic shit btw. They can literally point to you wanting to be left alone to raise a stable white family and explain why that's oppressive to minorities. It'll be a dumb explanation but the rationale is the same.
I just try to remember all the stuff on that side of things started with getting women the right to vote, to nullify masculinity in politics.
Those first five things were attacks against men, or just general society mainly
A distinction enabled by subverters who trained the people to spurn their own right to government, allowing it to be occupied by others while they obsessed over their own individual frivolities.
It's bits and pieces of both. Christianity certainly wasn't the foundation or origin of Europeans by any stretch, but it was pivotal to withstanding early Islam. OTOH if the native religions and philosophies had been organized like Christianity or Islam were, with codified dogma and stuff, they might have had even more success. The conquering was already more or less the same pre-Christianity as it was in colonialism.
Again, so? I'm even more confused now because it's those people, the ones you're saying uphold a "false addition" to the Torah, that you also want sympathy for, saying they're being attacked by Sabbateans. So two different false renditions of whatever the hell "real" Judaism is, are fighting each other. Why is that supposed to be relevant to me? What I said about the ritual mutilation (which is from the original Torah) and America's pro-Israeli sacrifices still stands, no?
You say it's not that simple but I don't see why it needs to be anymore complicated. I don't have a problem at all with Malcolm X types who don't like or don't trust white people. That's the generalization he made to identify and defend against a threat to his people. Now if they actually applied it, e.g. if they embraced black separatism and built a black nation that was completely independent of white people and white institutions, why am I supposed to think that's a bad thing? Ignoring issues of territory and stuff. Just because not every individual white person was the problem?
The one running the media that weaponized everyone else's retardation.
Do we really want them to, though?