5 ms·

I have no idea what you are talking about. The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. They can not be advocating for abolition of the con

I have no idea what you are talking about. The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process).

api 9y ago
How does the Constitution allow the establishment of a white ethnostate?
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  A strong argument could be made that that was a large part of its purpose for a large faction of the Founders. The opposition to that idea is what led to provisions for the end of importing slaves into the US and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. There is a subset of them that makes rhetorical gestures in that direction, but it's far from the whole, and even the subset that makes rhetorical gestures at the Constitution is quite selective in their concern. And then there's the one like Theodore “Vox Day” Beale (who lays out what I think is one of the clearest articulations of alt-right philosophy without obfuscatory rhetoric designed to make it palatable to conventional society): I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don't give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things: 1.Nationalism. 2. Western civilization. 3. Winning. Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way. [0] > They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. They certainly can be (and some quite clearly are, more to the point) advocating for it's abolition, or at least it being treated as a tool of convenience to be used only insofar as it furthers other goals and ignored/dismissed otherwise. > This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process). The right to self-defense is not an enumerated Constitutional right, though its a traditional legal privilege enshrined in both criminal common law and most statutes. It's notably (as an individual right) not referenced in the second amendment, which is unusual in that it does provide a justification for the legal right it protects. All of the other points are points on which traditionally the conventional right has been weak and the conventional left stronger, though its true that neither has viewed “free speech” as unbounded which has resulted in some who do (or who at least have a more expansive view of the bounds) to challenge the conventional left as being opposed to it. [0]
- alacombe 9y ago
  It's sure that non-western civilization has been doing really well. Last I heard, LGBT were still sentenced to death and women deprived of their Rights (if not stoned to death) in countries basing their Law on "the religion of peace"
- clock_tower 9y ago
  > "2. Western civilization. 3. Winning." It sounds like he needs to make up his mind. The core of chivalry is willingness to lose, if winning would violate your principles; think of how Richard the Lion-Hearted died, mortally wounded when a crossbowman missed and King Richard gave him a second shot. And what is Western Civ without the spirit of chivalry? A miserable pile of bureaucrats and gladiators, nothing special or remarkable, certainly nothing worth fighting for.

api 9y ago

How does the Constitution allow the establishment of a white ethnostate?

LyndsySimon 9y ago
A strong argument could be made that that was a large part of its purpose for a large faction of the Founders. The opposition to that idea is what led to provisions for the end of importing slaves into the US and the Three-Fifths Compromise.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The alt-right folks are at-foremost constitutional conservative. There is a subset of them that makes rhetorical gestures in that direction, but it's far from the whole, and even the subset that makes rhetorical gestures at the Constitution is quite selective in their concern. And then there's the one like Theodore “Vox Day” Beale (who lays out what I think is one of the clearest articulations of alt-right philosophy without obfuscatory rhetoric designed to make it palatable to conventional society): I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don't give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things: 1.Nationalism. 2. Western civilization. 3. Winning. Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way. [0] > They can not be advocating for abolition of the constitution. They certainly can be (and some quite clearly are, more to the point) advocating for it's abolition, or at least it being treated as a tool of convenience to be used only insofar as it furthers other goals and ignored/dismissed otherwise. > This is a trait of the left who has no other wish than to eliminate Governemnt Constitutioal bound as well as the Bill of Rights (ie. no free speech, no right to self defense, no innocent before being proven guilty, no due process). The right to self-defense is not an enumerated Constitutional right, though its a traditional legal privilege enshrined in both criminal common law and most statutes. It's notably (as an individual right) not referenced in the second amendment, which is unusual in that it does provide a justification for the legal right it protects. All of the other points are points on which traditionally the conventional right has been weak and the conventional left stronger, though its true that neither has viewed “free speech” as unbounded which has resulted in some who do (or who at least have a more expansive view of the bounds) to challenge the conventional left as being opposed to it. [0]

alacombe 9y ago
It's sure that non-western civilization has been doing really well. Last I heard, LGBT were still sentenced to death and women deprived of their Rights (if not stoned to death) in countries basing their Law on "the religion of peace"
clock_tower 9y ago
> "2. Western civilization. 3. Winning." It sounds like he needs to make up his mind. The core of chivalry is willingness to lose, if winning would violate your principles; think of how Richard the Lion-Hearted died, mortally wounded when a crossbowman missed and King Richard gave him a second shot. And what is Western Civ without the spirit of chivalry? A miserable pile of bureaucrats and gladiators, nothing special or remarkable, certainly nothing worth fighting for.