Post B0Rzs0rJGqCKAiDIhs by Rudolf_von_Goldenbaum@poa.st
(DIR) More posts by Rudolf_von_Goldenbaum@poa.st
(DIR) Post #B0QdI51ju5Y6WaaoRE by BroDrillard@nicecrew.digital
2025-11-20T05:56:44.134611Z
20 likes, 8 repeats
(DIR) Post #B0QdI6EBRJ66FTQGTQ by whiteman_@poa.st
2025-11-20T05:58:02.223921Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@BroDrillard If my family acted up, I'm bringing macaroni salad with raisins
(DIR) Post #B0QdI6lrQ62HvvB9xw by LordMordred@poa.st
2025-11-20T06:02:13.720063Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@whiteman_ @BroDrillard Brother Bring forth The dreadedC O L E S L A W
(DIR) Post #B0QdI7N5BhoHnMasz2 by whiteman_@poa.st
2025-11-20T06:02:37.483327Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LordMordred @BroDrillard Very well
(DIR) Post #B0QdI8A0FowSF5TxEe by LordMordred@poa.st
2025-11-20T06:03:21.609811Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@whiteman_ @BroDrillard In half gallon size
(DIR) Post #B0QdI8kA5Nri3EOpaz by whiteman_@poa.st
2025-11-20T06:11:15.863771Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LordMordred @BroDrillard Hell yeah. I'll be there at your cookout m8.
(DIR) Post #B0QdLe5G1Ig47UwF6W by Bernard@friends.ravergram.club
2025-11-20T06:06:33Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@BroDrillard Context is everything. When those guys wrote the US Constitution and said all men are created equal, they meant only Americans which were free white men. Never did they mean that this also applied to niggers.
(DIR) Post #B0Qh1IfmJcBNjwZhXk by lain@lain.com
2025-11-20T07:17:32.936488Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@BroDrillard dang if only Jesus had ever been asked about why he meant by neighbor and had told one of his iconic parables about it
(DIR) Post #B0Ql3yogzq66qIHHCy by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T06:20:28.508359Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
I read a great historically contextual interpretation of this ages ago and then lost it.Basically "all men created equal" means in the context of the day, a rejection that free men should be ruled over by Kings. "all men are created equal" being the equivalent today of "no kings."Nothing to do with wamens or negros or anything else.At the time the only people considered "men" were landowners more or less, so slave class and peasants embracing communism wasn't the meaning.
(DIR) Post #B0QnLvZQ0MHPtXoqmm by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T08:28:32.562871Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard Yes, but in common parlance it's not. Many would hold to this interpretation and it can be seen as the de-facto and correct one by the context, even taking the knowledge of some radical elements at the time seeing this in a more broad way which manifested itself in the French Revolution. But the idea of total legal equality just among one group and race is on its face somewhat radical. You can look at it in a way that isn't really subversive, like the freemen ideal, but you are opening a line of discussion that doesn't just stop at that. "All men are created equal" is on its face untrue, even within one race and class. There are those born with infirmities that deaden their reason. Are they truly equal? Really? I do not intend to demean them by this line of argument but they are not an equal in a societal sense and cannot ever be so. "All men are created equal" is a statement which implies action and corrective measures because it is an absolute ideal, without context, which is inevitably lost over time. Language matters. And the language of the American Revolution has unintended second and third order consequences the further away from the time you are. If you want something less likely to spur radical thought a statement saying something like: "all freemen of good moral character should be seen as equal in regards to the law and in testimony", you're going to have a much harder time warping the meaning than a quasi religious statement.
(DIR) Post #B0QnengzWDWyxqMQ1g by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T08:31:56.638788Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard tldr: you are right (as far as the original context) but the phrase is vague enough to be dangerous and subject to continual misinterpretation
(DIR) Post #B0QvWYFzp3buPPJMx6 by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T09:06:02.117375Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
what is this retardation? you're talking with the radical marxist glasses that didn't exist at the time clouding your world view. there was no question of "one group and one race" as the country was entirely made up of white people, and slaves were not considered people so don't pretend like there was some racial heterogeneity in their minds.you bather on as though you can't simply accept this statement means a country free of the king and the freedom of said tyranny, the entire point of the revolution, even if you only want to think it mean from taxation without representation and free from harrassment by the kings men.the fact that you are using your keyboard to attempt to "fix" the wording to your liking is as retarded as the racial commentary above.the fact is, you and so many others today are historically illiterate, it's as simple as that and no amount of retconing will change the historical facts about culture, society, governance and rights of the time.
(DIR) Post #B0QvWZUvD38yFzInr6 by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T10:00:05.361807Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/paineafricans...
(DIR) Post #B0Rd8VkJu0aledqGg4 by White_Powerade@nicecrew.digital
2025-11-20T18:08:46.921751Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Tbf the levant where JC preached was pretty much a Greek-Jewish multicultural melting pot under Roman governance at the time when those words were said. If they were actually said by JC.And jews were the fierce theocratic nationalist natives resisting foreign occupation and cultural assimilation.That's right, JC effectively preached embracing of the foreigner in your lands and against ethno-nationalism. Of surrendering ethnic cohesion and exclusivity for an egalitarian stance. Or did he preach the opposite, seeing as he was only speaking to the Israelites? Can be interpreted either way. But the jews merely turned the tables on European Christianity by doing to them today what they tried doing to the jews 2000 years ago.The Zionists cleverly and sneakily finagled the aid of the Christians of the new Rome, the USA, to reverse the deeds of the old Rome against them. And at the same time, destroy them with the same teachings deployed (by Rome) against the jews back then.Because you see, the jews saw JC as a Roman bastard and foreign influence agent not really of their tribe. Attempting to pacify the notoriously rebellious jews by attacking and deligitimizing their theocratic leadership. While at the same time preaching tolerance and reconciliation with the foreigners that came with the Roman occupation.JC to them was nothing more than a Roman psyop to defuse and pacify jewish nationalism.And today, after 2000 years, the jews have finally managed to co-opt that ancient Roman psyop and use it to reverse its catastrophic effect on the jewish people while simultaneously exploiting and destroying the modern descendants and heirs of Rome.
(DIR) Post #B0RojRy012co8x3aQC by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T10:04:41.423748Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Took you an hour to figure out that Thomas Paine was jewpilled?LOL and big woop. See Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, you halfwit. And then figure out why they were haggling over the fraction of a person their chattel was useful for.
(DIR) Post #B0RojT1a5D5HQLjxdw by Bernard@friends.ravergram.club
2025-11-20T13:25:39Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@freemayonnaise @BroDrillard @wgiwf "All men are created equal." is just a stupid statement. It is obviously untrue and damaging by any interpretation. The masons may have inserted that to intentionally subvert us. It has doomed us to liberalism and done irreparable damage to this country. People have spent so much time trying to understand the intention of including that statement and what they really meant. I simply reject it and don't care what they wrote. We will need to write a new constitution in an all new nation and state that we can carve out of what was once the US.
(DIR) Post #B0RpD3alCmxHEYIx6G by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T20:24:03.603696Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard Someone inform the long dead figures of influence in the early American republic and literal signers of the Declaration of Independence that some guy on the internet knew what they were truly thinking at the time.
(DIR) Post #B0RpUUlnPZ5sRomWsi by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T20:27:09.287286Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard Here's a quite definitive nail in the coffin to the argument that people did not view such a phrase literally at the time. Negroes and women were allowed to vote in post-revolution New Jersey.https://www.amrevmuseum.org/virtualexhibits/when-women...
(DIR) Post #B0RqhWQieON5JahNtA by BowsacNoodle@poa.st
2025-11-20T20:40:46.215020Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@wgiwf @freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard >All of the vices which are charged upon the negroes in the southern colonies and West Indies... are the genuine offspring of slavery, and serve as an argument to prove they [African Americans] were not intended by Providence for it."The poverty as cause for X argument is as old as America itself. Wow. I am firmly anti slavery and shocked by this.
(DIR) Post #B0RtDhpfzWntr1qXcu by Bernard@friends.ravergram.club
2025-11-20T21:05:38Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@wgiwf @freemayonnaise @BroDrillard Federally, only free white land-owning men were allowed to vote originally. The 1790 Nationalization Act also said that only free white men of good character could become citizens. We cannot know exactly how the framers thought or why they left some vague clauses in the Constitution. I suspect the same subversive group that is corrupting our current government was behind the scenes then too.
(DIR) Post #B0RvSzBByfmRuJK9VA by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T20:52:33.546652Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Listen my nigga, I'm not supporting nor justifying slavery. Your confirmation bias google searches of the past 24 hours to support whatever stupid agenda you have with saying "all men are created equal" meant "no kings" and therefore it was commonplace that wamen and niggers were people and consider "men" as per the constitution is marxist learned horseshit.It took over 100 years later for the civil war over taxation and other issues to raise slavery to the level that it is still claimed to be a major issue/cause.I don't know what point you're trying to prove other than you have some agenda and you get upset about when someone tells you quite factually that in the politics and culture in the US in the 1700s, slaves and women were not considered equals in any way.The fact you think some footnotes and some screencaps of people from the time expressing the view that slavery is wrong, doesn't impart any coherence to you arguing about what I said was the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" has nothing to do with identity politics, which is where you squarely spend your time.
(DIR) Post #B0RvSzzAyplMPKi4PY by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T21:34:09.502800Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard >It took over 100 years later for the civil war over taxation and other issues to raise slavery to the level that it is still claimed to be a major issue/cause.Multiple states passed laws immediately or gradually banning slavery prior to the adoption of the constitution due to public disapproval of slavery at the time: eg. Pennsylvania in 1780
(DIR) Post #B0Rw0OkvuDvCmsyREm by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T21:04:06.249552Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
your stupid fucking article says exactly what I said, that slaves weren't considered "people" and couldn't vote, the article says right in there that any "colored people" who could vote were landowners. something I said right in my post.none of the shit you are desperately trying to post changes the correct interpretation in the context of the time that "men" in that phrase didn't mean women or slaves or any other neo-marxist identity politics class, something you apparently think dogshit off brand blogpost websites are going to prove to the world, except this one explicitly supports what I said. lol
(DIR) Post #B0Rw0Pg0U1Zjdtg1CK by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T21:40:09.776459Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard Multiple founders (probably a majority) considered enslaved negroes to be human, as the quotes show. Them being citizens and having equal rights is an entirely different question to personhood.I do not know why you keep calling everything Marxist. I am not not advocating for for some sort of egalitarian society, let alone some sort of blank slate equality of the races.
(DIR) Post #B0Ry8VO7KdcVa6INN2 by wgiwf@poa.st
2025-11-20T22:04:05.018870Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard The argument started out as me claiming it is very easy to misinterpret the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", as to include all of mankind if one ignores or is ignorant of the context in which it is written. You bringing up the constitution, laws and objections to "negro rights" at the time and afterward, etc., are irrelevant to the argument. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is not binding nor subject to court interpretation; it is the "moral basis" that "founders" conceived that underlines and justifies the Revolution. People have and will continue to cite its words for all manner of things, both good and bad, and its place in the public consciousness leaves it by nature at the whim of public sentiment. I posted those quotes to demonstrate that as soon as the ink dried some viewed those fateful words as demanding of action in a universal sense. And it has been commonly viewed that way, incorrectly or not. It doesn't matter if it is or was a minority view; the point is that one's understanding of it can easily be subverted. What you have said in response has not refuted the point at all. It doesn't matter that they don't understand the context. All the that matters in the sake of the debate is whether it can be interpreted wrongly or not—and it obviously can.
(DIR) Post #B0Rzs0rJGqCKAiDIhs by Rudolf_von_Goldenbaum@poa.st
2025-11-20T22:23:29.588156Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@wgiwf @freemayonnaise @Bernard @BroDrillard I would say you could be morally against slavery and still not believe "all men are created equal" genetically or in the context of citizenship. Even today there are plenty of edgy racists that think slavery is morally wrong.
(DIR) Post #B0S6LGizxZcbVBewgS by freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-20T22:29:41.431733Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
did you read the rest of this thread?the preface has nothing to do with genetics or identity other than the innate identify of white land owning men and the strawman red herring this dipshit keeps injecting is that it had anything to do with slavery, other than perceived grievances under the king of England.It took nearly 100 years for the Brits/Jews to mount their subversion into a civil war and almost another hundred for the history books to be rewritten about the civil war being solely about slavery.
(DIR) Post #B0S6LIAga7MZzLcZTk by Rudolf_von_Goldenbaum@poa.st
2025-11-20T23:36:01.125368Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemayonnaise Well I'm agreeing with your original point.