Thats what I was thinking.

"...why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red?"

just part of it could work

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080 found this too

That is a good quote

I think point 17 in this essay is good

The "and red" and "tawny" parts of the quote are iffy.

Also needs to be about the same length to fit the formatting.

Franklin might not be our best guy for this then

All of his best quotes are too long

Franklin is a big brain Ni🅱 🅱a

I want *something* with Franklin.

I know he's got something somewhere.

https://gab.ai/PatriotFront/posts/13929288

https://gab.ai/PatriotFront/posts/13929514

Effortposting on Gab

I thought we only got a 30 day postban on Facebook, but it turns out our page was 100% unpublished. I really, really dislike mainstream social media platforms.

https://gab.ai/meh6000/posts/13928346

This bottom feeding reporter contacted us last week for an article on Newsweek, we ignored him entirely, I don't regret it considering now he's trying to dox some random White guys, looks like.

I like those. Those are good.

I like the second one, but yeah, all good

https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/924651942558732288 we are reaching soy boy levels previously thought impossible 😆

@Thomas Ryan , what do you think of the Bill of Rights? I think it is excellent, if only we redefine citizenship.

You go back and forth about what roles the states have, but folks have been doing that for centuries. No real glaring flaws to the bill of rights, it wasn't the point of failure for the State.

Sorry but I have to countersignal the bill of rights - well, mainly the first amendment

Go ahead

The state must not refuse to define the Good - which is basically the point of the 1st amendment

The truth will not necessarily win out in a free market of ideas

Would it not be that the State cannor enforce it's own definition of good? In our current society, the State's definition of good and just is not shared by us.

Keep in mind their idea of all men were men of European descent of good character. They never envisioned muds being considered our equals

And as far as enforcing morality, it can be done without making dissenting speech illegal. We would be massive hyporcrites to not understand the value of free speech while dangling on the edge of being thrown into prison if it loses ground in this country.

It would be like us writing a founding document and being expected to take into account space aliens being included 200 years later

Definitely going to have a "gas the xenos, galactic Manifest Destiny now" clause.

Seriously that's how foreign a concept of other races being "American" would have been to them

The state has a duty to keep morally deleterious ideas out of public consumption. This is fundamental

I’m not only talking about obscenity although that’s obvious

And obscenity was never considered speech until the 60s

That's why Fascism is the only way forward

However even dangerous ideas presented in a morally acceptable manner must be scrutinized

The point of the 1st amendment is speech and religion, should Christianity be enforced in your opinion?

I believe in toleration not religious liberty. The difference is important.