What is Christian Nationalism?

[AC2021]

I've asked a number of people what it means, including those who use the term derisively and even seminary professors who say they do not favor the term.

No one can give me a concrete answer.

I'm asking any of you to give me a working definition -- liberal, conservative, or libertarian.

I'm not interested in what Commies have to say. You people hate the Christians.

 

[hmt5000]

If you believe the US has a border and you believe in god... You're a racist white nationalist even if your hispanic or black.

 

[PawPower1981]

Libs just make up buzz words and phrases hoping they stick. See “Gender is a spectrum”

 

[CuriousFiend]

I've asked a number of people what it means, including those who use the term derisively and even seminary professors who say they do not favor the term.

No one can give me a concrete answer.

I'm asking any of you to give me a working definition -- liberal, conservative, or libertarian.

I'm not interested in what Commies have to say. You people hate the Christians.

Who are the Commies you refer?

Are they here? -On this fora?

If so, point 'em out...coz that's what a nationalist ought to do.

Butt watt is a 'Nationalist'?

•'Nationalism' is an ideology which frames a deceptive narrative for supposedly showing an individual's love & devotion towards his nation.

•It is actually possession of a cleverly concealed & distorted 'god complex', whereby adherents are beholden to a dogmatic belief of their nation alone as somehow superior to all other nations, basically communal narcissism.

•In practice, 'nationalism' is interpreted & perceived as positive or negative depending on the particular ideological variant and the resulting outcomes.

•'Nationalism' has been a political tool used for creating then manipulating movements for "freedom" and "justice", and often cunningly associated with what has subsequently been portrayed as "cultural revivals", supposedly encouraging "pride in national achievements".

And what is a 'Christian'?

•A 'Christian' is an individual who identifies, acquiesces—& adheres to any of the various 'Christianity' cult doctrines, all of which are based upon a monotheistic desert snake Abrahamic religious cult deceptively framed and associated with the supposed life and teachings of a character generally referred to as - 'Jesus'-'Christ'.

•In its most basic definition, a 'christian' identifying individual conforms to whichever "christian" cult's communistic ideological framing they've become possessed by, as it relates to the central 'Jesus'-'Christ' character, and they typically do so by narcissistically virtue signaling as if somehow embodying both the particular ideological beliefs of their specific "Christian"-"faith"-(*delusions)-as well as by convincing themselves of their believing in the 'Jesus' character's supposed life, supposed death, and supposed resurrection and also by putting that "faith"-(*delusionality)-into "action"-(*subservient irrationality)-as "muh true true disciples of da Jebus Cripes".

By combining: 'Christian' + 'Nationalism' the result is a severely fuckin' retarded antithetically mutated ideological virus which can poison entire nation's populations with significant cognitive dissonance, general dysfunctionality and extreme irrational hysteria if left to fester unchecked.

In conclusion:

-'Nationalism' is a political control tool.

-'Christianity' is a political control tool

-'Christian'-'Nationalism' is a hybrid political tool.

-'Christian'-'Nationalists' are useful idiots.

The truely anointed have done the work required to wilfully extricate and thereafter once more never succumbing to any external identity virulents—nor do they ever shamelessly proclaim to be anything. They simply embody that which is true.

Of course they also entirely lack shits to give.

So there ya have it. 'Christian'-'Nationalism' = another weaponized ideological retardation.

 

[CDDP]

 

[CuriousFiend]

Yeah and just look around at where that shit has eventually led ya to.




America was better when it was still a REPUBLIC...

 

[TheResister]

If you believe the US has a border and you believe in god... You're a racist white nationalist even if your hispanic or black.

Sadly there is a lot of truth to that. On the resisters board, it was started by a Korean. He posts a lot of stuff about race and on other boards they would call him a White supremacist even though he is 100 percent Korean.

I don't know of anyone that identifies as a Christian Nationalist though I did hear Trump say he was a "nationalist" and he uses the Bible to attract the fundamentalists into his camp. I don't, for a minute, believe he is Christian. But, since the term is used as a pejorative against Whites, people can throw it back to the left as hate speech and potential fighting words.

 

[TheResister]

I've asked a number of people what it means, including those who use the term derisively and even seminary professors who say they do not favor the term.

No one can give me a concrete answer.

I'm asking any of you to give me a working definition -- liberal, conservative, or libertarian.

I'm not interested in what Commies have to say. You people hate the Christians.

Well you have at least one non-Christian that couldn't read the thread. In my mind (though this is NOT a dictionary definition) a real Christian would believe and espouse those traits of Christians that made America great. In its founding and framing era we were NOT a one world/ one race / one world religious dictatorship. We didn't support multiculturalism or watering down some basic principles.

IF I were to refer to myself as being a "nationalist," it would have to mean that I support the Constitution as originally written and intended. I don't know but a handful of people that do that. So, in relative terms, not many could honestly and accurately call themselves a Christian Nationalist. It's more of a made up term used by the left as a pejorative and maybe by a few misguided people that think it's about what they are against than what they are for.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

The Way

 

[Joe King]

Nationalism' is an ideology which frames a deceptive narrative for supposedly showing an individual's love & devotion towards his nation.

That's not a real good definition. It assumes that anyone expressing "love & devotion towards his nation" is doing so deceptively.

In America, nationalism is simply the support and promotion of our nations Founding principles.

Anyone supporting such, is a nationalist.

IF I were to refer to myself as being a "nationalist," it would have to mean that I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.

That's pretty much it.

It is actually possession of a cleverly concealed & distorted 'god complex', whereby adherents are beholden to a dogmatic belief of their nation alone as somehow superior to all other nations,

Well, America based on it's Founding principles IS superior to all other nations.

We've had people in power that have worked to try to fuck that up, but our nations Founding principles are in fact better.

America's Founding changed the World for the better.

 

[TopHook]

We need a new white America. Everyone else has ruined everything.

 

[TheResister]

We need a new white America. Everyone else has ruined everything.
View attachment 213354

Actually that was the intent of the founders and framers.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Actually that was the intent of the founders and framers.

Maybe you can explain why there were blacks in the Continental Congress and why Jefferson and Adams were corresponding with blacks 1n 1777 and 1780. In 1780, Massachusetts allows blacks to vote. The Continental Army allowed blacks to serve in 1777.

".....to ourselves and our posterity", doesn't refer to just the White Race you racist fuck. It referred to the people who were colonists and their children, they were to become citizens of the United States. There were over 10,000 black colonists in the 13 colonies and that number increased up through 1789. There were free blacks owning land in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1678. Anthony Johnson was freed after serving his indenture and became a slave owner himself, he was also granted land by the Virginia Colony in 1651, in 1647 is when he entered the legal record as an unindentured man. His wife and daughter had the same social status as white women. SMFH

 

[Joe King]

".....to ourselves and our posterity", doesn't refer to just the White Race you racist fuck. It referred to the people who were colonists and their children, they were to become citizens of the United States. There were over 10,000 black colonists in the 13 colonies and that number increased up through 1789. There were free blacks owning land in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1678. Anthony Johnson was freed after serving his indenture and became a slave owner himself, he was also granted land by the Virginia Colony in 1651, in 1647 is when he entered the legal record as an unindentured man. His wife and daughter had the same social status as white women. SMFH

My question is, why do some people think that race has anything to do with it?


As long as people are freedom loving and believe in the nations Founding principles, I don't give a fuck what color they are because they alright in my book.

 

[TheResister]

My question is, why do some people think that race has anything to do with it?


As long as people are freedom loving and believe in the nations Founding principles, I don't give a fuck what color they are because they alright in my book.

I would say if you want an honest and informed answer to that, you should read the Dred Scott v. Sanford case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. Here are some excerpts:

"...the words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

...it is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford; 3/6/1857; Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford; Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2010; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267...

www.archives.gov

Justice Taney cites numerous laws to support his conclusions. No matter what others may say, the case speaks for itself. Facts don't care whose feelings are hurt. The myriad of cases show that the United States was founded for the preservation, advancement and protection of the White race. Note that the United States supports the Right for every people to have a homeland except the White people. There are good people in every race; however, the more alike that people are, the greater the chances they have for progressing. Now, let me go a step further:

If Liberty is an unalienable Right in a manner contradicting Taney then the MAGA crowd is screwed on "immigration." They have attempted to change the meaning of the word. They want it to mean that any entry into be by way of citizenship. THAT is the hidden message they employ to wage their war against the foreigners. Liberty means the ability to come and go without restraint. Obviously, if we are restraining people, we are placing limits on them. If accept your premise about race, then what justifies the limits of other people and on what basis? You don't have to be at war with other races to maintain the cultural integrity of your own.

 

[Joe King]

If they didn't want the freed slaves to become citizens, they shoulda deported them. They didn't, so if they stay, and they are freemen, then they are citizens too.

If they didn't want them, they shouldn't have brought them here, and instead picked their own damn cotton.


My point was that I'd prefer living amongst people from other races that hold dear our nations Founding principles than I would want to live around a bunch of commie/progressive/Stalinists/modern democrats who hate our nation's Founding principles and work overtime to turn the nation into a socialist shithole.

 

[CuriousFiend]

That's not a real good definition. It assumes that anyone expressing "love & devotion towards his nation" is doing so deceptively.

Well of course this [mis]interpretation would certainly seem to suggest so, now wouldn't it.

In America, nationalism is simply the support and promotion of our nations Founding principles.

Anyone supporting such, is a nationalist.

Alrighty then. Oddly enough I am a 'one'.

Infact just like yourself, I am a 'one' amongst the several billions of the 'any' ones.

Although I am 'one' of the 'any' whom are not in America, yet I do support and promote the original Constitution for the united states of America, particularly the original 10 articles which form the Bill of Rights

So I almost meet your definition,of 'nationalism', butt knot quite aye.

Spose it'd be pretty easy to book the next flight bound for Mexico, and within maybe a few days I could simply strut my dumbass into Texas, viola:

¹•support✓

²•promote✓

³•in America✓

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

. . . . .JKs 'nationalism'✓

All jokes aside, indeed, were it up to me, I would intend creating a Constitution for the state of New Zealand...basically by copying the OG Constitution for the united states of America fundamentals and making appropriate NZ-centric adjustments where necessary.

Well, America based on it's Founding principles IS superior to all other nations.

Absolutely!

And so therefore only evermore greater the tragedy it is that long ago this superior nation ceased existence.

We've had people in power that have worked to try to fuck that up, but our nations Founding principles are in fact better.

Fortunately that is correct, however unfortunately it also neglects accounting for the ceaseless 'fucking up' work that successive 'people in power' have-& are-increasingly enabled continued subversion unabated.

America's Founding changed the World for the better.

hmm, yeah nah, I think ya mean -the founding of the united states of America, initially changed ~some~ things of the world for the better–for some.

Pity it wasn't held on to very long.

For great men were the founding fathers who formed a superior framework to create the greatest nation so far known to have briefly existed throughout publicly available records.

Whereas the founding fathers great-great-great . . . ancestors, bourne of modernity, only became–& still more continue becoming–antithetical weak men of mediocrity.

Hey Joe, what is it, when dishonorable individuals masquerade as military veterans...?

 

[CuriousFiend]

If they didn't want the freed slaves to become citizens, they shoulda deported them. They didn't, so if they stay, and they are freemen, then they are citizens too.

If they didn't want them, they shouldn't have brought them here, and instead picked their own damn cotton.

Would you know whether the American slaves were strictly of non-European origin?

Were there possibly any other slaves exploited within northern continental America prior to the introduction of non-European slaves?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Would you know whether the American slaves were strictly of non-European origin?

Were there possibly any other slaves exploited within northern continental America prior to the introduction of non-European slaves?

There were Indigenous that were enslaved in the US, there were also peoples from India that were enslaved in the US. Yes, even some White Europeans were enslaved, depended on whether the colony was Dutch, French, German, English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Where most people fail is they only look at the British colonies as to our history (Dred Scott case as referred above), since the British were the ones that became the dominant group and had the resources to develop the most.

Judge Taney was a Democrat who came from a family who owned slaves. Funny how the resister claims he's not a Democrat, yet he always refers to and agrees with Democrats when making his points. gofigr

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Note that the United States supports the Right for every people to have a homeland except the White people. There are good people in every race; however, the more alike that people are, the greater the chances they have for progressing. Now, let me go a step further:

If Liberty is an unalienable Right in a manner contradicting Taney then the MAGA crowd is screwed on "immigration." They have attempted to change the meaning of the word. They want it to mean that any entry into be by way of citizenship. THAT is the hidden message they employ to wage their war against the foreigners. Liberty means the ability to come and go without restraint. Obviously, if we are restraining people, we are placing limits on them. If accept your premise about race, then what justifies the limits of other people and on what basis? You don't have to be at war with other races to maintain the cultural integrity of your own.

Funny, pretty sure Great Britain and Europe were all White countries and were so long before the US came into play. SMFH

Liberty, i.e. freedom doesn't mean the world has the right to go where they desire. Funny thing about rights, they are limiting in their own right. Entry into any country must be done legally, not by way of strictly citizenship. SMFH

Liberty does not mean the ability to enter or exit any country you want at any time or be any means.

Liberty in the Declaration of Independence

"Liberty" in the Declaration of Independence means "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

www.thepursuitofhappiness.com

Thomas Jefferson described the term liberty in the Declaration of Independence as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

In modern day, liberty is defined as “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.”

So much for you being the "nationalist" you claim to be let alone following the founding fathers..

 

[TheResister]

If they didn't want the freed slaves to become citizens, they shoulda deported them. They didn't, so if they stay, and they are freemen, then they are citizens too.

If they didn't want them, they shouldn't have brought them here, and instead picked their own damn cotton.


My point was that I'd prefer living amongst people from other races that hold dear our nations Founding principles than I would want to live around a bunch of commie/progressive/Stalinists/modern democrats who hate our nation's Founding principles and work overtime to turn the nation into a socialist shithole.

First and foremost - Citizenship is a privilege, not any kind of right.

Second point - Slaves were imported here by a very small number of slavers. The Democrats wouldn't grant you the privilege of citizenship knowing what you believe in. So, who are you to judge others for seeking to maintain cultural integrity?

In the final analysis, Blacks (as a whole) do not support First Principles. The first time you tell a Black the facts of history regarding race, they come unglued. They will call you a racist and other choice things PLUS say / or anything to publicly shame you and that includes, but won't be limited to lies, innuendo, trash talk and repetitive false accusations. If you don't deify the communist, Martin Luther King Jr., they will advocate that you be put to death. Lobby against reparations and you'll become their instant enemy.

On the whole, they are going to allow a false narrative about the past control the future. They won't be satisfied until the Whites have zero power and are eradicated.

 

[TheResister]

Well of course this [mis]interpretation would certainly seem to suggest so, now wouldn't it.


Alrighty then. Oddly enough I am a 'one'.

Infact just like yourself, I am a 'one' amongst the several billions of the 'any' ones.

Although I am 'one' of the 'any' whom are not in America, yet I do support and promote the original Constitution for the united states of America, particularly the original 10 articles which form the Bill of Rights

So I almost meet your definition,of 'nationalism', butt knot quite aye.

Spose it'd be pretty easy to book the next flight bound for Mexico, and within maybe a few days I could simply strut my dumbass into Texas, viola:

¹•support✓

²•promote✓

³•in America✓

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

. . . . .JKs 'nationalism'✓

All jokes aside, indeed, were it up to me, I would intend creating a Constitution for the state of New Zealand...basically by copying the OG Constitution for the united states of America fundamentals and making appropriate NZ-centric adjustments where necessary.


Absolutely!

And so therefore only evermore greater the tragedy it is that long ago this superior nation ceased existence.


Fortunately that is correct, however unfortunately it also neglects accounting for the ceaseless 'fucking up' work that successive 'people in power' have-& are-increasingly enabled continued subversion unabated.


hmm, yeah nah, I think ya mean -the founding of the united states of America, initially changed ~some~ things of the world for the better–for some.

Pity it wasn't held on to very long.

For great men were the founding fathers who formed a superior framework to create the greatest nation so far known to have briefly existed throughout publicly available records.

Whereas the founding fathers great-great-great . . . ancestors, bourne of modernity, only became–& still more continue becoming–antithetical weak men of mediocrity.

Hey Joe, what is it, when dishonorable individuals masquerade as military veterans...?

You've mentioned that America was great for a "brief time." I'm just curious as to what time period you think that was.

As you know, the White experience in America starts with small numbers of people coming here and over half dying within a year. But, within a century they began offering to the world many achievements that would benefit the whole of mankind. The discoveries, inventions and method of governing pushed the United States beyond even the achievements made by the Roman Empire AND it was done in a quarter of the time it took the Romans.

People came here from the world over and those from non-White countries came, knowing they wouldn't become citizens, but they came to enjoy the benefits a country predicated on free enterprise. Would you concede that the downfall of America coincides with its rush to jeopardize its cultural identity?

 

[CuriousFiend]

Yes, even some White Europeans were enslaved,

What is a "White European"?

 

[TheResister]

Would you know whether the American slaves were strictly of non-European origin?

Were there possibly any other slaves exploited within northern continental America prior to the introduction of non-European slaves?

There were all kinds of slaves at different points in history. There were White slaves, but there were also indentured servants who had it a Hell of a lot worse than slaves.

PRIOR to 1789 there was no such thing as an American citizen. It's easy to demagogue the slavery issue, but you cannot blame the White race for an institution that predated them and was under the control of King George. If you want to blame someone for slavery in the U.S. you might start as far back as Anne and go forward to King George III.

When the Constitution was ratified, roughly half or more of the states had outlawed slavery. Insofar as the other half of the states were concerned, the federal government had no jurisdiction over slavery. There is another point that is easy to demagogue. The real no B.S. reason the War of Northern Aggression is due to the simple fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the states relative to slavery (the illegally ratified 14th Amendment notwithstanding.)

 

[CuriousFiend]

You've mentioned that America was great for a "brief time." I'm just curious as to what time period you think that was.

So.. you are curious as to what I think?...butt then say...

As you know,

...you reckon you already know whatever thoughts I may think...

the White experience in America starts with small numbers of people coming here and over half dying within a year. But, within a century they began offering to the world many achievements that would benefit the whole of mankind. The discoveries, inventions and method of governing pushed the United States beyond even the achievements made by the Roman Empire AND it was done in a quarter of the time it took the Romans.

Well this comparison to the Romans is, "as you know", simply absurd.

Butt do you know why?

People came here from the world over and those from non-White countries came, knowing they wouldn't become citizens, but they came to enjoy the benefits a country predicated on free enterprise. Would you concede that the downfall of America coincides with its rush to jeopardize its cultural identity?

Is that what you would concede?

 

[TheResister]

Well, this discussion has brought on quite the discussion about nationalism. Most are in agreement that First Principles are a prerequisite to figuring out whether or not a person is a nationalist for purposes of this discussion.

My point has been that the founders and framers were concerned with cultural integrity. That was a concern before we had political parties or even a debate about race per se. That concern was manifested in the early laws, particularly that the first immigration law limited citizenship to free white persons.

Bear in mind the Republicans are the original liberal party. The conservatives of today are largely a product of the Reagan era (the ex Democrat globalist) and are returning back to their liberal origins.

 

[TheResister]

So.. you are curious as to what I think?...butt then say...


...you reckon you already know whatever thoughts I may think...


Well this comparison to the Romans is, "as you know", simply absurd.

Butt do you know why?


Is that what you would concede?

I asked you what you thought and your reply is both non-responsive and sounds like a bit condescending.

Depending upon which historian you are relying on, the Roman Empire lasted from 1000 to 1500 years (depending on who is defining the Roman Empire.) What did they accomplish?

In the first 300 years from the time of the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, the Posterity of the founders down to the American people had accomplished far more than the Romans had during their existence. Are you wanting a separate debate about that?

I asked you for your opinion. If you don't want to give it and prefer non-responsive replies, then we have little more to discuss. Right?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There were all kinds of slaves at different points in history. There were White slaves, but there were also indentured servants who had it a Hell of a lot worse than slaves.

PRIOR to 1789 there was no such thing as an American citizen. It's easy to demagogue the slavery issue, but you cannot blame the White race for an institution that predated them and was under the control of King George. If you want to blame someone for slavery in the U.S. you might start as far back as Anne and go forward to King George III.

When the Constitution was ratified, roughly half or more of the states had outlawed slavery. Insofar as the other half of the states were concerned, the federal government had no jurisdiction over slavery. There is another point that is easy to demagogue. The real no B.S. reason the War of Northern Aggression is due to the simple fact that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the states relative to slavery (the illegally ratified 14th Amendment notwithstanding.)

The US Constitution recognized that the colonies, then Confederated States, did have citizens well before 1789, each of the 13 States defined citizens via their own Constitutions and laws. The USC recognized each States definition of citizen to be a citizen of the US as recognized. Article IV Section 2

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Funny thing about the Dred Scott case, the 2 dissenting Opinions of that case were Republicans who pointed out Taney's ignorance of History.

Black History Issue 2003 - WallBuilders

A black civil rights leader recently told an assembly at Michigan State University that American democracy was only decades old rather than centuries- that not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act when blacks could vote did democracy truly begin.

wallbuilders.com

"Non-Democrat Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, one of only two on the Court who dissented in that opinion, provided a lengthy documentary history to show that many blacks in America had often exercised the rights of citizens-” that many at the time of the American Revolution “possessed the franchise of [voters] on equal terms with other citizens.” [4]

State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.” [12]

As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections; [13] and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. [14]"

 

[weaponoffreedom]

What is a "White European"?

one that is not latino or black or mongol, duh wtf

 

[TheResister]

I've asked a number of people what it means, including those who use the term derisively and even seminary professors who say they do not favor the term.

No one can give me a concrete answer.

I'm asking any of you to give me a working definition -- liberal, conservative, or libertarian.

I'm not interested in what Commies have to say. You people hate the Christians.

We're many posts into this now and nobody has actually answered your question. Just for the exercise of it, this is just an opinion, FWIW:

When it comes to being a Christian, Thomas Jefferson once said:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Jefferson considered himself to be a Christian, but to most Americans, once they came to know the guy they rebuked him and called him all kinds of names. Jefferson and Adams gave birth to negative campaigning. According to one source:

"Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

Adams vs. Jefferson: The Birth of Negative Campaigning in the U.S.

Back in 1776, the dynamic duo had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, everything had changed.

www.mentalfloss.com

The point is, you can consider yourself a Christian and history may debate your personal convictions, regardless of how you self identify. I can't tell you what a Christian is because most denominations will denounce you if you don't subscribe to their ideology.

Insofar as being a nationalist, it is even more complex. Nationalists generally believe in a national identity. America, like it or not, was built on the twin pillars of race and religion. Our system of jurisprudence is based on the English Common Law. And here is a quote regarding the English Common Law:

First, of course, there is the general influence of the Bible through the medium of the Christian religion upon the law. It has been often said, indeed, that Christianity is part of the common law of England, and this is due in great measure to the authority of Sir Matthew Hale (King v.Taylor, i Vent. 293, 3 Keble 507), Blackstone and other writers, while Lord Mansfield held (Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767) that the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7211&context=penn_law_review

Today most people do not support a national identity as our forefathers did. America's unofficial state religion is humanism. If you support "democracy" and multiculturalism, you are a new nationalist in the eyes of most. So, best I can tell if a nationalist and constitutionalist were the same thing (in the instant case), very few would be nationalists. I think that the lack of posts that stayed on point says that nobody here is able to give you a working definition of the term. It's just rather meaningless.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

So there ya have it. 'Christian'-'Nationalism' = another weaponized ideological retardation.

This is on point. "Christian Nationalist" can be anything, to anyone.

I like steak burritos. I am a Christian. "Burrito loving Christian" could be used to describe me. It could also be used by some to infer that I am racist.

I also shoot a lot, and like the AK47 rifle and drive a Big Block Suburban. So I could also be a "Climate killing terrorist"

So I could be called a "Burrito eating, gas guzzling, assault rifle shooting Christian.

But guess what, I dont give a fuck.

Do yall kiwis have burritos in NZ? Recently seen an appalling post whereas you did not know what a waffle was.

When it comes to being a Christian, Thomas Jefferson once said:

who cares what the devil worshipper said. He wrote his own bible without the miracles of Jesus=fact.

 

[TheResister]

This is on point. "Christian Nationalist" can be anything, to anyone.

I like steak burritos. I am a Christian. "Burrito loving Christian" could be used to describe me. It could also be used by some to infer that I am racist.

I also shoot a lot, and like the AK47 rifle and drive a Big Block Suburban. So I could also be a "Climate killing terrorist"

So I could be called a "Burrito eating, gas guzzling, assault rifle shooting Christian.

But guess what, I dont give a fuck.

Do yall kiwis have burritos in NZ? Recently seen an appalling post whereas you did not know what a waffle was.


who cares what the devil worshipper said. He wrote his own bible without the miracles of Jesus=fact.

You proved my point. Jefferson saw himself as a Christian; many saw him as Satan incarnate.

 

[Joe King]

Would you know whether the American slaves were strictly of non-European origin?

Were there possibly any other slaves exploited within northern continental America prior to the introduction of non-European slaves?

There were, but the problem is due to the descendants of the ones from Africa. The rest are bein' pretty cool about it.

First and foremost - Citizenship is a privilege, not any kind of right.

It's a Right for me. Me progeny.

So, who are you to judge others for seeking to maintain cultural integrity?

Horse has been long outta the barn on that.

If you don't deify the communist, Martin Luther King Jr.,

I agree with what he said about judging a man by the content of his character.

Problem is, many today seem to want to be judged by the color of their skin.

 

[TheResister]

There were, but the problem is due to the descendants of the ones from Africa. The rest are bein' pretty cool about it.


It's a Right for me. Me progeny.


Horse has been long outta the barn on that.


I agree with what he said about judging a man by the content of his character.

Problem is, many today seem to want to be judged by the color of their skin.

Citizenship is more of a legal construct than anything else. If you believe that citizenship is some kind of right, then you support the 14th Amendment which makes the children of undocumented foreigners a citizen.

There are good people among every group. That is not the issue. The issue is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. When you mix cultures, religions (and the lack thereof) , races, political points of view, etc. you ultimately destroy the civilization.

I'm a supporter of a Right of Association and the Right of Disassociation. You have no more Right to force a person or a group to accept your premise than they are to force you to accept theirs. I've been judged by the color of my skin and I've been judged by much more meaningless things.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

You proved my point. Jefferson saw himself as a Christian; many saw him as Satan incarnate.

How the fuck does that prove YOUR point. You think that Jefferson was a great guy, and good OLE fashion Christian.

I proved my point calling the cocksucker a satanist.

 

[TheResister]

How the fuck does that prove YOUR point. You think that Jefferson was a great guy, and good OLE fashion Christian.

I proved my point calling the cocksucker a satanist.

Obviously you have a reading comprehension issue. I've never offered an opinion on Jefferson, not here nor anywhere else. I've quoted him as an authority on his works and his writings, but I haven't stated any opinion.

My point is that in his mind he thought he was a Christian. Many believe the man was Satan incarnate. So, yeah, like it or not you proved my point. You don't have a damn clue what I think as I've never shared that thought. You may want to put your brain in gear before typing the next time.

Look dude, just because I can tell you what the thinking is on a subject by those who have the authority or power never indicates agreement or disagreement with them.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Citizenship is more of a legal construct than anything else. If you believe that citizenship is some kind of right, then you support the 14th Amendment which makes the children of undocumented foreigners a citizen.

There are good people among every group. That is not the issue. The issue is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. When you mix cultures, religions (and the lack thereof) , races, political points of view, etc. you ultimately destroy the civilization.

I'm a supporter of a Right of Association and the Right of Disassociation. You have no more Right to force a person or a group to accept your premise than they are to force you to accept theirs. I've been judged by the color of my skin and I've been judged by much more meaningless things.

Citizenship (then Denison) was recognized as being from the country that started the individual colony, and it later became a process of others moving into a colony and paying certain fees that was recognized by a colony to becoming a citizen of said colony, then the Articles of Confederation consolidated the 13 British Colonies into States and individual State Constitutions recognized who were citizens of said State, then the US Constitution recognized those citizens of each state to be consolidated into a federal recognition. Children born to those citizens have always been born citizens of said colony/state. The 14th does nothing more then recognize that which was already, those born within said States or naturalized in those States were citizens.

Citizenship is a privilege granted to those foreigners we choose to allow to become citizens. It is not a right to those that come here from other countries. It is not a privilege to those born here, it is a right, a birth right. A natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen do have rights, privilege's, and immunities, that visitors that come here do not have. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the US are recognized as birth right citizens. All can choose to denounce their status provided they are living in another country and are recognized there as a citizen of said country.

If an illegal immigrant has a child here it does not make them a citizen, it merely grants them birth rights that they can accept or deny when they turn 18. The parents can still be deported or removed from the US and they can choose to take their child with them or they can leave the child here with family or place it into adoption. While they are within the boundaries of the US they are subject to our laws.

What the hell is Right of Association or Disassociation? How does that have any bearing on the 14th Amendment? Do you even understand the documents to which you profess to be a scholar of? With your 6 years of immigration law you should at least understand the basics. SMFH

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I've never shared that thought.

You just did

just because I can tell you what the thinking is on a subject by those who have the authority or power

hahahahahahahaha

I've never offered an opinion on Jefferson,

Sure you have, in past conversations you have used Jefferson to disprove my theory on the foundation of this country, and freemasonry being devil worship.

Ask @Liquid Reigns or Professor X what they think.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You just did

hahahahahahahaha

Sure you have, in past conversations you have used Jefferson to disprove my theory on the foundation of this country, and freemasonry being devil worship.

Ask @Liquid Reigns or Professor X what they think.

He has me on Ignore.

 

[TheResister]

You just did

hahahahahahahaha

Sure you have, in past conversations you have used Jefferson to disprove my theory on the foundation of this country, and freemasonry being devil worship.

Ask @Liquid Reigns or Professor X what they think.

Liquid Reigns is my personal crack whore. That dumb bitch never had an original thought in her life. EVERYTHING she posts is in response to my posts. She doesn't have any original thoughts and when I leave here, the bitch will go with me. Her entire reason for being on the Internet is to follow me around like a dog in heat and disagree with anything I say. I put the skank on ignore because she bores the Hell out of me. If you take her word for anything, it's only because you've sunk to the same low. To your credit, you never told me you wanted the baloney pony like the crack whore does.

The Professor knows where I stand. Had you made that meeting a couple of months back you could have asked him yourself.

And, nope, I've never told you what I think personally. As for the Masons, I have conceded many times that they are, in fact, a SATANIC order. Where we disagree is that I've done intensive studies and conclude that they didn't have as much influence as first thought. Funny thing, you tapped out of that discussion over at resisters. If you had any substantial argument, you would have made it by now. And you STILL don't know my personal feelings about - probably damn near anything.