? 245 years ago today, leaders representing 13 British colonies signed a document to declare independence.
It says "that all men are created equal" — but women, enslaved people, Indigenous people and many others were not held as equal at the time. https://t.co/dtE0z2Uabc
— NPR (@NPR) July 4, 2021
In this thread of the Declaration of Independence, you can see a document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies.
It also laid the foundation for this country’s collective aspirations — the hopes for what America could be. pic.twitter.com/znLSGKWLaj
— NPR (@NPR) July 4, 2021
As I suppose you would expect at this point, US state media used the opportunity of the national celebration of Independence Day on July 4 to attack the Declaration of Independence, which was signed on that day 245 years ago.
The heat is really getting turned up on calling out America as evil from its founding, as Jews move in for the killshot.
The entire NPR staff gathered to attack our founding document. They featured a picture of their entire staff, which is made up of white women, Jews, various brown people and what appear to be extinct apes, possibly resurrected through some kind of Jurassic Park style genetic engineering process.
Each of these fiends read two or three sentences from the document in the strange presentation.
In one of their tweets announcing the attack piece, they refer to “deeply ingrained hypocrisies.”
Of course, you could only actually read that through a modern lens. Otherwise, the document was very straightforward.
The NPR piece has an intro before the reading (which they’ve apparently done every year for 32 years).
Over the past 32 years, Morning Edition has broadcast a reading of the Declaration of Independence by NPR staff as a way of marking Independence Day.
But after last summer’s protests and our national reckoning on race, the words in the document land differently.
It famously declares “that all men are created equal” even though women, enslaved people and Indigenous Americans were not held as equal at the time.
What then follows is a long list of grievances and charges against King George III that outline the 13 North American British Colonies’ intentions to separate from Great Britain.
The list, originally written largely by Thomas Jefferson, was edited by the Continental Congress. Among the Congress’ changes: it deleted a reference to “Scotch & foreign mercenaries.” It turns out there were members of Congress who were of Scottish descent. To win support from Southerners, the Congress removed criticism of the African slave trade.
But a racist slur about Native Americans stayed in.
The passage charges that King George III “excited domestic insurrections” among the colonists by Native Americans, who the founding document called “merciless Indian Savages.”
Okay, let’s unpack this.
Firstly, it is insane to say that the words “land differently” after the Fentanyl Floyd riots. As we’ve explained here six million times, the BLM stuff was all of the exact same stuff that happened in the 1960s during the black “protests” of that era. There was no new ideological angle, other than that it went in a really bizarre, destructive direction.
It was the equivalent to the first JJ Abrams Star Wars film, which was just a shittier version of the first Star Wars film. Remember that when the first of the new trilogy was released, no one was really very angry, because it was just the same thing as the first film. It was only when the second one was released, with psycho Luke, feminist overdrive, race mixing, and a disastrous retcon campaign that fans were like “wait, what even is this?”
Just so: after the initial black campaign launched by Obama, and then running throughout the first Trump years, people were just like: “Oh okay, this is just the same thing as the blacks did in the 1960s. I remember this.”
In 2020, it got weird, but only because they started rioting super hardcore, and the police refused to stop the riots. Donald Trump refused to use federal force to stop the riots. So they were just allowed to completely burn everything and call for the police to be abolished. So in some sense it was new, but only in the severity. There was no new learning experience, unless someone didn’t know how violent blacks are, in which case they would have learned that blacks are really, really violent.
Point being: anyone who says “we now have a new understanding of the plight of blacks and how that relates to the founding documents because we watched blacks burn down cities” is lying. (Unless they were to say “oh okay, so this is why the Founding Fathers didn’t consider blacks to be human” – but that is not what NPR is saying.)
Claiming that “now that the blacks rioted so hard, it’s time to hate America” is just gibberish, and an excuse for Jews to push an existing hatred of America.
Remember: up until this point, all of these Jews and Democrats were claiming that THEY are the true representatives of the “founding ideas” of America, and that “racists” are “anti-American.”
I agree that “all men are created equal” is an unfortunate line, given the way things developed, but we must remember that the Declaration was written before even the industrial revolution and the advent of the locomotive. So there is no way the Founding Fathers could have predicted that things would develop as they have developed.
The actual context had nothing to do with modern ideas, at all, and it cannot fit into any modern conception of “equality.” The context of the statement was made against the idea of an aristocracy based on birth, where kings and nobles existed outside of the rule of law.
For further context: kings and nobles were supposed to be under the law since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 AD, but they just weren’t in practice at the time that the declaration was signed. Basically, you would have to go back and look at the English Civil War – funded by the Jews from Amsterdam – to understand the roots of what the Founding Fathers were complaining about, but just understand: what they were saying is that all men should have equal status under the law.
Also, women are not men (obviously) and blacks were considered 3/5ths of a man. Indian savages were just Indian savages. The people writing this document had no idea, and no way of conceiving, that women, blacks and Indians would at some point in the future be considered equal with white men. It just didn’t fit into their reality tunnel, so they never would have thought to say “obviously, we mean white men.”
However, of course, we have after the Declaration a history of court rulings which show that blacks were not considered men (3/5ths) and even that Chinese, some of whom have white skin, were not considered “men,” because “men” exclusively meant “white European man.”
There is no “hypocrisy” – at all. What there is: a difference in terminology.
This is like if in the year 2293, Captain Kirk went and found a book about sailing ships written in 1480 that described all the different kinds of sailing ships and then said “this book is filled with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies, as it doesn’t even mention spaceships at all.”
(Editor’s note: Best analogy yet – Hoax Watch is moving from strength to strength.)
Jefferson’s First Draft
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but he was against the practice. Maybe that is some kind of hypocrisy, I guess – but it isn’t present in the document, because it was edited out.
But that kind of hypocrisy always exists among intellectuals who are forced to live practically in a normal society. The only philosopher I’m aware of who was not a hypocrite was Ted Kaczynski, as he actually did live in the woods, as he thought everyone should. However, you could also say Ted was a hypocrite, as he used modern science to build his bombs, and used the post office to send them. Then he demanded his manifesto (full text) be published in a modern newspaper.
Anyway: I’m no Jefferson or Kaczynski (especially not the latter, FBI), but I am against cellphones and WiFi, and think that all modern electronics should be wired for the sake of maintaining the social order, yet I’ve used cellphones and WiFi on and off as a practical matter, because I need them for my work. I argue for banning WiFi while connected to WiFi.
That’s not anywhere as bad as Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro, who are complaining about censoring on Facebook while paying them millions in advertisement money.
Candace Owens has given Facebook more than $1 million, Ben Shapiro has given Facebook almost $3 million. pic.twitter.com/AiRIHvB1zG
— The Rock (@TheRockthereal1) July 1, 2021
However: even that hypocrisy I understand. Facebook is the number one place to promote media on the internet. I can’t say that if I was allowed on Facebook, I wouldn’t also be paying them for ads (I am actually pretty sure I would be).
Point being: Jefferson was, as a philosopher, promoting an ideal – he wanted to send these blacks back to Africa, as he was able to see that in the long run, this was going to lead nowhere good. However, he was also a Southern aristocrat, and owning slaves was part of the normal society he was living in, so he had to own slaves. If he had said “I’m not going to use slaves on my plantations because I’m morally opposed to this,” he would have been driven out of business by competitors that were using slaves. This would then make him less powerful and successful, and therefore less capable of arguing for his philosophical points against slavery, just as if Candace Owens refused to buy Facebook ads, she would have fewer people hearing her as she complained about Facebook censorship.
So: there is a very clear and generally socially acceptable context for the Jefferson slave ownership hypocrisy, which anyone who is not arguing in good faith is able to grasp.
But again: that wasn’t even included in the Declaration, so it is not relevant to the NPR attack on our nation.
Longtime readers will remember the “optics wars,” where I argued, alongside Ricky Vaughn and eventually the Optics Lord Nick Fuentes, that the Jews would eventually attack all of the symbols of America as “white supremacy,” which would lead to massive polarization of American society, which would mean that all boomer-type conservatives would eventually have to accept that no, American isn’t “an idea,” it is a people – white people.
That has now happened. The Jews are now openly saying that all of the symbols of America are evil, that America is white supremacy, that America has to be abolished.
We are getting to the point where the only defenders of America will be white nationalists, and at that point, America will be a de facto white nationalist country, which is occupied by forces that are both anti-American and anti-white.
In 2017, I said that very soon, Jews would start saying “America is for white people only” and that the right-wing should be saying “yes, exactly.”
All of these attacks on the 4th of July from the Jews prove that we are already there. It will of course intensify over the next year, with Democrats calling for the American flag to be taken down and replaced with something else.
It’s all part of the plan.
When white nationalists are the only ones holding the American flag, all of these boomers will have to choose whether to spit on the flag in the name of “oh I just want to be like MLK and not see race” or side with white nationalists against the Jewish agenda.
At that point, the battle lines will be drawn, and we will all know exactly where we stand.