There are others involved, yes, which is why I prefer the term globalist.

You don't want to use the term globalist at all. You want to use the term jew because that's what fits in your narrative. The problem you have is that there are far too many whites both in the upper and lower echelons of power, that are absolutely dedicated to Leftist ideology that is destroying society... because Leftism is an invention from white people.

To think that the people back then couldn't delineate between different races of people is asinine.

Good thing I didn't say that, then. I said people already significantly differentiated between ethnic group and even state-association. This is because Pan-Europeanism is a progressive concept that literally none of the Founding Fathers were prepared to engage with. The British thought that the Irish were subhuman. The Revolution occurred because colonial Englishmen were seen as being innately non-English by the people living in England.

Race as an abstract concept was understood, they just weren't making political decisions off of it because why in God's name would you when you cant agree that the people of the same ethnic group as you have the same rights as you, under the same governing system as you, because they live "over there".

They didn't have to say the country was for white people, because it was implied and understood by everyone.

Except that's not true because the beginnings of "white" racial political affiliation come from proto-progressives who were trying to construct a "white" society in a land that had long since understood that the French & Spanish had already had zero interest in preventing their Europeans from interbreeding with native Americans, immigrants, Africans, and other settlers. The fact that the revolution was the most heavily racially integrated war in the US until Vietnam, and the fact that racial integration among settlers was already commonplace in Ohio country, and was a major aspect of the 2nd Great Awakening was something that those early progressive racialists were trying to defeat. This was in addition to the fact that those same racialists were still trying to decide precisely which Europeans could actually be considered "White" since that wasn't well defined, and the settlers in America came from a vast swath of western European groups that hated each other.

What you have in America is a faction of proto-progressives that are trying to unify European ethnicities under the concept of a "white" people so that same thing that happened to them with the English, doesn't repeat. They are the people acting to change how things were already working. The ideological Liberals (the literal basis of American governance) had no issue with race whatsoever because it is a Liberal system. It already pre-supposes the concept of a kind of Universal Man with Universal property rights. Liberalism stands in explicit contradiction to race based discrimination and slavery (especially by race). You can see this in the fact that Great Britain and France had almost no black-white race based discrimination through most of their history. Meanwhile, the 2nd Great Awakening movement was a Christian Evangelical revival that was heavily racially integrated among American pioneers, free blacks, French settlers, and converted natives. Both of these two other forces (which underpin the entire American system) stand it stark opposition to the Federalists & Democrats racial initiatives, and would even lead to the foundational roots of the Civil War as they also focused heavily on the abolition of slavery.

The Liberals and Evangelicals (if we can call them that), were so integrated that you had plenty of non-whites not only owning property, but even being classified as citizens of the states, and holding political office.

It's the same reason they weren't fully explicit and clear in the 2nd Amendment, or other Amendments which the left/globalists are trying to subvert through legalese, because the founders thought the people wouldn't be this stupid as to ignore such basic truths.

You're not going to like this part of the history lesson. The 2nd Amendment is explicitly clear. This is because the Founding Fathers are rabid Revolutionary Liberals, particularly the Anti-Federalists.

The reason that it was redefined wasn't just by the political Left in this country, but it was intentionally redefined by those same Democratic, Progressive Racialists, who were on the supreme court and rendered the Cruikshank decision.

The purpose of that decision was to allow the perpetrators of the Colifax Massacre to go free. But it also served the additional purpose of revoking the 1st, 2nd, 14th, and 15th amendments from the states themselves. In one felt swoop it declared that even protests and speech could be infinitely regulated by the states since the 1st Amendment just didn't apply if you weren't standing in a post office. It redefined the concept of the militia to be: whomever the state legislature asserted was "of" the militia or the people. It did this because the 2nd Amendment explicitly allows everyone the right to bear arms under all cases. However, for the Progressive Racialists, this means that blacks might be able to own firearms (they always had before), and that could pose a threat to their power. So, removing the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment from the states meant that the states could now mass disarm anyone at their hearts content since if the state legislature redefined the "state militia" to exclude those people, then those people had no right to own firearms. This is the same court that would go on to enshrine segregation through "Separate but Equal" because equal outcome is a progressive doctrine.

It wasn't globalists who redefined firearm rights in the US for political reasons. It was people like you!

If they could specifically differentiate between White people and Native Americans

Not my argument, no need to rebut.

It's why we can see the experiment of Liberia, which has identical founding documents to the U.S. but has resulted in a completely different outcome, because the people are different.

Speaking of Progressive Racialism, that's exactly why Liberia is the way it is.

Liberia isn't founded on Liberalism. It mimics the Constitution to a degree, but the free blacks who founded Liberia took their legal experiences from the Antebellum South. The Antebellum South is a racial aristocracy and a plantation system (once again, Aristocracy is contradictory to Liberalism). They reflected it perfectly by colonizing the coast, expelling the native Africans, racially discriminating against them, and using them as plantation/serf class to serve a racial aristocracy of Amero-Liberians.

Ever since then, it has gotten ever more progressive with it's racial politics, even down to the violent Civil War between Racialist Leftist factions.

Liberia isn't proof that only whites can build a Liberal system. It's that the system you are demanding is so fundamentally self-destructive and unworkable.

The Confederates also tried the same thing in Brazil, and eventually just gave in and integrated, and abandoned the concept of a racial aristocracy altogether.

The Confederates also tried the same thing in California, and that's why it's the progressive shithole it is today.

If the founding fathers didn't intend the U.S. to be a White ethnostate,

White Ethnostates are an oxymoron. Whites aren't an ethnicity.

The Founding Fathers wanted to limit immigration generally. This is because the country was already "diverse" with tons of slaves, French, Indians, abandoned Germans, and a crap load of Spanish colonists on the boarder.

Also, I'd bet that the primary reason they couldn't leave it as Free person is to appeal to the Progressive Racialists of the South. If you don't specify white, that means all the free blacks in those states get to vote, and they're probably not gonna side with that whole slavery thing that Virginia has going on.

That's also assuming that US Citizenship is a settled issue. It isn't. That bitch isn't a settled issue until after the Civil War. What even constitutes evidence of a US Citizen is part of the "Impressment" scandal that leads to the War of 1812.

You're also ignoring the blatant, open, and explicitly anti-white language the globalists have used for at least the last 100 years. They didn't say they were going to ethnically replace black people, Asians, or Jews, they explicitly said white people, over and over and over.

They said all of that about blacks, asians, and jews; and then they followed through on it. This is because it's about power, not race.