The Anti-Patriot
December 28th 2007 14:07
Currently there seems to be two ways to be the opposite of a patriot. Both ways are equally intoxicating to the logic processors of the human brain and both ways will simply destroy the country.
Over the years it has become more than apparent the far right have fallen into the trap that they must support their government irrespective of what the government does. That kind of anti-patriotism is more or less nationalism in its elusive form. Yet there has been another form of anti-patriotism that has started springing up and around the left end of the fence.
Bear with me with me as I explain.
Clue me in as to who said the following fantastic line:
Well I hope you realize it was Abraham Lincoln.
There's something somewhat peculiar in the history of the United States, and that is with slavery. Slavery did not end peacefully, it ended with a bloody war. The equal and opposite, where in Britain it ended so easily, in America it ended with bloodshed.
The question is, why? More importantly, what resulted from the deaths of 600,000 Americans?
Actually the question as to why is rather easily explained, the effect it had on the United States may recquire many historians expertise, of which I am not one. The civil war was essentially provoked by the Confederate forces when they attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. It was made amply clear then that the south did not just want to have their slaves, they wanted the entire United States to have it legalized and allowed and they were willing to go to war with their own brothers and sisters to achieve their own ends.
Now what happened is something that had never happened before and would never again happen in the United States. It was civil war, people of the same nationality killing each other. Not for money or land but for the right to violate human rights. It was a war where the sides would be clear as day.
Could slavery have ended in the US without a war? Definitely, however when the confederates attacked it was made clear that possibility was gone, and now it was either have an outright victory or accept a defeat that could have well been put down in the history books as some sort of genocide.
Put things into perspective, then get back to me. Now in the interests of fairness heres the latest political video making the internet rounds, and like all bent and twisted things started when Ron Paul made the outrageous claim that Abraham Lincoln started the war for his own selfish reasons despite a complete lack of evidence he did anything to promote the war, oh except to say something along the lines of how he wanted to contain slavery in the south.
The claims made in the video are outrageous to say the least. Some have justification though it pales in comparison to what the man achieved. Of course the biggest lie thrown is how Abraham Lincoln killed over 600,000 Americans. That sir is an outright fallacy, that was the total number of casualties during the civil war, and it is the greatest wrong to say he killed 600,000 Americans when there in fact was an enemy who wanted to spread slavery all across America who started the war and didn't stop until unanimously defeated. I can go point by point detailing the inaccuraces of this video though it deserves no more of my time than I have already given it.
Does anyone understand what would have happened if Lincoln had given in to the south? Mark my words slavery would still be the norm in the United States even today, if the south was allowed to carve a bloody genocide thoughout the North they would have made their ideology clear that freedom is not for blacks and that would have been chizzled into the minds of all Americans. It was an unfortunate war but it was necessary and ultimately freedom was earned not through peace but bloodshed, which has since engraved a strong sense of freedom in the minds of every American (how they go about using that mentality can at best be described as abuse in todays world but we'll leave that for another day).
No where in the world today is freedom as psychopathically protected as in the United States. I have never in my life heard the argument that healthcare is a form of government oppression, not until the wonders of the Internet and the writings of some fanatical libertarians at least.
So what of this Lincoln speach? Well a certain someone, to whom I am happy to attribute this quote:
That quote can be attributed to the freedom loving libertarian Ron Paul. Now why does that quote anger me so? Because he is clearly saying the state government has a right to legislate, of all things, morality, and that the state literally owns the people living in it. No right to privacy, ability to regulate social matters?
Ron Paul made a comment on Abraham Lincolns reasons for war, saying that he was not as anti-Slavery as history makes him out to be. Well sir, even if he wasn't, he saved the United States from slavery, if he did not act the confederates would have, and if the confederates acted you would be defending slavery today rather than states rights over people.
The Anti-Patriot has festered itself again through blind support of Ron Paul. No more are people fighting for freedom, no, instead they are blindly supporting a man who claims that if you just did exactly what the constitution said word for word the world would be a better place. I challenge any Ron Paul supporter to justify his stance on state rights, to justify his position as a 'civil libertarian', to explain why following the Constitution word for word will make the world a better place despite the fact it was like anything else written by humans prone to error.
Because Ron Paul decided to say Abraham Lincoln was bad many of his blind followers have also decided to, from the comforts of their own freedom which bought for them with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people who died during the civil war, take the same stance.
That is anti-patriotic and if the right who have fallen into hating their own country by loving their government too much ever wanted to correctly say that many in the left have fallen into the same trap then they would be right in doing so. No one is fighting for freedom, everyone is fighting to show how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. This isn't abotu freedom, now it's just personal, history be damned.
"Abraham Lincoln was insane, he killed 600,000 Americans, he hated freedom and the constitution and all he did was cause misery and suffering."
Those are the words of an anti-patriot, whoever says that does not love freedom, but only hates those who don't.
Over the years it has become more than apparent the far right have fallen into the trap that they must support their government irrespective of what the government does. That kind of anti-patriotism is more or less nationalism in its elusive form. Yet there has been another form of anti-patriotism that has started springing up and around the left end of the fence.
Bear with me with me as I explain.
Clue me in as to who said the following fantastic line:
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Well I hope you realize it was Abraham Lincoln.
There's something somewhat peculiar in the history of the United States, and that is with slavery. Slavery did not end peacefully, it ended with a bloody war. The equal and opposite, where in Britain it ended so easily, in America it ended with bloodshed.
The question is, why? More importantly, what resulted from the deaths of 600,000 Americans?
Actually the question as to why is rather easily explained, the effect it had on the United States may recquire many historians expertise, of which I am not one. The civil war was essentially provoked by the Confederate forces when they attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. It was made amply clear then that the south did not just want to have their slaves, they wanted the entire United States to have it legalized and allowed and they were willing to go to war with their own brothers and sisters to achieve their own ends.
Now what happened is something that had never happened before and would never again happen in the United States. It was civil war, people of the same nationality killing each other. Not for money or land but for the right to violate human rights. It was a war where the sides would be clear as day.
Could slavery have ended in the US without a war? Definitely, however when the confederates attacked it was made clear that possibility was gone, and now it was either have an outright victory or accept a defeat that could have well been put down in the history books as some sort of genocide.
Put things into perspective, then get back to me. Now in the interests of fairness heres the latest political video making the internet rounds, and like all bent and twisted things started when Ron Paul made the outrageous claim that Abraham Lincoln started the war for his own selfish reasons despite a complete lack of evidence he did anything to promote the war, oh except to say something along the lines of how he wanted to contain slavery in the south.
The claims made in the video are outrageous to say the least. Some have justification though it pales in comparison to what the man achieved. Of course the biggest lie thrown is how Abraham Lincoln killed over 600,000 Americans. That sir is an outright fallacy, that was the total number of casualties during the civil war, and it is the greatest wrong to say he killed 600,000 Americans when there in fact was an enemy who wanted to spread slavery all across America who started the war and didn't stop until unanimously defeated. I can go point by point detailing the inaccuraces of this video though it deserves no more of my time than I have already given it.
Does anyone understand what would have happened if Lincoln had given in to the south? Mark my words slavery would still be the norm in the United States even today, if the south was allowed to carve a bloody genocide thoughout the North they would have made their ideology clear that freedom is not for blacks and that would have been chizzled into the minds of all Americans. It was an unfortunate war but it was necessary and ultimately freedom was earned not through peace but bloodshed, which has since engraved a strong sense of freedom in the minds of every American (how they go about using that mentality can at best be described as abuse in todays world but we'll leave that for another day).
No where in the world today is freedom as psychopathically protected as in the United States. I have never in my life heard the argument that healthcare is a form of government oppression, not until the wonders of the Internet and the writings of some fanatical libertarians at least.
So what of this Lincoln speach? Well a certain someone, to whom I am happy to attribute this quote:
Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.
That quote can be attributed to the freedom loving libertarian Ron Paul. Now why does that quote anger me so? Because he is clearly saying the state government has a right to legislate, of all things, morality, and that the state literally owns the people living in it. No right to privacy, ability to regulate social matters?
Ron Paul made a comment on Abraham Lincolns reasons for war, saying that he was not as anti-Slavery as history makes him out to be. Well sir, even if he wasn't, he saved the United States from slavery, if he did not act the confederates would have, and if the confederates acted you would be defending slavery today rather than states rights over people.
The Anti-Patriot has festered itself again through blind support of Ron Paul. No more are people fighting for freedom, no, instead they are blindly supporting a man who claims that if you just did exactly what the constitution said word for word the world would be a better place. I challenge any Ron Paul supporter to justify his stance on state rights, to justify his position as a 'civil libertarian', to explain why following the Constitution word for word will make the world a better place despite the fact it was like anything else written by humans prone to error.
Because Ron Paul decided to say Abraham Lincoln was bad many of his blind followers have also decided to, from the comforts of their own freedom which bought for them with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people who died during the civil war, take the same stance.
That is anti-patriotic and if the right who have fallen into hating their own country by loving their government too much ever wanted to correctly say that many in the left have fallen into the same trap then they would be right in doing so. No one is fighting for freedom, everyone is fighting to show how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. This isn't abotu freedom, now it's just personal, history be damned.
"Abraham Lincoln was insane, he killed 600,000 Americans, he hated freedom and the constitution and all he did was cause misery and suffering."
Those are the words of an anti-patriot, whoever says that does not love freedom, but only hates those who don't.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
