NC Sez: Secession is a peaceful act and it’s the best thing True Americans can do for Freedom and Humanity! I can’t tell you how awesome it is to see Dr. Manning tell it like it is!
The Red Necks just might rise up! Whitey just might rise up! Blacks just might rise up! All under “The One” who claims that he will bring people together end division!
Obama is such a freakin’ liar. Where are those who will charge him with treason? Where is the line when Americans say Enough is Enough? Where is that line???
Knock that chip off their shoulder! These angry, Blacks still live on the Plantation!
Jefferson Paine
on Aug 6th, 2009
@ 10:36 am:
Hear, hear, Dr. Manning!
I, too, sense a Secession coming. Don’t believe all of the lies and false rhetoric you’re going to hear about secession.
“Secession” simply means a voluntary seperation, or exiting, from an community or association. The fact is, secession is a PEACEFUL act, not an attack. And it is your Natural Right to exercise it, to form a new government of our consent, just as our founding Fathers did. They SECURED this right for us, using violence against the British Tyranny, so that we could exercise it freely in our future when our government became too corrupt and abusive – not to mention usurping its delegated authority.
It’s about time, isn’t it??
-JP
Devin
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 3:33 pm:
what a disgusting puddle of racist lies and filth. what was it you neocon idiots said when people protested Bush? “anti-american”, right? well now YOU’RE the anti-american one. so, as you idiots said in the Bush era- if you don’t like it MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY.
nocompromise
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 4:35 pm:
You know what a neo-con really means, Devin? Or are you just mimicking the other racists out there? It means Jew. Don’t be calling me, or anyone else a racist when you are the jew-hating, bigot!
Why do you call us racists? Because you assume our rage is faux and we are negro haters. I am sure you realize that the obamunist is half black? Does this mean you are a racist and hate whites?
Well, that can’t be it because you marxist swine hate Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Bob Parks, Star Parker, and a host of other well known black conservatives.
It must be politics that gets you all stirred up, but because you can’t articulate your rage you act like a school yard bully calling people names.
All we can do is laugh our butts off at knuckle heads like you!
Trust me, I ain’t moving out of my country. I will stay here and fight every single marxist, like you, that crosses my path until your ideology is DEAD! Dead, dead, dead! I will be the first in line to tie your ideology to a post and shoot it between the eyes!
Ya know why, Devin? Because my Founding Fathers said it was my DUTY to do so, and I plan on doing just that! Watch out Devin. The sleeping giant is stirring!
You are nothing more than a school yard bully! And every bully gets his ass kicked eventually!
ontologist
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 4:47 pm:
Devin,
See, the problem is that we only want to restore this beautiful country that we know as America back to the operating Constitutional principles that those dead white right-wing homophobe extremists founding fathers had intended when they set up our free republic. Is that too much to ask that we keep it that way? Especially since there are so many other hellhole socialist workers paradises out there for you to move to. You have far more choices for a country that fits your ideology than we do! So that is why we suggest YOU move to one of those countries that are more to your liking, and stop trying to destroy and disfigure America by imposing secular socialism or progressive fascism! We will NOT tolerate it anymore!
joe infidel
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 5:16 pm:
You poor fools that think things are going to get better with this current administration. Nothing is going to get better, and our rights have already been in jepordy. Devin, you a lamb on its way to the slaughter, and you couldn’t be more happy could you? Please open your eyes.
nocompromise
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 5:19 pm:
Amen Ontologist! Amen.
Why should we have a relationship with statists? They can go live elsewhere. In fact, I see how well their marxism has worked so in California, and Massachusetts! Let’s not forget to mention Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Cambodia, Vietnam. Gee, it’s worked so well in those places.
How many people were murdered to keep progressivism alive?
ragingcapitalist
on Aug 16th, 2009
@ 11:20 pm:
God bless you Rev Manning. You have more integrity and raw courage than 1000 Jessie Jacksons.
We are going to treat your President just like you treated ours Devin. But with only one difference.
You will never find a four letter word on a protest sign carried by a conservative. You will never find a conservative cheering the deaths of our fine servicemen, you will never find a conservative giving aid and comfort to our nations enemies. Conservatives don’t silence opposing views by shouting them down, nor do we resort to name calling and character assassination, and we do none of these things and then claim it is protected speech.
Our weapon is the truth and it cuts like a knife. In intellectual debate you lose every time and that is why you behave like cowards and sneak around and subvert our electoral process for the purpose of stealing elections.
When good men do nothing evil prevails and that is the only reason the long legged mack daddy gets to play President but now good men are waking up and come mid terms it’s bye bye Democrat majority in Congress. We are going to have so much fun watching the Messiah quack like a duck. Quack, Quack!
Robin
on Sep 14th, 2009
@ 11:13 pm:
Pastor Manning has Penis Envy…….that’s the SHORT of it!!
connie
on Sep 15th, 2009
@ 11:07 pm:
Pastor Manning is trying almost by himself to save the African Americans from blindly following this man that actually had to go to Chicago to learn how to be a black man in America. The man is of Arab descent. He only has a smigeon of black. He is using the AA’s to get what George Soros wants. Obama will be getting paid handsomely for atrocities he is committing against the American people.
nocompromise
on Sep 16th, 2009
@ 1:49 pm:
Robin, You would know this how? Seems to me you’re just another leftard who can’t defend your positions, you can only call people names like a school yard punk!
JC, Britain
on Dec 18th, 2009
@ 11:02 am:
Americans make me laugh. I’m not even an American, but how many times have I heard the lies?? Too many times.
———–
“The left-wing media…” – The US Media does not have a left-wing bias. It is astonishingly right-wing – really. Ask anyone who is not from the US. I find
your TV News genuinely shocking to the point where I can’t believe that it is actually allowed to call itself ‘News’, simply because news is supposed to be
impartial. It is so drenched in a right-wing viewpoint that it’s actually not that surprising that you scream ‘lefty’ so often… after all, in absolute
darkness a single candle becomes the sun. No wonder the stuff which is actually “just not ridiculously right wing” stands out.
———–
“Communism”
- is not and never has been a threat to you. Not in the 50’s, not ever. RUSSIA was once a threat; you seem to be confused about the two, probably because the
Russians claimed to be Communists. In reality, a revolutionary movement was co-opted by a cult of personality, which then became a self-sustaining oligarchy
masquerading under the facade of Communist ideology. This is too difficult to explain to you, however, so your government settled for “The goddamn Commie
Russians are RED!!!”, creating the situation we have seen ever since… you don’t know what Communism is, but you know it’s bad. Of course, this specific
allegation can be disproved if any of you can give me a detailed, impartial breakdown of Communist theory, like you’d find in a textbook (a real textbook,
not the government propaganda you claim to despise).
———-
“Marxism”
- is not Communism (as you ‘know’ it). Marxism was basically the idea that the fat, rich, evil people should not be in charge any more, like they have been
for most of human history, and that this could be achieved in a modern industrialised society by giving the ordinary person more political and economic power
(by such means as allowing factory workers to collectively own the factory they work in, rather than it being owned by a rich person who doesn’t actually do
any work themselves or have any particular qualifications beyond having a large amount of capital (money), but perversely has an enormous amount of power
over the ordinary worker (when the Marxist theory was devised, this was akin to the power of life and death since there were no employment rights, no child
labour laws, no minimum wage, no social security, and not even a general prevailing sense that people should not be, quite literally, starving to death in
the streets). Marxism was invented as a response to the system where the most important thing is capital – money – and the people who have the most
capital/money have the most power. That system is called Capitalism and it is not surprising that the people who have money and power want to keep it – but
it is somewhat surprising that the general public will not only swallow their lies, but will actually call it freedom rather than tyranny and violently
attack those who try to address the failings of such a system.
Since Karl Marx’s time, we have made some progress. We have somehow managed to force the evil bastards to wash some of our blood off themselves by
enacting laws to stop children being forced into coal mines, to stop people from being forced by the threat of starvation to submit to inhuman working
conditions which reduce their lifespan by decades, to stop people from being forced to work 120 hours a week, etc. Every single step of this bitter battle,
people like you have been on the wrong side, defending what is already in place, defending the evil and the rich and the powerful against the weak, the poor,
and the ordinary, and conserving the system that you were born under. This is the origin of the term ‘conservative’ – one who conserves the existing social
and political structure. Though you probably do not have the ability to comprehend it, the fact is that the people who, later on, perpetuated the political
system of the USSR (and the older people who cry for its return now) were actually the people, out of all Russians, who most resemble YOU. They had your
personality type, just like everyone who ever loyally and thoughtlessly defended a king or an emperor or a warlord did so for the exact same reasons that you
defend your masters – because they were there when you were born and so in your mind they are supposed to be there. That you are unable to see this remains a
major tragedy of human nature.
———–
“Korea etc” – To my knowedge, there has never been a Marxist government or country anywhere in the world. The closest countries to a Marxist system are
probably, in all honesty, America, Britain, and the other ‘western democracies’ such as Germany and France. And these are in no sense Marxist countries and
do not have Marxist systems – it is simply that they are (mostly) developed, civilised countries and so they have civilised laws and social norms, which do
not allow the rich to literally grind the poor for every last penny or morsel of effort. So we have some protection against ruthless exploitation. These laws
and norms have come into being over the last 150 years only, and though they were not inspired only by Marx’s theories or instituted by nominally Marxist
governments or individuals, it is fair to say that they spring from the same source or wellspring as Marxism – the desire for social and political justice
and fairness. And they have been consistently opposed by those to whom justice and fairness would spell the end of their reign – the rich and powerful. Who,
due to their riches and power, are able to control public opinion to some extent since it is they who set up newspapers and television networks and
(generally) they who form governments. Because they have the capital to do so.
However, even before these reforms were enacted, these countries were closer to Marxism… simply because they were industrialised countries with
large urban populations which had moved beyond their various versions of feudalism. Because Marxism was designed for countries like that – societies like
yours and mine. It is a theory of how to change a fledgling industrialised nation into a modern equitable industrialised society (though by many particular
methods which for various reasons we have not used in order to arrive at our modern society).
Unfortunately for Lenin, he didn’t live in an urban industrialised society. He lived in Russia, which was a peasant society with a few hotspots of
urban industrialisation. Everyone realised that Marx’s ideas could not be applied to such a society (especially Marx), but Lenin failed to understand the
exact reasons why not and foolishly believed that he could modify Marx’s ideas to apply them to Russia. If you look at the world today, you will see that all
of the supposedly ‘communist’ countries are actually just countries which were previously semi-feudal peasant economies. Russian, Korea, China – they are all
countries with massive uneducated peasant populations which have NOT passed through the necessary middle period of gradual social change and development
which would allow these theories to actually work.
In England, for example, we have had the dark ages, feudalism, gentrification, incorporation, expansion and empire, urbanisation, and
industrialisation, and we were fortunate that for various reasons (and thanks to the efforts of some particular sterling individuals and specific events etc)
we have seen this attended by the development of modern concepts of human rights, political rights, etc. However, although these concepts are more likely to
develop given this progression, they are not certain. What is certain, however, is that if you try to go from, say, feudalism straight to industrialisation
(as Russia and China both tried to do) then you will inevitably end up killing 35 million of your own citizens. This should just be obvious. You cannot jump
over the middle stages. What Lenin should have tried to do is design a system that could get Russia from the stage it was in to the next stage – this would
best have been achieved by reducing the absolute power of the Tsar via the codification of the necessity of the consent of a ruling council of boyars
(nobles) and removing his ability to dismiss the duma (parliament) and requiring that a duma sit every year (as opposed to merely whenever the Tsar required
money from them). The problem with this is that you then have to wait a few generations for everyone to get used to that before you can change to the next
stage.
Sadly, Lenin failed to realise that the pace of inter-generational change was about to increase exponentially in most of the western world and that
with sound management Russia could piggy-back onto the development of the industrialised nations (by importing western goods and practices in return for the
vast pool of cheap labour at their disposal). The real key to this would have been the introduction of a decent system of universal comprehensive education
in line with the values and ideals of western industrialised nations. By such means as ensuring that every Russian schoolchild had read Mill, for example,
the long process of gestation which had led to the development of the fundamental principles of Western democracy and society could indeed have been reduced
to perhaps one or two generations, even, but the necessary change of thinking and feeling was regarded as something which could simply be imposed by the
imposition of industrialisation upon the populace. But the people who did the imposing were not substantially different from the people who had previously
done the imposing under the Tsar, nor was the utilitarian brutality of their methods tempered by the social development which should have been its necessary
concomitant. Simply put, Russia still considered its people as subjects, to be treated and disposed of as it saw fit. This is often characteristic of peasant
societies and also characterises the ‘communism’ of Korea and China, and most other places which have made similar efforts (Cambodia). The communist
countries of today are simply the countries which, historically, had too many people and not enough rights, and absolute rulers. And this is also the reason
that there has never been an actual Marxist revolution, or communist government, in a western democracy – because ordinarily speaking, we are not already
pre-disposed to accept an absolute ruler, be it a king or a political party. Which is why OUR social changes leading to increased justice and equality have
taken place not through revolution but through struggle, debate, argument, and ultimately (mostly) democratic means.
Lenin was convinced that Russian did not have time for all this because it was already a few centuries behind the rest of Europe (socially,
culturally, religiously, and politically), but thought that, since it still had an absolute ruler, it could just be ordered to transform itself into a modern
nation and it would obey out of habit. It didn’t help that he despised the peasants and didn’t care whether they suffered horribly due to these changes. The
important thing (as for China, later) was that Russia had to transform itself into a modern industrial nation as quickly as possible, or be doomed (as it
seems obvious that an enormous peasant economy cannot long sustain itself, its population, or its national identity or integrity, against the pressures
brought to bear by richer and more modern nations). As such, he seems to have forgotten (as do so many who put their faith in some specific system) that the
point of Marxism was to improve people’s lives in general. Instead, he created Communism to try to drag Russia kicking and screaming into the 20th century
straight from the 14th century instead of the 19th. Subsequently, for all the usual human reasons, the system itself became more important than either the
people or even its own aims, and this then characterised communism and supposedly ‘communist’ states from that point to this. This is not confined to the
communist system, however – it is true of any system. Capitalism is a very good example of the same phenomenon – its principles are often incorrectly thought
to be more important than the deficit between its stated and actual effects. So you get people defending the system itself, rather than engaging with its
effects, results, and weaknesses. This is the great danger of systems – by its very nature, a system must be defended and protected if it is to remain the
same… otherwise, it isn’t the same system any more, is it? But as soon as you start down that road, you end by defending the system regardless of its
merits or deficiencies and long past the point where it needed to be modified in order to do the job it was designed to do.
Capitalism is (popularly) supposed to be that system which enables fair competition between groups and individuals to produce goods and services of
higher quality than otherwise, and ensures that the rewards of these accrue to those responsible for them and that therefore the most industrious and gifted
individuals are most rewarded (but that also in theory anyone could succeed, regardless of class etc.). Clearly, Capitalism does no such thing, and has never
done any such thing, and in fact it would be ridiculous to think that it is even possible for that system to achieve this result. But whenever Capitalism is
discussed, we should always remember that Capitalism was not designed to achieve any particular effect, or indeed designed at all. Capitalism emerged
naturally and was already the system we were living under before it was ever described. Capitalism (Money-ism, remember) is the oldest law – the law of the
jungle, or ‘Might Is Right’ – modified by human nature so that instead of ’survival of the fittest’ it becomes ‘importance of the richest’ (for various, and
hopefully obvious, reasons, you can’t have a coherent society of any lasting complexity or achievement built around the idea that you can just kill someone
and take their stuff, but you can have quite a complex society built around the idea that if you have a lot of stuff already, and people want it but they’re
not allowed to kill you to get it, then basically you’re the king and you can do whatever you like, as long as enough people think there’s a better chance of
you paying them to kill someone else than of you paying someone else to kill them). In other words, the current description of ‘Capitalism’ – the one given
above about ensuring fair competition etc. – was invented, by the people who were already at the top due to being rich, to explain to YOU why you shouldn’t
kill them and take the massive amount of stuff they weren’t using and use it to feed the entire nation instead of one fat bastard. And obviously they wanted
to stress how much they DESERVED to be at the top, due to being obviously superior to you, and how this was the best system for everybody, and you might even
be able to get to the top yourself by working really hard or having a good idea (or, slightly more realistically, by being born wealthy, or by being a
heartless bastard, or by being a criminal, but there’s no need to mention this to the slaves). And the only reason it works is because you can rely on people
- good, old-fashioned, thick-as-pigshit people – to be selfish, and stupid, and greedy, and short-sighted, and to fear change and automatically support the
system that’s already in place. Which is where you come in.
“The federal government…” – is not your enemy. The reason you THINK it’s your enemy is very simple – the REAL enemy keeps telling you so. The enemy of
America, and the enemy that every American should hate, fear, and distrust, is private enterprise. And it’s so fucking obvious. But you Americans have got a
real bee in your bonnets about Government (pretty obviously due, again, to the War Of Independence and the Civil War – after all, the Civil War taught around
half of you what it’s like to go up against a government and lose and then have your lives changed by force. Well, all I can say to that is, welcome to the
fucking party. Everyone in Europe has had that happen repeatedly for centuries – it happens ONCE to you, and 130 years later you STILL can’t think straight
because of it??? Grow up.). You hate the idea of the federal government telling you what to do. But absolutely anyone else can? Ronald fucking McDonald and
Wal-Mart can? General Motors can? You seriously need to start supporting your federal government and giving them powers to restrict the growth of business
and industry and stop – that’s right, STOP – people from getting rich. You need more restrictions and only big government can do that for you.
————
“Health Care” – Here’s the deal:
If I get sick, I go to the doctor/hospital and they make me better.
If YOU get sick, you go to the doctor/hospital and they make you pay, and if you can’t pay then they will literally sit there and watch you die, and then on
your tombstone they will write “Should have had more money”.
There is really nothing else to say. My taxes pay for my healthcare, but your taxes, which you are always complaining about, do not pay for yours.
Instead, you pay your taxes, and then you have to pay for insurance as well, and then when you get sick they say “Oh, your insurance doesn’t cover that. It
was in the small print. Perhaps you should be a better businessman, perhaps you should have hired a lawyer, perhaps you should have checked out a million
private enterprise insurance companies, just in case there actually is a company out there somewhere which exists to make you better rather than make
themselves richer with your money”.
The fact is, your Health Care ’system’ does not exist to make people better. It exists to make people richer.
————
“Death Panels” – This is the system you have NOW. Don’t you understand that? You have a system of death panels NOW and they are killing Americans every day,
deliberately, and they are laughing at YOU about it. And getting richer. They don’t call themselves ‘Death Panels’ though – even Americans would see through
that. They call themselves Coverage Review Boards or Case Review Boards, or Banks. Form an orderly line, please, the showers are just ahead.
I too would like to know – where is the line, where Americans will say ‘enough is enough’? Where is that line? Does it exist?
————
“ragingcapitalist” says I will never find a four letter word on a protest sign carried by a conservative. I will never find a conservative cheering the
deaths of our fine servicemen, I will never find a conservative giving aid and comfort to our nations enemies. Conservatives don’t silence opposing views by
shouting them down, nor do we resort to name calling and character assassination, and we do none of these things and then claim it is protected speech.
I just don’t understand why Mr ragingcapitalist would say this, but I have to assume he has a much narrower definition of ‘conservative’ than I do – perhaps
confined to people he knows well or people who live on a particular street somewhere. I’m from Britain, for god’s sake, and the ONLY one of those that I
don’t INSTANTLY associate with conservatives is the deaths of servicemen being cheered, and to be honest in order to do that I have to believe that the
Reverend Phelps is not a conservative. Which is fair enough, since the man is clearly mad as a march hare at least as far as his methods are concerned. But
then again he is motivated by hatred of homosexuality. Lots of conservatives would say that disapproving, at least, of homosexuality is part of being a
conservative, but there are others who wouldn’t. As for the aid and comfort thing, I would say that conservatives do this, and I’d also say that liberals (or
whatever term you want to use) are often unjustly accused of doing this. I suppose it depends who you think the enemy is. If you think criticising the US
gives aid to terrorists (emotionally), maybe you’re right. But does ignoring America’s faults and labelling those who point them out as subversives not
advance the cause of terrorism? And destroy America into the bargain?
I’m trying to be reasonable, god knows I am, but with the best will in the world I have to say:
— “Conservatives don’t silence opposing views by shouting them down, nor do we resort to name calling and character assassination, and we do none of these
things and then claim it is protected speech.” –
Yes you fucking do. That might as well be the conservative playbook. You literally have no other strategies except for these.
————
“Neo-Con” – does not mean ‘Jews’, as Mr nocompromise seems to think. It literally means ‘Neo-Conservative’, which means New Conservative, or more accurately,
“the latest wave of conservatives and/or conservative thinking”. I am not sure where Mr nocompromise gets his information, but it is possible that he
believes people often say ‘neo-con’ but really they mean ‘jews’. If this is the case, then I’m not sure where he gets that impression from, unless it’s just
a kind of “neo-cons are cons, cons are better off, that means they’re rich, hang on, don’t rich jews control everything they must be jews!” thing. Which
seems odd since as far as I am aware most Neo-Cons and regular Cons tend to be Christians and certainly those thought to be the main influences on most
Neo-Con thinking and policy (such as The New American Century policy document for example) are Christians. If you asked most people to name a prominent
neo-con, they would likely name either Rumsfeld or Cheney, both of whom are nominally Christians, or, at least, no-one can actually prove that they are
actively working for the devil. Yet.
———–
“nocompromise” –
However, even if people often do say ‘neo-con’ when they actually mean ‘jews’, that doesn’t mean that Mr Devin is using the term in that way – he might
actually be using it to denote a strand of neo-conservative thought in American politics. Mr nocompromise does not have enough information to make that
judgement about Mr Devin (and in fact Mr Devin’s comments do not seem to imply that he is referring to ‘jews’, however obliquely. I suspect Mr Devin just
means ‘Bush-supporting conservatives, generally’ and has just added the ‘neo’ bit because it is more common to refer to neo-cons these days to distinguish
them from Reaganites, and also ‘cons’ sounds odd. But I don’t know this about Mr Devin so I would not be justified in asserting this as if I know it for
fact. And, therefore, I will not do so).
I have to say that Mr nocompromise seems a little confused in his comments. I am not certain whether his assertion that Mr Devin is a”jew-hating,
bigot” (sic) is merely an attempt to muddy the waters of the debate, but it certainly seems that way. I hope for Mr nocompromise’s sake that this is not the
case, as it would be a shameful and dishonest act on his part, and one which I would hope he would have the moral and intellectual courage to rise above.
Sadly this does not seem likely, given his other comments such as “you act like a school yard bully calling people names…” are followed by him calling Mr
Devin a knucklehead, a marxist, a bully, a bigot, and a jew-hater. It seems particularly strange to call someone a bully and then intimate that you would
like to see them tied to a post and shot until they are “dead, dead, dead!”, which would certainly seem to be the implication behind his remarks concerning
the ideology which he ascribes, rather hysterically and with little apparent basis, to Mr Devin.
Mr nocompromise goes on to say that “my Founding Fathers said it was my DUTY to” resist Marxism. I am certain that they did not, however, as Marx died in
1883 and his ideas only became widely popularised after his death. Perhaps Mr Devin would be rather shocked to meet some of the actual Founding Fathers – the
actual historical people, rather than his idea of them – as their views do not always seem to coincide with his, or to be expressed so… inexactly. For
example, Mr James Madison instructs Mr nocompromise to resist the passing of the Patriot Act when he exhorts:
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy”
Although it must be admitted that Mr Madison, perhaps owing to imperfect powers of prophecy on his part, inexplicably fails to continue “… a
foreign enemy who did not in fact attack us in any way, but whom we wish to attack for quite separate reasons and also because it’s been a while since we
attacked anyone and we have actually got quite a number of new weapons systems and interrogation ideas to test out but no-one to test them on and also they
have oil and their army is laughable and their president is an evil despot even though it was actually US who put him into power in the first place”. But
perhaps the mists of time obscured Mr Madison’s otherwise accurate foreshadowing of events.
However, I suspect that the quote to which Mr nocompromise is referring is this one:
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”.
If indeed this is the quote, then I would point out to Mr nocompromise that people did not remain silent. Even when tyranny gained a second foothold, people
were not silent. And indeed four years later they managed to signal their utter rejection of the darkest years of recent American history by voting for Mr
Obama in record numbers.
Here is another quote concerning tyranny which Mr nocompromise may find interesting:
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.
The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
I would perhaps ask only three questions of Mr nocompromise at this point:
1. Did Mr nocompromise support, or believe in, the Patriot Act? (I’m assuming YES).
2. Has Mr nocompromise read the Patriot Act in its entirety, or does he know the details of its contents? (I’m assuming NO, I AM BLISSFULLY UNAWARE OF THEM).
3. Does Mr nocompromise, whom I’m assuming is a fully-grown adult human being, imagine that it is impossible to give a thing a misleading name? Or does he
take the much more popular view that something called the Patriot Act is likely to have contents which are, in some sense, patriotic, and that therefore
there is no need to read it and find out what it actually is, and in fact this would be highly suspicious behaviour which probably indicates that the person
is not sufficiently patriotic and that perhaps such a person would best be disposed of, perhaps by being tied to a post and shot until he is dead, dead,
dead?
Because if so, Mr nocompromise would appear to be overlooking a really important difference between tyranny and freedom. Or indeed, between the US and the
USSR or Nazi Germany. Freedom has many definitions, but one useful one might be that ‘freedom’ is that condition where one in fact does not go about the
place exhorting one’s fellows to be more patriotic, questioning their commitment to the ideals of their Constitution, informing them that they may leave the
country if they don’t like it whilst simultaneously insisting that they do not like it but will not be leaving either, and indeed shooting them dead, dead,
dead over the matter of their presumed and in fact mistaken ideology?
I’m assuming Mr nocompromise is Jewish himself, by the way, since he is using a representation of the Menora as his avatar. It doesn’t have any significance
to my arguments, naturally, but perhaps it may not be considered crass to point out that (rather understandably in my view, but still incorrectly) Jewish
people in general seem to have developed, in the latter half of the last century, a regrettable tendency to leap rather too prematurely to the conclusion
that they have detected anti-semitism of some sort. I don’t believe that saying this makes me a racist (not only due to the actual statement, but also due to
my certain knowledge that I am not a racist, since there is no such thing as different races or breeds amongst humans or even much apparent difference
between them, and in any case it wouldn’t matter to me if there were) but perhaps Mr nocompromise’s powers of apprehension are greater than mine in this
regard. This may indeed be the case, since if he is Jewish then he is part of a people who are generally acknowledged to have been persecuted extensively,
whereas I, being an Englishman, am regularly informed that I am responsible for most (if not all) of the persecution which occurred over the entire planet
during the years preceding my birth. I have my reservations about the justice of this assertion, however.
————-
“ontologist” –
In support of Mr nocompromise’s arguments, I note that Mr ontologist felt it appropriate to declare “You have far more choices for a country that
fits your ideology than we do!”. Leaving aside the vexed question of whether or not Mr ontologist actually has enough evidence to impute any particular
ideology to Mr Devin (or indeed whether Mr ontologist and Mr nocompromise actually share the same ideology, which does not seem wholly certain beyond their
apparent mutual disapproval of Mr Obama), I feel bound to point out to Mr ontologist that in fact in general terms Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Spain,
Norway, and various other countries in Western Europe share the same ideology as America and operate as parliamentary democracies, have freedom of speech,
etc. In fact some of the more disreputable countries do not even enshrine the separation of church and state, so Mr ontologist would presumably be thrilled
to find himself oppressed by Christianity instead of not oppressed at all. Whereas in fact there is not even a single socialist country in the world for poor
Mr Devin to go to, should he wish to… which I strongly suspect he does not in any case.
There is something special about America, but Americans seem incapable of understanding what it is, and so generally just assume it must be unique in
its freedoms ot its political setup. Everyone else in the world knows that this isn’t the case – America is pretty much like a lot of other countries except
for one thing, which is: It got a fresh start.
No other country got a fresh start – they all had to develop freedom from the bones of tyranny, and those bones still litter the landscape to some extent.
Whereas, right around the time a lot of those countries were developing their freedom, some of the free people jumped on boats and headed for America. And
even then, they took tyranny as well as freedom with them… the difference is, they only took the ideas, not the bones. And when they got there, they found
a huge land full of resources which the natives were ill-equipped to defend, so they used most of the tyranny on the natives and kept most of the freedom for
themselves.
So in England, we’ve got the queen. Or maybe that should be the Queen. She doesn’t DO anything, really – she’s just there for the look of the thing.
We had to develop into a democracy from a monarchy, but conservatives (that’s people like you, remember) resisted getting rid of the queen because… well,
because she was already there. That’s what conservatives do – they conserve what’s already there. Not for any particular reason, but just because it’s there.
That’s just the type of people they are – they get used to things. So we’ve never actually gotten rid of her – we just removed ALL her power, moved her back
a bit, and put a parliamentary democracy in front of her.
It’s different everywhere. In France, they killed their King (we actually did this once as well, but the bloke who took over was an absolute despot
so we brought the King back. He doesn’t do anything… but he IS standing right behind the despot (or ‘Prime Minister’ or ‘Government’, as we call them
today), which is a good place to have someone standing).
But in America, you didn’t have a king – you were a colony. You fought a War of Independence to stop being one, so he stopped being your king but
carried on being ours. But it means that America hasn’t got a leftover king hanging around behind the Senate whereas WE have. So you Americans look around
and see that there are no conspicuous bones of tyranny (except the reservations) and you actually think your country is different. But the rest of the free
world laughs at you for this and calls you stupid Americans.
Here are some more quotes from Mr James Madison:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for
centuries.”
“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
I’m not suggesting that Mr Madison was an atheist, or a secularist – in point of fact, I know precious little about the fellow. But I am suggesting that he
may at least have been an intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, and reasonable man – a claim which you, sir, are unable to make.
I should point out, uselessly I suspect, that I am not a communist, Marxist, or socialist (or indeed a capitalist or a monarchist or a racist or anything
else-ist) and I do not hate the USA. In fact I rather admire many aspects of your Constitution and culture, if that’s the right word, but I just think it’s a
shame that you don’t seem to understand them. I expect that you didn’t actually learn anything about what Communism IS in school (though I’m certain you
learned to detest it), but in case you’re wondering, WE did. It was felt to be rather essential to the process of becoming a citizen of a modern democracy to
gain a basic understanding of different types of political system and the major political events of the previous few centuries, such as revolutions and so forth. In fact, it’s something of a tradition to “learn stuff” in English schools.
If you don’t mind my asking, what the fuck do you do in yours?
Alvin Ratfucker
on Jan 21st, 2010
@ 2:10 am:
Watching you fascists squirm while Obambi introduces policies NOT directly dictated to him by Gahd is the most fun you could possibly have unless the entire USAF crashed simultaneously into an LPG storage facility.