“Third Definition Patriot”
What is a patriot, or, more definitively, what is an American patriot? Depending on who you ask, you will receive various answers. Here’s a suggested answer to the question that I think is quite correct.
So, how about we create a third definition? To wit: a defender of personal liberty and property rights who recognizes that America cannot be saved from destruction, and looks to secession and the establishment of a new nation as the only solution.
I am a “third-definition” Patriot who regards himself as a defender of individual rights and a man against presumed interference by the federal government…
Russell D. Longcore in a post titled I Am Not A Patriot, But I Am A Patriot.
Linked via WRSA.
It would be a disaster of biblical proportions to try to secede from the U.S.
This is not necessarily correct, GWTW. Would not a confederation of states still be able to voluntary combine their resources/manpower if a Russia or China attempted to assert their power over free individuals? Would you stand idly by if they did?Posted by John Venlet on 03/16 at 02:13 PM
Part I (word limit)
GWTW - what you said there was just the usual “American Exceptionalism” expressed by most who, rather than dig beneath the surface to get to the source of our wars (we are only the most war-like nation in the last two hundred years, rivaling or surpassing the Roman Empire), and our political/financial quagmire . . . salute the flag and holler out “love it or leave it.”
Many warned us of the progresse tendencies of Teddy Hooooooselt and Woody “Fed/IRS/elect Senators” Wilson (the first anti-war President who promptly launched us into a stalemate in Europe that instead, also precipitated and directly led to a second European entanglement, the bloodiest chapter in the history of mankind.
Smedley Butler was “on the inside” and he, and many others, tried to tell Americans what was really happening. Mencken excoriated both gummint and the mindlessness of voters who, in saying they were “for America” were merely professing their willingness to be ruled by gummint and send their kids to die in foreign entanglements against which our Founders warned us. We are a welfare nation, which de Tocqueville warned us against becoming - losing the American experiment which was freedom, and rights properly understood, and personal industriousness and responsibility.Posted by jb on 03/16 at 04:39 PM
Nowadays, those of us who profess such things must do so loudly just to be heard - how ironic!
To your point about China - they have over a billion reasons not to get stupid, and none of them have to do with fearing the supposed might of a country that mangled Iraq (twice), has proven themselves totally inept in Afghanistan (where empires go to die, and we are surely doing so), has Marine boots on 5 nations in Africa while supporting the Sharia revolutions in Libya and Egypt. The Chinese are very smart cookies, and they hold America’s financial balls in a vise-grip, do not forget that.
Putin is a genius. He is also a nationalist, and he simply will not permit the mangled Western financial system, the oil oligarchs, and the neo-cons in DC dictate to him about a damned thing.
Neither nation has a need to “wipe America out.” That is just servile “cold war” thinking, fostered by gummint in new avenues to keep us servile and in awe of gummint.
I am an American because this is (as C.S. Lewis would insist and defend) my home; I was born here and constitutionally (supposedly)/rationally, my inherent rights are (supposedly) recognized. My family and children, my property, my faith and worship and all else that is mine - has not a God-damned thing to do with gummint (and God does damn such stuff, so I am on very safe ground saying so).
The American gummint, an entity apart from all we hold dear (a thought that make any of us wonder why we wander to the polls and actually cast ballots for professional idiots to tell us how to live and die and work and survive in between, all the shile sacrificing our children and future generations to the wars of the same politicians!
The Articles of Confederation, which guarded all of that and the rights of the individual states, were usurped by by the closet royalists with the Constitution.
Think not? Ask yourself this: Why, if the Constitution was somehow so very much better, did the royalists have to add the Bill of Rights - the Amendments (heh) to the Constitution - just to get it passed? I mean, if the Constitution was such a “grand thing,” did it need amendments? Or was it written to guarantee gummint its rights, and the Amendments had to be added to make it palatable? Look around at the political landscape, and the answer will come to you quite readily!
We are fortunate, however. We have progressed to the epitome of “self-rule” - we vote (not me) for morons who don’t give a flying flip about constitutions or rights, but who love executive orders and the steady business that comes from that about which Eisenhower warned us - the military-industrial complex. Imagine -two Generals - Butler and Eisenhower -more in the know than most anyone else, told us what was happening. What did we do? Exactly what Mencken predicted we would do. We finally elected a complete moron. We were close to that last election go-round, but we struck moronic gold with the Bammster.
Americans keep trying the same failed approach over and over, hoping for a different outcome.
And we are paying dearly for it.
Do you honestly think Russia or China are quaking in their boots? Between massive bouts of derisive laughter, perhaps . . .
And contrary to your assertion (and I have lived overseas, and on the economy of several of our “allies”), and folks on the street just wish we would go the flip home and mind our own dang business so they can mind theirs - which request our politicians are adverse to doing, since whipping up war fever and threats of bad guys everywhere is their particular genius to getting elected. And y’all fall for it every time, and in perpetual lemming-like fashion, trudge to the polls and do your “patriotic” duty and actually vote for them.
I am far more an American than that.Posted by jb on 03/16 at 04:39 PM
To many diverse opinions and statements to refute them all. You simply do not know what you do not know. I liked the last point: “overseas… folks on the street just wish we would go the flip home and mind our own dang business so they can mind theirs”. Exactly! That is what I was saying when I made the point “So while an Australian, a frenchman, a Swede, a Canadian, etc may not know it, may not believe it their freedom and continued existance depends upon a strong U.S.”. The bottom line is “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” The world is safe (relatively) ONLY because the U.S. is willing and able to project power anywhere in the world. This may piss off “folks overseas” but it does not change the facts.
You simply assert things without a shred of proof or logic, but only, the perpetual American Exceptionalist” idea.
“To many diverse opinions and statements to refute them all. You simply do not know what you do not know. “
Welpers, that pretty much defines the manner of your argumentation. You don’t have time to refute, but you are certain you “do know.”
Okay . . . you win. Wow! Amazing rhetorical skills!Posted by jb on 03/17 at 11:42 PM
Correct! If you really had something to say it wouldn’t take a part I and II to do it. What you hoped to do was win an arguement by volume instead of logic. when you failed you resorted to ad hominem attacks “6.You simply assert things without a shred of proof or logic”.
Next entry: “Donate” a Buck for Abortion
Previous entry: Technically Beating Public Enemy Number One