And here I may post essays from time to time, or just random comments. If no one objects. Here's the first one ; The American Revolution -- A Monarchist view every charge I can think of , right off hand, laid at the door of the "tyrant" George III in the declaration of Independence was either an obfuscation/red herring, a half-truth, or simply a lie. Like that buisiness about the king sending forieghn mercenaries to fight his own subjects. First, they claimed they were NOT his subjects, secondly, they were themselves moving heaven and earth to try and bring in French, Dutch, Spanish, or any, mercenaries they could, themselves. Sure, the declaration of independence was very well-written .....propoganda. Robspierre and Trotsky could write well too. In Jefferson's case I would not mind if you were to forgo the practice of judging a man by what he does, rather that what he says. By all means, go ahead and judge him by what he said. I don't think the comparison would harm George III any in a fair court. As for Franklin , in his job as royal postmaster he came into possession of some letters that Thomas Hutchinson wrote. he took a pair of scissors and glue to these letters, and had the cooked-up results printed in newspapers. The result of that was that thomas Hutchinson was obliged to leave the only home he had ever known, a land he dearly loved, forever. Franklin didn't stop there. Later he would cook up this story that the Landgrave of Hesse recieved "blood money " for each Hessian soldier killed, and produced a forged letter from the Landgrave complaining that not enough hessian soldiers had gotten killed in the last American campaighn. When Samauel Adams went to Congress some of the grandees had to get together and buy him a decent suit because he had been too busy the last 20 years inciting hoodlums to terrorize loyalist housewives, to earn an honest living. WHAT WAS Samuel Adams source of income for over ten years? Nobody seems to know. The slave-trading rum-runner ( just like Al Capone ) John Hancock objected to a tax that was laughably meager even by 18th century standards, and if he shed any tears when Thomas Hutchinson's family home was literally torn apart by a mob it certainly wasn't noted. Thomas Paine was a career drunk. Nobody showed up for his funeral but his housekeeper. Americans wring their hands now and say, " Gee, the Indians got a raw deal . " Well, in 1763 George III issued a proclomation that tried to prohibit white settlement west of the Appalachain mountians. George Washington, among others, was heavily invested in Ohio land speculation. Before it was a recognized government, U.S. policy toward the Indian was Fascistic, before the word was invented. And by the way, George Washington had the King's commission, he had sworn an oath of loyalty to the crown. And he was a nobody until the British government made him. It isn't the judgement of these men I question. In daydreaming about who I would like to have over for dinner in heaven, I would very much like to have Frederick the Great over ---even though I do not like him at all. But these men ? I scarce wish to trade 5 words with them. thomas Paine had some interesting Astronomical and naturalist ideas, but that's about it. They are interesting in the way that Mafioso are interesting, and that ceased to interest me about the time I left adolescence.
Atheism isn't just an error ; It's fundamentally evil. " Religion versus Atheism " ? The title is wrong. Atheism is a religion. True enough, Christians can't prove God , Shintoists can't prove spirits, scientifically. But neither can Atheists disprove such things scientifically. Nor is the common statement that they lack belief or faith. It just doesn't ring true , that if that were true, they would spend so much time on this and other forums doggedly pressing their point. Sort of like hate. In my experience I've often seen hate as a very GOOD sign. How so ? If someone hates me , well, hate takes energy. it means they are involved, it means they care in some way, shape or form. Hate means there is some prospect for hope. Its when you run into apathy that its time for divorce or the nuclear weapons. Apathy doesn't debate. Anyway, to get back to the point that science in fact cannot disprove God : Atheists want to skip over that detail. The theist must prove God exists . But the Atheist is to be excused from disproving it. How wonderfully Convenient for them. Especially since doing so allows them to gloss over the important detail that since, like any other religion they cannot prove or disprove their basic thesis, their basic premises come down to.....a leap of faith. Why avoid so doggedly being lumped in with any other religious group ? Because unlike any other religious group , there is virtually nothing positive in it. Stripped of that college educated articulation, air conditioning and central heat and a nice Wal Mart wardrobe, the ideas of the Thugee seem positive in comparison. ( by the way, the colleges, the air conditioning and central heat, the Wal Mart wardrobes, if you trace the history of these innovations, you'll find that you usually have religious people in the main to thank for them, from Isaac Newton to Alexander Graham Bell. ) Yes, If every last one of us becomes a millionaire, if every last one of us gets his own nuclear weapon, so nobody can impose upon anyone else, if we all live an average of 500 years, if there are no more lepers, retarded people, acne or wheelchairs , we may not need religion anymore. But that's just the problem. Atheism has nothing to offer the fat , ugly, drooling, sterile, 15 year old girl in a wheelchair. Well, nothing except cruel, fatuous platitudes about "living in the moment. " About a progress she will never live to see. And that Kesa82 is so ignorant and cruel for characterizing you as " fat and ugly " ( but don't hold your breathe waiting for them to put you on the cover of Vogue dear ) Which brings us to the point that we may not need religion anymore if people start genuinely loving each other. That's so disgusting. What is ? Half these humanists can't keep ONE marriage together, but they supposedly love some unspecified, anonymous other on the other side of the world. Never mind that they never sent you , me , him , or her so much as a birthday card. Its the age of Aquarius. Yeah, and I'm Cleopatra. We are so enlightened, sophisticated, there has been so much progress ! I want to throw up. Do you really believe ( there's that faith thing again ) that, or are you that dishonest ? Yeah, progress. Nuclear weapons. Deliberately fire-bombing cities full of children. All this talk about "the people" when any ten year old can see we are still divided up into peasants and aristocracy. You kiss Tiger Woods a-- more than any "ignorant" peasant ever kissed that of the Landgrave of Hesse. Urine sample, blood sample, stool sample, a photograph , a social security number and you have to sign your name ( swear an oath ) 10,000 times under coercion. You have rights, except where collective security overrides it ---- which is every time . What number are they throwing around now for victims of the Inquisition ? Never mind, I don't care. Lets not even draw a comparison with contemporary history, like, how many people do you suppose died of deliberately induced famine in the Ukraine in any five year period 1920 -1940 ? Lets keep it in the period of the Inquisition. Compare the highest number of victims given for the Inquisition, to the number of people executed by SECULAR courts in the same period for crimes like shoplifting. ( be prepared for a little shock ) Anyone who has actually studied criminal justice in the period knows that 99 out of a hundred people, if given a choice, would rather have gone before a church court than a secular court. Oh, no, we don't execute people for shoplifting anymore. I'll never forget what a Russian remarked when I showed him an American prison. He said , " It looks like the old Soviet Union. " Institutionalization / incarceration has become a pretty convenient way for you to pass any number of laws, demand anything, your little heart desires, and you never have to directly face the consequences as they impact others. You aren't flogging or drawing and quartering people , so you are presumably civilized, restrained, and humane. I guess I must be insane, because when I was 6 years old I came to the conclusion that silently ruining peoples lives is just as bad , and worse in the sense that it is cloaked, it's dishonest. People in the 17th century may have been sadists, but at least they were openly sadistic, so you could address it. I think the real reason you aren't flogging or executing people anymore is because given your insane man-centered ideology, your law that has been stripped of any restraint or limit, the result would be a bloodbath that would incline one to feal nostalgic for Auschwitz. You HAVE TO cloak what you are doing behind a veneer of humanity , otherwise it would become obvious in a New York minute than in the 200 years since you have basically taken over most of Gods old functions you have done a lousy @%&# job. How many people are silently saddled with permanent criminal records, to be comprehensively and consistently discriminated against ? They must be all around you. But we will never know. How many people have been driven into penury so that some girl with a degree in music can sit behind a desk and fill out forms? We will never know. ( by the way, in the office of social services where my mother works, some 50 people, she is the only one with a degree in the social sciences. Believe it or not. That's right, psycho-babble being dispensed by....CPA's ) Meanwhile, what do the Atheists offer the fat ugly girl in the wheelchair ? NO FUTURE. You know why I think renaisance fairs, reinnactiing, Tolkien, games like Total war, have become so popular with the educated set ? Because while all of that is in the main sheer fantasy, a history that never existed, so much of this is a disgusting lie.
Why the only morally and ethically proper description of soldiering is ; " Mercenary " Foreword - This is not finished. I haven't gotten around to the second part , the part that actually elucidates the title! But eventually I will. It's important. Sadly, invariably, there are those who will think I am insulting the occupation of soldiering. Not at all. The purpose is to try and show why the general 17th and 18th century practice of defining soldiers as mercenaries is morally and ethically superior to contemporary practice Words , definitions, concepts, are important. It has been primarily with these tools that republicanism and Atheism have foisted their lies, and an alternate history , on generations who have assumed, wrongly, that the common world view of today is the only logical or reasonable one, that people have always thought and felt basically as they do now, that there is no reasonable alternate basic context. My major in college was criminal justice. I started studieing military history before I could actually read. I once went to prison for my beliefs. Ruin your life, return your paycheck, or get yourself killed, the rest is deceptive talk. Soldiers become soldiers for the same reason soldiers always became soldiers, for the same reason a Hessian hired out to Savoy in 1740. Because that lifestyle appeals to them , or they think it will, more than selling electrical supplies or cleaning out bedpans. They risk death ? Electrical line clearance arborists work ten hours a day with chainsaws next to dead trees that could disintegrate at any moment without warning, 5 feet from high-voltage power lines. How heroic is that ? When my girlfriend met me she asked, "WHAT is an electrical line clearance arborist ? " I guess they aren't making many movies about heroic electrical line clearance arborists. What person over the age of, like, 12, doesn't suspect that perhaps many times it is much harder to live than to die ? honestly ? My heroes are plumbers. Yes, plumbers. they have to wiggle around on their bellies, in dark crawl spaces, through excrement, invariably in the middle of winter because thats when the pipes freeze and burst, day in, day out, decade after decade, and nobody thinks its any big deal. I'll buy all this altruistic crap when I start seeing more movies about heroic plumbers. Until then, I'm pretty well convinced that much of it is really a mask to impose on people. When I was 15 or so it out of the blue occurred to me one day, "why are these subjects invariably , habitually, discussed in abstract forms, like "nation" "society" , or other abstractions like " criminals " ( as if there were some separate group of humans who do all the bad things, a notion which makes the reasoning behind the word "N----" sound like the pinnacle of reason in comparison. ) wouldn't things be clearer, would you perhaps be more likely to avoid error, if you tried to break these things down into the personal ? " I assumed for a long time that it is mere verbal and literary convenience, short hand, and yes often that IS the case. But it is also very often that the abstractions, I've become convinced, are deliberate. To break it down into the personal makes things a wee bit too clear ; Back to the subject of death and soldiers again. If X-Smith really wanted to HELP ME he could have done that in a score of other ways. He could, for example, commit to sending me a birthday card every year on the relevant date. But that would cost him 3 dollars, its hard, boring, prosaic ....... No, he had to get himself shot for, " MY benefit". Right. And I'm Cleopatra.
How is a monarch different from a dictator, or an elected official ? Well, once again I don't have time, and my head is exploding from ten hours activity on the forum , to give a complete and thorough break down of it. But, I can, to a limited degree , give a short, sound-bite answer to this one ; What is particularly so special about your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters ? Why, even if they are absolutely terrible people, and you wish every day you had not met them , why is it they are in a category distinct from your friends, or the general run of humanity you meet every day ? Well, there may be several important reasons for that, but one basic reason we can identify is this ; YOU DID NOT PICK THEM. There are basic differences between Monarchism and other ideologies. One of those is that Monarchism is not strictly ideological. It has an inseparable biological and/or theological component to it.
This was my reply to a forum thread entitled, " Why is Nationalism bad ? " I like this one. Occasionally I do write a halfway decent essay. How is Nationalism bad ? Hmmmm, some tricky language here. I have to back up and elaborate on my particular context as it relates to this question. For lack of a more precise term, I would say that I am a reactionary Monarchist. What this means is that I think , ideally, God, or biology if you insist, ( I won't mind ) should pick our leaders via divine right. Humans themselves invariably never pick an ordinarily decent man for a leader. They always wind up picking the most adaptable sociopath. ( interestingly, even in cases where this is blatantly obvious ,they will magically transform the gangster into a saint ! for example ; Torching the entire southeast, and killing sooo many people, just so you can drive from Georgia to Oregon without a passport, seemed like a pretty lame cause even in 1863. So they make out that Abraham Lincoln was the "Great Emancipator " . Never mind that he absolutely despised Negroes , and his long range plan for the Negro was compulsory re-settlement on another continent. They will --- successfully --- gloss right over that. ) Anyway, ideally or not, beyond who gets to play with the bayonets and drums, THE REAL GOVERNMENT --that is ; the effective agent of social control -- IS, WAS, HAS BEEN, SO ANTHROPOLOGISTS TELL US , FOR 10,000 YEARS , THE FAMILY AND THE CHURCH. The rest is flags, the rest is invention. So your governments don't give a darn about their own people ? That's what I constantly hear, from both the left , the right, and every shade in between. Though they use different terms. The right-winger complains that folks aren't patriotic enough, the left-winger complains that folks aren't caring enough. The far left preaches Internationalism , which is really a super-super-super nationalism. As if Washington or Moscow or Brussels, or Peking isn't far enough away, lets build our capitol on Mars! The Far-right preaches Ethnic Nationalism , and Ayn Rand , Atheist though she was, was right about that, Ethnic Nationalism is really the most primitive kind of tribal savagery given a new coat of paint. I say, it's all BULL S---! Some girl in Oregon, some hypothetical girl, some girl whose face you have never seen, some girl whose name you never heard, doesn't seem to feel any genuine solidarity with you, even though , " oh my ! " it says on both your respective birth certificates that you share the same geographic point of origin ! I say, " you expected otherwise ? " Was it your country, your government, that gave you milk and changed your diaper ? If you fall into the gutter, or wind up locked up in the Jug, is it your country that will come to visit you to keep your spirits up ? When you know that something is secret, that nobody will ever know, but this bad feeling springs up in your chest anyway, this feeling that someone is watching, that someone does know your heart, where does that feeling we call conscience come from? Does it come from the State, does it really originate from the policemans gnout ? Does it even originate from man ? Or does it originate from outside of man ? So, it is not so much that I think that Nationalism is "bad" per-se. I think it is a red-herring they invented. I think it is irrelevant, except of course that it confuses the s--- out of people unnecessarily ( but deliberately ) and gets a lot of people hurt and killed for nothing at all. I hope I have, indirectly, answered your question, explained how I interprit that question
"Why is nationalism bad ? " Part II To elaborate further ; If you feel a need to give your allegiance to some secular , human cause beyond yourself ( which, for what it is worth, I think is an understandable, even laudable, yearning ) then give it to a sovereign prince. it is unlikely that even if you write him or her a thousand profusely affectionate letters that he or she will ever love you back. It's as unlikely as trying to establish a bond with a movie star. And, granted, being that he or she is an individual human being, he or she is bound to be chock full of foibles, perhaps even grave ones. But at least you can point to ONE IDENTIFIABLE HUMAN BEING, and say , " I LOVE THAT. " Unfortunately in most every country the landed aristocracy or the Junker class has been effectively dismantled, so you have no more amediate, more personal, clan chief or liege lord to turn to. ( and the real reason , the ultimate goal, of the republicans and the bolsheviks in doing this was to ISOLATE you, morally , spiritually, personally. "Your Rights" had no part in their concern. ) But at least there are still a few identifiable sovereign princes around. In that case, at least, you can draw some link, however tenuous it may actually be, with the real and actual government you experience every day : your family. Flesh and blood, bone, phlegm, excrement and acne . So much for political science and ideology. I do appreciate what you are saying. You have an appreciation for your traditional people , its culture, its traditions, and it appears your own government is working, as hard as it can, to DESTROY all of that. Well, A GOVERNMENT WOULD. NO SECULAR GOVERNMENT EVER GAME A D--- ABOUT ANY PEOPLE, ABOUT ANY CULTURE. Thomas Paine, alcoholic Jacobean though he was, was none-the-less correct that, no doubt, the first king, the first government, was a Pirate captain, a Jesse James -like leader of a band of highwaymen , and his band of armed, murderous, theives. Where Thomas Paine was, of course, wrong, is that secular goernment never has, and never will, really evolve beyond that first stage. So you want to preserve your old country, and make it better? I wish there was a quicker, easier, way to do that, but there is ONLY one way ; Grow it, teach it, live it. Tell your neighbors what you actually think and feel, no matter what it costs you. Lead by example, SHOW that you care. Give to your neighbors until it hurts. Insist on raising your children , and maintaining your own household, in your own way. The outside world will not allow this of course now, except to a very limited degree. But you should take every possible oppertunity to point out that the concept of social legislation isn't merely erroneous, it is flatly evil, and its proponents do NOT have humane or noble motives, THEY DON'T GIVE A D---- ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN ! Their motive is POWER. Every man, ideally, is someones vassal. But God darn it, we are supposed to be liege lord in our own hovel ! If the chaos and corruption about us can be, and indeed ever could be, traced to a single source, it is in poor husbandry. ( As the Virgin Mary, in sum, basically said at Fatima and Metjogorge. ) And that household management never was, and never will be, ( and was actually never intended to be ) furthered by second-guessing the parent, flatly undermining the authority of the parent , By strangers presuming to manage a household they have no real interest in, do not live in. IF THEY REALLY LOVE YOU, THEN LET THE BAS---- PROVE IT, AND MOVE IN WITH YOU, AND SHARE YOUR RICE BOWL. Otherwise, they are LIEING.
American History in brief Just a short poem I wrote last year for July 4th. With some additional notes. It was the Indians fault. It was the fault of the French, the Spanish, and the Catholic Whore of Babylon. It was the fault of the British, it was the fault of the king of England. It was the fault of the Indians again. It was the Slave owners fault, and the KKK. Or it was the Negroes fault for being either ignorant or mentally deficient. It would have been the Indians fault again, but they assimilated into invisibility or were removed to obscurity on the dole way out in the sticks. It was the fault of Irish immigrants, or Slavic immigrants, and then Chinese coolies took their turn. To this Day nobody knows why the USS Maine blew up, but it was certainly the fault of Spain. It was the fault of the Kaiser, and the Austrian Emperor, though few could find Serbia on a map. It was the Bolsheviks fault, it was the Nazis fault, then it was the fault of the communists again. Now we are really starting to run out of enemies, so it becomes the fault of drug lords, drug addicts, people who act funny ( i.e. the, " mentally ill " ) racist hillbillies, and serial killers. Thank God perhaps for Osama Bin Laden, now its his fault. From the beginning American half-assed republicanism was predatory . It's saving grace was that there was a tradition of private land ownership, Americans, whatever their ethnic origin , had a native instinct for self-reliance , for awhile they tended to be genuinely religious, and Americans were for some reason quite devoted to labor efficiency. And finally, because it was such a huge geographical area, and the technology was lacking , they never really could make it over into the idealized gated Prussian suburbia. Where we would all be perfectly starched and pliant Hitler Youth. Now it is possible....for awhile. But they actually scrapped the republic anyway in 1861, and flatly ignored the fact that decentralization and Balkanization was actually the best idea they ever came up with, Abraham Lincoln was a monster, and the trend has always been progress toward devolution into a China or Russia-like authoritarian dinosaur-sized centralized banana republic, that beats its chest and boasts of its greatness while its bridges fall apart.
Keep going!
